Japan's Pacifist Paradox (Part 1)

Of the world’s eight largest economies, five  command nuclear weapons — the United States,   United Kingdom, China, India, and France. Another two — Germany and Italy  — host American nuclear weapons. Only one, the third-largest, has  neither built, nor borrowed them: Japan. But Japan doesn’t just object to nuclear war. Among East Asian countries, only Taiwan   employs fewer active troops — though just  marginally, and yet with 1/5th the population. When you include reserve and paramilitary members,   Japan’s armed forces are nearly six times  smaller than the next closest East Asian country. Of course, number of troops is  but one component of defense   and no single figure can possibly  capture the overall strength of a nation. Japan is certainly not “weak” by global standards.   Its neighbors, however, are exceptionally  strong, and its region especially precarious. This bar represents the total defense expenditure  in East Asia from 1994 to the present. During the 90s, Japan alone commanded nearly 40%  of the pie. Then, for all but one of the next   20 years, its share declined, until  it ended up at just 10.7% in 2019. The missing context, you might argue, is China.   Add it to the mix and it may seem as though  Japan’s defense expenditure hasn’t so much   fallen as China’s has exploded —  dwarfing all others by comparison. But an even closer examination  shows that despite this increase,   Russia and South Korea have managed  to keep up — whereas Japan has not. Today, the country finds itself a mere stone's  throw away from not one but three nuclear powers. Since 1958, its fighter jets have been scrambled  over 30,000 times — a large and increasing portion   of which have occurred in the last 20 years  in response to Chinese and Russian incursions. And when North Korea fired a ballistic  missile directly above a Japanese island   home to 5 million people in  2017, many began to wonder… Is Japan’s laudable devotion to Pacifism   compatible with the challenges  of the 21st Century? Sponsored by CuriosityStream and  Nebula — where you can watch the   exclusive bonus video which accompanies this one. The simplest measure of military  strength is expenditure.   It stands to reason that the more a nation spends,  the better prepared it’s likely to be for war. From this perspective, Japan seems  quite formidable — especially when   the two outliers — the U.S.  and China — are excluded. It sits in the same league as  Germany, France, and South Korea. But there are a number of  reasons expenditure alone can   be misleading — and that’s perhaps never  been more true than in the case of Japan. First, the most important  question is on what does it spend? This is its 2021 defense budget. The single largest component  — 43% — is maintenance.   This is a broad category that includes  everything from healthcare to education,   and fuel. But roughly half this money  is spent on just one thing: repair. As the most earthquake-prone country on  earth, Japan simply has more things to fix. In 2011, the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent  tsunami became the 2nd most costly natural   disaster in recorded history — totaling somewhere  between 2 and 3 hundred billion US dollars. An estimated 700,000 buildings were at  least partially destroyed in the process. The third most expensive  disaster, another earthquake,   also occurred in Japan — 16 years earlier. Because its defense budget  is for the most part fixed,   this leaves much less room for everything else. Research, development, and equipment procurement  each comprise less than 4% of the overall budget. The second most important question when it  comes to defense spending is: for how much? Here Japan is at a severe disadvantage. In 1976, its Prime Minister banned  the sale of military hardware to   any nation under any circumstances  as part of its commitment to peace. That left Japanese defense companies  with exactly one potential buyer,   and not just any buyer, but a defense company’s  least favorite kind: a staunch Pacifist. While American contractors like  Lockheed Martin make nearly all   their money from defense, of Japan’s 10  largest, only two make more than 3% from it. Why bend backward trying to please one  very picky customer, while tarnishing   one’s reputation when there are millions of  enthusiastic consumer electronics customers? Banned from selling overseas, its companies  devoted few resources to their defense divisions.  This disinterest, in turn, discouraged investment   from the government — making  them even less competitive. For a country famous for manufacturing, its arms   contractors have fared remarkably  poorly in international rankings. Japan, in other words, was forced to either  buy expensive equipment domestically,   or import expensive equipment from abroad —  making it more dependent on others in the process. After 40 years, the export ban was finally  lifted in 2014. Under the new rules, sales   are allowed so long as their nature is purely  defensive and quote “contribute to world peace”. Despite this, Japan lost to France in 2016, and  just now, the U.S., in selling submarines to   Australia. Its lack of infrastructure meant  it could only promise one submarine a year. And while its first deal has since been struck,   other countries will still  have a 40-year head start. Its equipment may have a reputation for high  quality, but it also has one for high prices. Now, earthquakes and overpriced  equipment are significant   obstacles — but they are just obstacles. Given  the requisite effort, political will, and time,   Japan could, in theory, overcome them. Unfortunately, it faces another, much larger   challenge. One for which  no law could possibly fix. War requires soldiers. Soldiers are made of  humans. And Japan is rapidly running out. For a country to maintain its population — to  neither grow, nor shrink — the average woman   needs to have just slightly over two children  in her lifetime — one to replace each parent. China fell below this “replacement  level” of fertility in 1991.   Russia in ‘89. And Vietnam in ninety-nine. The world average is trending downwards,  which is to say, most of the world is aging. Japan — with a fertility rate of just 1.3  children per 2 adults — is no exception. The only difference is that it began this process   way, way earlier — about 20 years  before the rest of East Asia. China’s population decline is just  getting started, but in the last 10 years,   Japan has already lost 1.5 million people. During this decade, it will lose another  8 million. In the 2030s, 10 million more. It doesn’t just lack people — it lacks the right  kind — those young enough to fight for the nation. By 2050, 40% of the country will be aged over  65. Setting aside the economic consequences   this will bring, first and foremost, this  creates a simple problem of manpower. The broader labor shortage makes  it difficult for the government   to compete with the generous wages and  benefits offered by private employers. The country hasn’t been able to find  enough soldiers since 2014. In 2018,   it was forced to lower its standards — increasing  the maximum age for new recruits from 26 to 32. As a result, the average age of its soldiers is  now 35 — a full decade older than the rest of   East Asia. Even if these soldiers could make up  for youthful strength with wisdom or experience,   they face a different kind of problem. In  short: too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Most places in the world solve  this problem the same way:   If too few people voluntarily sign up,  the government will simply force them. Conscription is widespread across East  Asia. South Korea takes a roughly 20-month   chunk out of the lives of its  young men. Until recently,   those in Taiwan had to put their  lives on hold for around a year. But political and cultural opposition ensure the  Japanese armed forces will never have this option. And while it’s true that technology  can help supplement human forces,   military strength is relative and its  neighbors will have no harder time   acquiring or developing new weapons and  capabilities — in fact, the opposite. In truth, no one knows how prepared  Japan is for conflict — not even Japan. The very nature of war is such that an  outcome is never truly known until it actually   occurs. As a Pacifist nation, Japan has no  modern data points on which to extrapolate. Having never fired a bullet in combat for 70  straight years, and with commanders who have   never in their life witnessed war firsthand,  making predictions is especially fraught. Even its equipment remains untested.   Some Mitsubishi-made tanks were found to lack  contingency space for injured soldiers. They   had been designed, built, and tested in sterile,  lab conditions — far removed from the battlefield. Another reason its capabilities are difficult  to objectively assess is deliberate obfuscation. Officially, Japan has no aircraft carriers  — which have an offensive association — No,   instead it operates defensive “helicopter  destroyers” — you be the judge. The nation’s historical aggression,  combined with its now longstanding   peaceful and neutral stance both  constrain its available options. Behavior that might go unnoticed elsewhere is  met with great suspicion thanks to its past. By keeping a low profile, Japan  reassures the rest of the world.   Yet, by doing so, even the smallest molehill  of change is perceived by others as a mountain. Many, including the current government of Japan,   believe any change incremental enough to  avoid attracting attention from its neighbors   would be, by definition, insufficient  to prepare the country for conflict. Indeed, the 21st century has  brought several new challenges,   each of which would be significant on its own  — North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons,   China’s attempted annexation of Japan’s primary  trade routes, and Russia’s general provocations. At the same time, Japan must overcome new  impediments — like its shrinking population. So, why hasn’t the 3rd largest  economy devoted more money,   new laws, or any other measure, for  that matter, to strengthen its defenses? The ultimate answer has nothing at all to do with  its aging population, lack of combat experience,   or arms export law. The real reason is — next  time, in Part 2, of Japan’s Pacifist Paradox. But before we answer that question, we need  to take a brief detour to talk about Why Japan   almost has nuclear weapons — a part “1.5”, if  you will, exclusively available on Nebula, where   you can watch bonus and extended videos for just  about every other video you see on this channel. If you enjoyed this video, you’d  probably like my Nebula exclusive on   why the United States doesn’t face the same  demographic challenges as China or Japan. You might also like my video explaining  how corporations legally vote in Hong Kong. Nebula also has full-length Originals  like Legal Eagle’s “Bad law,   Words good”, or TechAltar’s “Technorama”. Sign up by clicking the link on screen right now,  and for just $15 bucks a year, you also get access   to CuriosityStream, home to great documentaries  like this one on the history of Afghanistan.

