Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    09 Jun '12 20:08
    As it is now the Japanese military is kept deliberately weak so that they don't bomb Pearl Harbor again.

    Given the military realities in Asia (Russia, China, North Korea especially) how strong should the Japanese military be?
  2. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    09 Jun '12 20:20
    Japan and Germany both benefitted hugely by staying out of the arms game since 1945. It is utterly wasteful and unproductive. They made stuff like cars instead and did well out of that. I fail to see what they have to gain by significant change. By all means though they should be free to make their own decisions.

    North Korea is going to implode before it invades anywhere much. The Irish navy would probably suffice if called on.

    China? Hard to see their future. Possibly they will start a re-run of their history and regions get into internal conflict long before China gets seriously into any external adventures. Given their scale, it is unlkely the Japanese will gain much in any arms race.

    Russia? We have had over a century of being frightened by them but there is a lot of evidence that they feed off our fear and our apparent aggression. We provoke the problems we claim to be afraid of. Fail to see what Japan or anyone else has to gain in any arms race with Russia any more.

    America? They could dispose of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short of their possible needs in any scenario. I imagine that a genuine invasion of Japan would provoke American involvement whatever, in their own interests. But the delusion that America is helping rather than destabilizing world peace will become history before too long.

    So cut the crap, drop the arms race and start dealing with real issues.
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    09 Jun '12 22:12
    What should Japan do about the Kuril Islands?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute
  4. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    09 Jun '12 23:07
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    As it is now the Japanese military is kept deliberately weak so that they don't bomb Pearl Harbor again.

    Given the military realities in Asia (Russia, China, North Korea especially) how strong should the Japanese military be?
    It's up to Japan--they have constitutional debates like the United States does.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Self-Defense_Force#Article_9
  5. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    10 Jun '12 11:27
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    As it is now the Japanese military is kept deliberately weak so that they don't bomb Pearl Harbor again.

    Given the military realities in Asia (Russia, China, North Korea especially) how strong should the Japanese military be?
    The Japanese should disband their military entirely.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Jun '12 12:27
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The Japanese should disband their military entirely.
    That would lead to disaster; look what happened last time the Japanese military was weak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8trsDPpAI5E
  7. 10 Jun '12 12:51
    Where's King Kong when you need him!
  8. 10 Jun '12 14:33 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Japan and Germany both benefitted hugely by staying out of the arms game since 1945. It is utterly wasteful and unproductive. They made stuff like cars instead and did well out of that. I fail to see what they have to gain by significant change. By all means though they should be free to make their own decisions.

    North Korea is going to implode before ...[text shortened]... ory before too long.

    So cut the crap, drop the arms race and start dealing with real issues.
    America? They could dispose of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short of their possible needs in any scenario -finnegan


    The U.S. has approximately 5000 nukes.
    Disposing of "tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short" is a uninformed pipe dream you are indulging in.

    That being said, how many nukes should the U.S. have in your opinion, to handle any possible scenario ?
    Keep in mind Russia has approximately 5,500.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Jun '12 15:05
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    America? They could dispose of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short of their possible needs in any scenario -finnegan


    The U.S. has approximately 5000 nukes.
    Disposing of "tens of thousands of nuclear weapons without getting short" is a uninformed pipe dream you are indulging in.

    That being said, how many nu ...[text shortened]... your opinion, to handle any possible scenario ?
    Keep in mind Russia has approximately 5,500.
    Where do you get your figures from? While there are differences in ways to count nuclear warheads ("deployed" "active v. inactive" etc), the latest figures released by the US government show that we have more nuclear warheads than Russia. http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2011/06/us-russia-nuclear-weapons.html
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    10 Jun '12 15:12
    With modern MIRVs I suppose it's possible that one nuclear "weapon" could have many warheads.
  11. 10 Jun '12 15:53
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Where do you get your figures from? While there are differences in ways to count nuclear warheads ("deployed" "active v. inactive" etc), the latest figures released by the US government show that we have more nuclear warheads than Russia. http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2011/06/us-russia-nuclear-weapons.html
    There are several links to be found.

    Here is one site that cites the Arms Control Association, Federation of American Scientists, International Panel on Fissile Materials, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of State as its source.

    And apparently it has been updated as recently as May 2012.

    http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    10 Jun '12 16:06 / 5 edits
    Both of your sources agree that the Pentagon said in May 2010 the US had 5,113 warheads.

    From no1's source - the 30% figure:

    In October 2009, two months before the end of the original START treaty, the State Department issued strategic offensive arms figures that showed the United States possessed 5,916 "attributed" warheads, compared to Russia's 3,897.

    The Russian number of 5500 is an approximation.

    In any case the scale is 1-2 orders of magnitude less than finnegan suggests.

    These are possibly the numbers that matter most:

    USA: 1,737 deployed strategic warheads
    RUSSIA: 1,492 operational strategic warheads
  13. 10 Jun '12 16:10
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Where's King Kong when you need him!
    No that was Godzilla.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    10 Jun '12 16:12
    Originally posted by normbenign
    No that was Godzilla.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PBbK8tkTE8
  15. 10 Jun '12 16:15
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That would lead to disaster; look what happened last time the Japanese military was weak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8trsDPpAI5E
    Each nation ought to keep whatever military force required for their own security, based on their own judgement.

    Japan, only a short distance from a long time declared enemy is in an unenviable position.