China V Japan

[2RHPZ]

There has been friction over drilling platforms in the East China Sea, and now the Japanese SDF White Paper explicitly lists concern over the rise of Chinese power. Will we see another potential conflict between the two nations in the next 10 years?


Date Posted: 09-Jul-2004


JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - JULY 14, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Japan urged to adopt a broader military role
SHINICHI KIYOTANI JDW Special Correspondent
Tokyo

Japan's 2004 Defence White Paper calls for the Japanese Self-Defence Force (JSDF) to be transformed from its current invasion defence posture to a "more functional force" better able to deal with a range of threats such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.

Publication of the 480-page document coincided with the 50th anniversary of the re-establishment of Japan's armed forces after the Second World War. Since then the JSDF has been limited by the constitution to a purely defensive role and the question of a broader military role for Japan, such as the deployment of troops to Iraq earlier this year, continues to provoke controversy.

The White Paper states that Japan must be ready for such missions: "If a nation collapses after having been undermined by a dictatorship or an international terrorist organisation, it is the duty of the international community to assist in its reconstruction."

Japan's defence budget for the current Fiscal Year, ¥4.9 trillion ($44.47 billion), ranks it as the third-largest military spender behind the US and the UK but the paper notes that if an accurate figure could be established for China it would exceed Japanese spending.

"China has been modernising its nuclear and missile forces as well as its naval and air forces. Careful deliberation should go into determining whether the objective of this modernisation exceeds the scope necessary for the defence of China, and future developments in this area merit special attention," says the paper.

It notes other threats in the region. "Taken together with its suspected nuclear weapons programme, North Korea's develop- ment and deployment of ballistic missiles constitute a destabilising factor for the international community as a whole and have generated intense anxiety," states the paper.

The White Paper says that the armed forces must be restructured to undertake "diversifying roles". A sweeping review of the armed forces is planned for completion before year-end. "The SDF must establish a joint operational posture linking SDF units organically so that they carry out their missions swiftly and effectively," states the White Paper.

The existing Joint Staff Council, which is limited primarily to policy matters, will be replaced by a joint staff that will also have a command function. The number of personnel will be increased from 350 to 650 so that it can function as an integrated triservice headquarters. The new headquarters, tentatively known as the Joint Staff Office, is planned to be operational in 2005.

With a shrinking defence budget, the White Paper notes that Japan will "modify the scale of its forces" but stresses they will be better equipped for a range of missions including international deployments.

The White Paper mentions a number of force enhancements already under way or planned:

* Development of ballistic missile defence capabilities;

* Introduction of a helicopter carrier with the capability to serve as a flagship. The design is still officially designated as a helicopter-carrying destroyer (DDH) and officials insist that it will only operate helicopters;

* Fielding of AH-64D Apache Longbows to replace the AH-1S attack helicopter;

* Acquisition of a new class of submarine equipped with an air- independent propulsion system;

* Introduction of the MCH-101 helicopter to replace the MH-53E in naval service;

* Modernisation of the F-15J fighter fleet;

* The introduction of precision- guided bombs including the US Joint Direct Attack Munition;

* Fielding of a new medium-range surface-to-air missile to replace the HAWK in army service;

* Improving the army's nuclear, biological and chemical detection and warning capabilities; and

* Development of a fast patrol boat in co-operation with Japan's Coast Guard.

RELATED ARTICLES:

'Japan confronts threats issue' (JDW 3 September 2003)

'Japan reveals more detail of new carrier' (JDW 17 September 2003)

[duck]

China, Korea and several South-East Asian countries will all protest vehemently against any strenghtening of Japanese long-range strike capacity. Remains to be seen how many Japan-and Korea-based US troops are sucked into the Iraqi vortex. There are powerful people like Tokyo governor Ishihara who would like nothing more than get rid of the Marines at Okinawa and rebuild the carrier fleet.

[Kitsune]

Japan's defence budget for the current Fiscal Year, ¥4.9 trillion ($44.47 billion), ranks it as the third-largest military spender behind the US and the UK
This is simply wrong. The UK spends nowwhere near 44.47 billion $ for defense. Perhaps Russia´s defense spending is on that level.

