Comparison of US military stationing costs in Japan and South Korea. Is it acceptable to use Okinawa in an emergency on the Korean Peninsula?
2021-07-16
Category:military I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Japan: ８６% South Korea: ３０%
Japan pays ８６% of the cost of US forces in Japan. The cost burden for US forces stationed in South Korea has not been made public, but under the Trump administration, the cost of stationing US forces in South Korea for four years was made public, and South Korea's share of the cost was ３０%. In the event of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, the United States says that operations can be carried out with the support of U.S. forces stationed in Japan. However, losing a front-line base is expected to result in many casualties on the South Korean side.
He fought the Korean War based in Japan
In effect, Japan is also indirectly bearing the cost of South Korea's defense. During the Korean War, the U.S. military conducted operations based in Japan, and Japan provided logistics support such as providing supplies. Even now, in terms of both practical and cost considerations, the US Forces in Japan is the base of the US ７th Fleet for the purpose of defending the liberal camp in Asia. In other words, Japan is bearing the cost of stationing US forces in Japan, including South Korea's defense costs.
Read it together
The ''North-South division issue'' and the future aimed at by Kim Gu - Lee Jae-myung's assertion is an unrealizable hypothesis.
South Korean Democratic Party members Moon Jae-in and Lee Jae-myung cite Kim Gu as the politician they most respect. Kim Gu was a person who served as the president of the provisional government of the Republic of Korea. He rejected the postwar state of US-Soviet trust between North and South Korea and proposed a plan to unify the peninsula among the Korean people, but this idea was rejected by Kim Il-sung of North Korea. It was an unrealizable idea that would be denied by the United States as well. After a political dispute, Syngman Rhee, who was recommended by the United States, became president, and Kim Gu was subsequently assassinated.
Lee Jae-myung recently told a US senator that the North and South were divided because of the US. I guess he is trying to say that if he had done what Kim Gu said at that time, there would have been no Korean War or division between North and South. However, there is absolutely no basis for this "if". At that time, there were no people in Japan or abroad who supported this idea.
Kim Gu's ideas did not produce any results in the environment of the time. Based on this premise, there are no objective facts in history; all that exists is the existence of South Korea and North Korea since the founding of the nation more than 70 years ago. North Korea established the current state of North Korea without paying any attention to Kim Gu's claims.
In other words, it is logically impossible to trace back to Kim Gu's assertion what the basis for the unification of North and South is advocated by the No. 1 and No. 2 members of the Democratic Party of Japan. They are the most pro-North Korean and pro-China faction in the South Korean National Assembly. Even now, that claim is not appreciated at all by North Korea, the United States, or even China.
Will Okinawa be used in an emergency on the Korean Peninsula?
In the past, in Japan-Korea relations, no Japanese person objected to the idea that an emergency on the Korean Peninsula was the same as an emergency in Japan, but the situation is changing with the arrival of Moon Jae-in. For example, if Japan and South Korea were to sever diplomatic relations, there would likely be voices in Japan against the use of Japanese tax dollars for the defense of South Korea. Ultimately, the United States views this imbalance in the burden of stationing costs as a problem.
South Korea has no intention of defending Japan
Japan and South Korea do not have a military alliance. In the event of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, if Japan's ally the United States is in danger and Japan is expected to suffer damage, Japan will exercise its right of collective self-defense, but there is no doubt that South Korea will help Japan in the future as well. I don't think that will happen. Moon Jae-in simply said that he would abolish GSOMIA. The more rifts arise in Japan-South Korea relations, the more likely the US military will demand that South Korea bear the costs.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Will joining NATO strengthen Japan's security? - World strategy drawn up by former Prime Minister Abe.
As soon as we hear the mention of joining NATO, we hear some reluctance, but NATO is the most solid security system in the world, and none of the 30 member countries has ever been attacked by another country since its inception. Since NATO has most of the world's firepower, no country can argue with this military alliance.
There is no doubt that former Prime Minister Abe was making plans for NATO membership behind the scenes. For this purpose, the Act on the Protection of Specified Secrets and the acceptance of the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, etc. Assuming this, the NATO level of GDP will be 2%. If we consider 2% to be double the current amount, it would become a country that spends more on military spending than Russia every year.
Some people say that the Japan-U.S. alliance is enough, but Russia and North Korea seem to be collaborating militarily in the future, and what would happen if China also joined? Joining NATO means a break from the dependence on the United States, which continued for a long time after the war. While Japan would double its military spending, the United States would be able to cut back on spending on the Seventh Fleet.
It has become the second-largest military expenditure in NATO after the United States, and the mentality that has been hiding behind foreigners with weapons and freaking out will not be talked about unless it is completely changed. If Japan joins NATO, neither North Korea nor China will be able to interfere with Japan at all. The chance is probably 0%.
Threat assessment and security structure for intermediate-range ballistic missiles - Views of former Joint Chiefs of Staff Katsutoshi Kono.
Katsutoshi Kono, former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Self-Defense Forces, questioned former Indo-Pacific Commander Davidson's statement that ``China will invade Taiwan within six years'' after Xi Jinping took office for his third term. He said this meant that his term of office would expire in six years, and confirmed this directly with Mr. Davidson when he met with him. He explained that he meant that China would seek a fourth term by annexing Taiwan.
