[HN Gopher] 'Pacifist' Japan is tooling up for war
___________________________________________________________________
'Pacifist' Japan is tooling up for war
Author : jseliger
Score : 38 points
Date : 2024-04-16 20:56 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.irishtimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.irishtimes.com)
| csmiller wrote:
| Si vis pacem, para bellum
| swozey wrote:
| The entire speech is a great read, especially if you happen to be
| the type of American that the PM is referring to, fatigued, et
| al.
|
| https://japan.kantei.go.jp/101_kishida/statement/202404/11sp...
| belter wrote:
| Never though I would be spending my Tuesday evening reading,
| Japanese Prime Minister speeches :-) but agree. Quite an
| interesting, focused and clear speech.
| legitster wrote:
| > Russia's unprovoked, unjust, and brutal war of aggression
| against Ukraine has entered its third year. As I often say,
| Ukraine of today may be East Asia of tomorrow. Furthermore,
| Russia continues to threaten the use of nuclear weapons, which
| has contributed to worldwide concern that yet another
| catastrophe by nuclear weapon use is a real possibility. In
| this reality, close coordination between Japan and the U.S. is
| required more than ever to ensure that the deterrence our
| Alliance provides remains credible and resilient.
|
| I appreciate how clear and straightforward the speech is.
| Ukraine was a wakeup call that Pax Americana is over and China
| is the next threat.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Watching how the USA has abandoned its ally, Ukraine and just let
| innocent people and brave soldiers die, Japan would be crazy not
| too start gaining back their independence.
|
| Not sure what happened to the USA but I never thought I'd see it
| side with autocratic war criminals. Quite concerning for all our
| allies.
|
| If the orange man wins again this year, we'll god help everyone.
| glitchc wrote:
| The US did not want to start a world war over Ukraine. It
| stepping in would have meant precisely that.
| aredox wrote:
| Not stepping in is exactly what is going to cause a world
| war.
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| They're referring to the sudden end of support for Ukraine,
| done at the behest of Donald Trump. Republican lawmakers were
| actually considering continuing it until he demanded they not
| do so.
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| where does this logic stop? At whose borders?
|
| Because if Ukraine falls I can guarantee you that first it
| will be minor incursions into Poland and/or Baltics airspace.
| Then false flags attacks. Then more. Each time testing
| "escalation management" and sewing disagreements into
| political scenes in the West. Then more.
|
| putin has said many times that he considers collapse of USSR
| the greatest tragedy ever. He wants revenge for this. And he
| is getting it.
| pfisch wrote:
| The US could've and still could flood ukraine with weapons.
| It wouldn't even be the first proxy war between the US and
| Russia.
| abcdefg12 wrote:
| That's how you start a world war. Once US is perceived as
| weak and indecisive all kinds of genocidal monsters crawl out
| to do what they want.
| hiddencost wrote:
| No.
|
| The American right wanted to score political points on Biden
| and refused to pass a very popular funding bill.
|
| The consequence has been one of the most pointless, damaging
| failures of American policy in a very long time.
|
| It's one of the most shameful things I've ever seen.
| Adverblessly wrote:
| And the United Kingdom and France didn't want to start a
| world war over Austria or the Sudetenland. Appease
| Russia/Iran/China at your own peril.
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| USA abandonment of Ukraine clearly shows to everyone that
| promises from USA mean nothing at times of real hardship. The
| sad lesson of all this is that if country wishes to be both
| safe and independent it must posses its own nuclear weapons and
| means of delivery.
| all2 wrote:
| Peace through superior firepower or at least mutually assured
| destruction is a thing.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Did the US have a defense treaty with Ukraine? As in,
| something ratified by the Senate?
| rich_sasha wrote:
| While I agree with the sentiment and the conclusion, Ukraine
| was never an ironclad, formal ally, in the sense that NATO
| countries are, or Japan or Australia. The closest to a formal
| alliance is the 1994 agreement, whereby Ukraine gave up nuclear
| weapons in return for its borders and sovereignty being
| guaranteed, by Russia, UK and USA.
|
| So within these parameters, the USA has actually done a lot,
| and a lot more than nothing. I'm not sure at what point it has
| fulfilled its duty.
|
| I'm not defending the US decision though, it seems that bang
| for buck of helping Ukraine is one of the best spent defence
| money in this century so far.