It must be noted that these 45 billion $ Japan spends for its armed forces are representing only a small part of the Japanese GDP. If Japan should pull his head out of the sand, it could easily spend 70 billion $ or more. Considering that it is an absolute high tech country, the land of the rising sun could see to his own safety without any problems, and make his power felt throughout East Asia.
That would be something to think about, for China as well as the USA.

[n4292936]

Japan's defence budget for the current Fiscal Year, ¥4.9 trillion ($44.47 billion), ranks it as the third-largest military spender behind the US and the UK
This is simply wrong. The UK spends nowwhere near 44.47 billion $ for defense. Perhaps Russia´s defense spending is on that level.

It does like a rather high figure for the UK but Jane's rarely drops the ball when it comes to accurate reporting... perhaps its including non-military (but still defence related) expenditure?

[szr]

Perhaps they mean China instead of the UK? I think China spends somewhere around $50b and the UK spends ~$33b...?

[ZeroPositive]

Woah dun worry we got the Aussies to defend South East Asia :D
only messing there but on a serious note a country that has rewritten its history as not the aggressor of the War in the Pacific, to it never having committed mass atrocities against many races in the Asia Pacific and the use of POWs as slave labour, and having an open war shrine with known Class A murders....

I don't somethings will ever change with them, they are an enclosed race and have never paid compensation to nations it ravaged....

So if China decides to bomb Japan I would be upset but wouldn't say I didn't see that coming line...

God Bless you all.

[ZeroPositive]

Remember Nanking, the comfort women who suffered, manchuria, Vietnam, the Philippines, the POWs who suffered, all the Koreans who died due to the Japanese... everyone in the Asia Pacific region who died to Japanese agression....

We will remember you!

[Bayonet]

Remember Nanking, the comfort women who suffered, manchuria, Vietnam, the Philippines, the POWs who suffered, all the Koreans who died due to the Japanese... everyone in the Asia Pacific region who died to Japanese agression....

We will remember you!

We chinese wont forget what japs did in WWII....never ever.....

[J-10]

Perhaps they mean China instead of the UK? I think China spends somewhere around $50b and the UK spends ~$33b...?

China $31b. Dont trust Pentagon or CIA.

[Midav]

Perhaps they mean China instead of the UK? I think China spends somewhere around $50b and the UK spends ~$33b...?

China $31b. Dont trust Pentagon or CIA.

Or Chinese government statistics :P

[J-10]

Perhaps they mean China instead of the UK? I think China spends somewhere around $50b and the UK spends ~$33b...?

China $31b. Dont trust Pentagon or CIA.

Or Chinese government statistics :P

Hehe, are there other objective evaluation firms? such as Janes?

[rodin_hsu]

Perhaps they mean China instead of the UK? I think China spends somewhere around $50b and the UK spends ~$33b...?

China $31b. Dont trust Pentagon or CIA.

Or Chinese government statistics :P

Hehe, are there other objective evaluation firms? such as Janes?

It's hard to get an objective nor acurate evaluation on these issues.
China military spending budget is not open. Even in Taiwan, we still have special expenditure for oversea weapon purchasing in addition to annual defense budget.

And we should also consider the purchasing power. Which means even the same quantity of money, you can buy different quantity of goods in different countries. For example, with the same budget, you can buy more weapons in China than in Japan or US.

[J-10]

Taiwan buy U.S. weapons with triple prices to normal prices. Taiwanese call it "protection fee". p-)

[J-10]

Perhaps they mean China instead of the UK? I think China spends somewhere around $50b and the UK spends ~$33b...?

China $31b. Dont trust Pentagon or CIA.

Or Chinese government statistics :P

Hehe, are there other objective evaluation firms? such as Janes?

It's hard to get an objective nor acurate evaluation on these issues.
China military spending budget is not open. Even in Taiwan, we still have special expenditure for oversea weapon purchasing in addition to annual defense budget.

And we should also consider the purchasing power. Which means even the same quantity of money, you can buy different quantity of goods in different countries. For example, with the same budget, you can buy more weapons in China than in Japan or US.

Wise person :D :hug:

[SpikeATGM]

i already said that Japan is just making use of China as an excuse to strenghten up her millitary capability and secondly indirectly signal to US that she is a force that can counteract the rise of China.