Channel: PolyMatter

Views: 987,542

Keywords:

Id: Kg3zF6jOyMM

Length: 13min 49sec (829 seconds)

Published: Sat Oct 16 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/Cetizo]

At 0:34, the graphic shows that Taiwan has 123K troops and Japan had 125K, and video says that the difference is marginal. Yet the numbers above the graph show that Taiwan has 23M troops and Japan has 125M.

[u/yolomatic_swagmaster]

Could be speaking from inexperience here, but I always understood that Japan had a subdued military as direct consequence of World War II in that it had to adopt a "no war" position in its constitution. So attempts at militarizing would not only be considered provocative by Japan's neighbors, but also unconstitutional domestically. And yes, from what I understand, that "no war" article in the Japanese constitution was imposed by the US during their occupation of Japan.

Along with that, however, was at least a tacit agreement that the US would come to their aid if they needed to fight. So Japan has essentially been counting on the US military as their serious military. This is the part were I could be wrong.

[u/firewood010]

Yeah another vids.

[u/Raider440]

If a war were to break out in Asia tomorrow and all if Nato and Chinas enemies face off against the PRC, Japans role could be that of an unsinkable Aircraft Carrier/Resupply base.

ASW Patrol Aircraft could be based there and it could develop into a logistics hub to supply other theatres, like a Korean front or a Naval blockade of the PRC.

It would take a couple of years, until Japan had trained and equipped an army using conscription to allow it to take a more active part in ground operations, like a grind through Korea and Manchuria, into Heartland China.

[u/SaltCurrent4777]

Mate your videos are honestly so amazing. My gf and I always look forward to them!

I hope you keep making them and hello from Australia!