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| "USA has actually done a lot" - so did USA guarantee
| Ukraine's " borders and sovereignty"? Or did it not?
|
| The worst thing to do (which USA did) is to make a promise
| and not deliver. Had Ukraine knew that USA will abandon it,
| it might have entered negotiations in early 2023 from a much
| more favorable position.
| sushid wrote:
| So it brokered a protection deal in exchange for nuclear
| weapons and then... reneged on its promise?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Well, one of the other three nations in on the deal reneged
| so hard they invaded (twice, or once with a delayed
| extension of the invasion depending on perspective). The US
| has supplied materiel and training, but not personnel (in
| the combatant sense, at least). And if the House would pass
| a funding bill for it, more would be supplied.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| And to be incredibly clear, P 4 of the Budapest
| Memorandum committed the United States "to seek immediate
| United Nations Security Council action to provide
| assistance to Ukraine...if Ukraine should become a victim
| of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of
| aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1].
|
| Assuming we sever the last "or" such that the clause
| activates if "Ukraine should become a victim of an act of
| aggression," the commitment was to seek UNSC action to
| provide assistance. America sought that. And it's
| directly providing assistance. America never guaranteed
| the security of Ukraine.
|
| [1] https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2
| 03007/P...
| legitster wrote:
| Anyone who is honestly advocating for an Iraq-era world
| police mobilization (with the bonus threat of nuclear
| decimation of the host country) is clearly trolling. The
| exact same people would be decrying occupation and the loss
| of US lives within x number of years if the inverse has
| happened. So they were ready to complain either way.
|
| As it is, the administration has threaded the political
| needle perfectly (or luckily) and the Ukrainian people have
| proven that their bravery and resolve has been vastly
| underrated.
| sowut wrote:
| no we must send soldiers to ukraine otherwise orange man
| bad
| jltsiren wrote:
| Duty is not the right way to frame the situation. This is
| more about the overall goals of US foreign policy.
|
| If the US wants to maintain a favorable status quo and its
| position as the dominant superpower, it must support Ukraine
| until Russia admits failure and withdraws its troops. The
| current world order is based on a simple deal. The US
| supports friendly countries around the world and provides
| them security against regional threats. Those countries in
| turn support US policy goals in faraway issues they wouldn't
| otherwise care about.
|
| On the other hand, if the US is happy to be just a regional
| power that doesn't care about what happens on the other side
| of the Atlantic and the Pacific, it has no duty to support
| Ukraine.
| User23 wrote:
| The USA no longer has the productive power to win any sort of
| protracted conflict. For example, the USA has virtually no ship
| building capacity, being almost entirely reliant on Japan and
| South Korea. It's a bad look for a country that fancies itself
| a naval superpower.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _USA has virtually no ship building capacity, being almost
| entirely reliant on Japan and South Korea_
|
| We have massive naval shipyards that build our ships and
| boats. We tooled them down in the 90s to extract a peace
| dividend.
| doublepg23 wrote:
| If orange man wins my children won't go die for Ukraine? This
| is a bad thing?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If orange man wins my children won 't go die for Ukraine?
| This is a bad thing?_
|
| We were never sending American troops to Ukraine. What _has_
| happened is the chances of American troops having to go
| somewhere else in the world, or being directly attacked
| overseas, has gone way up.
| rewgs wrote:
| Are you seriously implying that Biden will institute the
| draft?
| hyperluz wrote:
| Don't know why someone flagged u/lioeters message: "The U.S. is
| tooling up Japan for war."
|
| It's so true. Japan "has been buying" high tech war tools from
| USA, like self-dismantling F-35s, for some time now.
| belter wrote:
| In case you did not notice...If China takes over Taiwan,
| Chinese troops will be 60 miles from Japanese territory...
| jbm wrote:
| I don't know why you are being downvoted.
|
| At one point "pacifist" Japan was one of the top world spenders
| on "defense". It's a sham and has always been so.
|
| The only benefit was that Japan didn't have to join the initial
| phase of any of America's invasions on behalf of its
| asian/middle east ally/ies.
|
| They have been spending big since the mid 90s. It's too bad
| that the SDF is still incompetent compared to its neighbours.
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/JPN/jap...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-16 23:01 UTC)