China currently has the military advantage in the Taiwan Strait issue. Taiwan is too close to China. And although China has intermediate-range ballistic missiles within the range of Taiwan and the Japanese archipelago, Japan and Taiwan do not have intermediate-range ballistic missiles. These missiles have no choice but to depend on the United States, and this missile is currently said to be a long-range ballistic missile aimed at the American continent.
If the United States proposes to Japan the deployment of intermediate-range ballistic missiles, will Japan accept this as a joint operation? This would mean that intermediate-range ballistic missiles would be facing each other at the same distance, and Chinese missiles would not be able to be deployed near the U.S. mainland. A short-range missile is fired.
If intermediate-range ballistic missiles are deployed in Japan, there will be two firewalls. No matter how desperately North Korea tries to develop ICBMs that can reach the United States, it would be worthless if a missile were launched from Japan. If that happens, you might hear voices of alarm as Japan becomes the main battlefield, but behind the scenes the world's most powerful missiles are aiming at the continent from the Americas. Japan's defense capabilities appear to be increasing tremendously, and the threat may decrease but not increase.
Tamogami Military Force Analys In 2009, Tamogami, a former Air Force chief of staff of the Self-Defense Forces, said, "If nuclear weapons are excluded, Japan will be superior to China's combat capabilities."At that time, China was already the world's second-largest military force.Tamogami said, "The combat capability should be determined by the training, training, weapons status, and maintenance of fighter jets and tanks."
In soccer, 11-11 is the same, but there is a big difference between victory and defeat.In the high-performance Formula One race, the proficiency of the driver and the ability of the pit staff determine victory or defeat.Military costs include personnel costs for soldiers, so if a large number of people fail to train or maintain weapons, they will become weak troops.
Historically, China has been vulnerable to war.The overwhelming majority of the Han people have been ruled by different races.After reunification, the only thing China did was to oppress and rule other minorities.These include Uighur and Tibet.
In the recent clashes between India and China in Kashmir, China immediately reached a settlement.In 2020, India's military spending will be less than 30 percent of China's.The increase in Indian troops to the Kashmir region may reveal China's true colors.
What is the ``definition of national defense''? - Japan's national defense consciousness remained ambiguous even before the constitutional amendment.
Definition of national defense by former Minister of Defense
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Definition
Surrender peace theory without even the concept of national defense
Think about what might happen after surrender
Surrender means giving up your country
When considering Japan's national defense, it is necessary to define what Japan means to protect. Is there a common understanding among the people on this matter? In the first place, the government's views are needed in order to be shared. Former Minister of Defense Ishiba said that national defense is the spatial area of territory and territorial waters, and the lives and property of the people living there. He explained that it was to protect national sovereignty. National sovereignty refers to the mechanisms for managing a country, such as the judiciary, legislation, and executive power.
Regarding national defense, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Kono has stated that the ``country'' that must be protected includes everything such as language, history, and culture, in addition to its territory, territorial waters, people, and sovereignty. If history and culture are protected under national sovereignty, it is possible to think that they are included, but this would be a clearer and more specific expression.
Mr. Hashimoto caused a huge uproar over his statement that Ukraine should surrender, but there was no concept of national defense at all, perhaps because he was putting human life first. In response, there were many counter-arguments, such as that even though Ukrainians say they are fighting to protect their country, Japanese people from third countries have no right to stop them, and that they will be slaughtered if they surrender. However, there was no discussion on what national defense was.
If Ukraine becomes Russia, Ukrainian laws will no longer be respected. Because sovereignty will be taken away. Will that protect Ukraine's language and culture? I have no idea. If Japan were to be invaded by China and become China, it would be unable to resist, even if tens of thousands of shrines and temples would be destroyed. Even if the Japanese language were to be abolished and Chinese made the official language, there would be no resistance. Japan's history will be freely rewritten, and there is a high possibility that the imperial family will be abolished.
As a result of putting human life first, we end up dedicating everything that makes us Japan to the invaders. On the contrary, national defense should be defined as protecting everything that makes Japan a nation. In that sense, I believe that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Kono's opinion represents a shared sense of national defense. The reason why there are some stupid Japanese people who think, ``I don't mind giving up one of my islands,'' is because the idea of protecting the country itself is ambiguous, or because there is no sense of independence in protecting the country. Probably because there isn't one. People who make such statements are members of the Diet.
South Korea's position on Japan's announcement one minute earlier than North Korea's missile launch ...
The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff announced on the 11th that "North Korea has launched a US projectile over the East Sea." The joint visitor said in a text message sent to the entry and exit reporters around 7:30 am on that day. The Japan Coast Guard announced at around 7:29 am that day, "launched from North Korea with a projectile that could be a ballistic missile." Requested attention to vessels in transit. An emergency convocation team consisting of officials from relevant ministries and agencies was convened in the official residence countermeasures office set up at the Prime Minister's Office Crisis Management Center. The announcement in Japan was one minute earlier.
There was a debate about whether Japan and South Korea GSOMIA are necessary for Japan, but there is also talk that it is necessary to share information on North Korea's movements from land and spies, but in reality the United States has separate information from Japan and South Korea. The view is that it is necessary for the United States to receive information after ensuring information consistency between Japan and South Korea, rather than the role of collecting and organizing information. In other words, America needs Japan-Korea GSOMIA .
Even in the examples so far, South Korea made a mistake in the landing point of the missile , and it seems that Japan does not need Japan-Korea GSOMIA for missiles.
Korea has no artificial satellites and cannot detect missile launches. Japan accurately announces the launch and expected landing points, and the actual landing points.
