What's new

Gulf War trauma kicked off Japan’s retreat from pacifism in ’91

Aepsilons

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 29, 2014
Messages
24,960
Reaction score
118
Country
Japan
Location
United States
n-pacifism-a-20151221-870x591.jpg

A Self-Defense Forces officer adjusts the cap of an honor guard member before an inspection by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the Defense Ministry in Tokyo on Wednesday. | AP



As the first Gulf War raged in February 1991, Ground Self-Defense Force Maj. Nozomu Yoshitomi was supposed to be conducting war games with U.S. officers at a military facility in Tokyo. But the Americans appeared distracted, watching the conflict live on CNN. On another TV, local news showed Japanese troops sculpting ice figures at a snow festival.

“They asked how Japan could be a true U.S. ally if it hadn’t sent troops,” said Yoshitomi, recalling the shame he felt watching Japanese personnel build snowmen as U.S.-led coalition soldiers fought to evict the Iraqi Army from the Kuwaiti desert.

Unable to send troops because of the war-renouncing Constitution, Japan, which at the time bought 90 percent of its oil from the Middle East, instead contributed $13 billion to help fund the military operation.

For a generation of Japanese military planners and policymakers, including Yoshitomi, who went on to advise the Cabinet from 2005 to 2007 before retiring as a major general in April this year, that humiliation was a pivotal moment.

While many assume today’s more muscular security policy has been driven solely by conservative Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, interviews with dozens of current and former Japanese military officers and government officials show it has much deeper roots and is therefore likely to remain robust after he leaves office.

The 1991 experience firmed Japan’s resolve to move away from the state pacifism that had defined the country since its defeat in World War II, the officials involved said.

“We learned from the Gulf War that just sending money and not people would not earn us international respect,” said Tetsuya Nishimoto, then a senior GSDF general and now retired.

Abe in September pushed through legislation allowing Japanese troops to fight abroad for the first time since WWII. But rather than in distant lands, it is in nearby waters that Japan’s military is flexing its muscles under an evolving strategy backed by Washington that could counterbalance China’s growing naval might.

“The roots of Abe’s changes lie in the Gulf War, but the driver of change is the serious challenge posed by China,” said Yoshitomi, now a professor at Nihon University in Tokyo.

China rising

While Japanese officers and policymakers felt humiliated by the Gulf War, China was shocked by the scale and precision of U.S. firepower. Soon after, Beijing embarked on a bold program to modernize its military.

Chinese bitterness over Japan’s WWII aggression has grown since Abe — seen by critics as a revisionist who wants to play down the dark side of his country’s wartime past — and his Liberal Democratic Party returned to power in late 2012.

Sino-Japanese ties have also been frayed by a dispute over tiny isles in the East China Sea that flared up shortly before Abe took power.

Japan’s shift to counter China, however, was well under way before Abe returned to power for a second term in 2012.

In late 2009 the defense, foreign and finance ministers in a government led by the Democratic Party of Japan responded to years of double-digit growth in China’s defense spending with a strategy to make the defense of Japanese islands in the East China Sea a priority.

Calls for the shift had emerged under previous LDP administrations, but opposition from military sectors that feared cuts, had blocked the change, said Akihisa Nagashima, who was senior vice minister for defense in that DPJ government.

The DPJ also proposed creating a National Security Council, now a key component of Abe’s security architecture, and eased a ban on overseas arms sales that Abe fully lifted in April 2014.

“The changes in defense posture weren’t made because Abe is prime minister, it was something we had to do. It just happened to be when Abe is prime minister,” said LDP lawmaker Ryota Takeda, who served as the vice minister of defense for a year until September 2014.

Legal steps

Nishimoto the former general, was one of many who felt embarrassed by Japan’s checkbook diplomacy in 1991.

In January 1991, when Operation Desert Storm kicked off, Nishimoto was at home watching television. As the first cruise missiles slammed into Baghdad, he jumped on a bicycle and rode to the defense headquarters in Tokyo.

“I kept thinking this is going to end before Japan is able to do anything,” he said.

As a direct consequence of that perceived humiliation, Japan in 1992 enacted a contentious law allowing its military to take part in U.N. peacekeeping operations.

Nishimoto, then Japan’s army chief, oversaw the dispatch of 600 army engineers to Cambodia to rebuild bridges and roads, and two small contingents to help monitor a peace accord in a country still traumatized by Khmer Rouge rule (1975-1979).

“That was the starting line,” he said.

A year later Nishimoto became chairman of the Joint Staff Office, Japan’s most senior military officer.

By 1994 a regional crisis was brewing, with the United States on the brink of war with North Korea after Pyongyang began harvesting weapons-grade plutonium from its Yongbyon nuclear plant.

In preparation for conflict, the commander of U.S. forces in Japan, Gen. Richard Myers, gave Nishimoto requests ranging from shelter for civilians evacuated from the Korean Peninsula to security for U.S. bases in Japan that would be used in any attack on the plant.

“We thought it would be doable because it was a basic question of how many blankets, how many tents,” Nishimoto said.

But without a legal framework allowing rear-guard logistic support even close to home, Nishimoto had to turn down most of what Myers wanted. “The Americans were pounding tables. All we could do was apologize,” Nishimoto said.

Diplomacy averted war, but for Nishimoto and other senior officers, the experience was a rerun of the first Gulf War and firmed their resolve to stretch the limits of the Constitution.

In 1997, Japan and the United States revised defense cooperation guidelines to expand the scope for Japan’s rear support. Two years later, in a further stretching of the limits of the pacifist Constitution, the Diet passed a law allowing logistics support in areas close to Japan.

A burden lifted

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Japan passed another one-off law allowing its tankers to refuel U.S. and other allies’ warships supporting the invasion of Afghanistan.

The Air Self-Defense Force also flew supplies into Iraq from a base in Kuwait in 2003 following the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Under U.S. pressure to put “boots on the ground,” Tokyo also enacted a law permitting the dispatch in 2004 of military engineers on a reconstruction mission in Iraq. Tight curbs on weapons use meant the 550 troops stayed behind the perimeter fence of their base in southern Iraq much of the time.

That same year, China overtook Japan to become Asia’s biggest military spender, and by last year Beijing was second only to the U.S. globally, spending more than triple Japan’s defense budget.

“The biggest impetus under which the Japanese people are now living is this obvious surge of Chinese power,” said Tomohiko Taniguchi, an adviser to Abe on foreign policy.

Laws enacted in September allow Japanese forces to aid friendly countries under attack, relying on the Abe government’s reinterpretation, rather than amendment, of the Constitution. Such collective self-defense was banned by previous governments as a violation of the postwar charter.

“For the first time, we are just about to be able to exercise collective defense with the U.S. and others, so the feeling is we have finally been able to get the (Gulf War) burden off our shoulders,” said Taniguchi.

In 2012, Kenneth Pyle, then a professor at the University of Washington, described Japan’s post-1945 security policy as the “eight noes”: no overseas deployments, no exercise of collective self-defense, no power projection capability, no nuclear arms, no arms exports, no sharing defense technology, no military spending above 1 percent of GDP and no military use of space.

Now, says Pyle: “The ‘eight noes’ are all gone, except the nuclear option.”



Gulf War trauma kicked off Japan's retreat from pacifism in '91 | The Japan Times
 
. .
going to be hard to remove 6 decades of brainwashing.

U.S occupation forces neutered the Japanese fighting national spirit.
 
.
going to be hard to remove 6 decades of brainwashing.

U.S occupation forces neutered the Japanese fighting national spirit.

I would argue that the Japanese fighting spirit was never 'neutered'. Perhaps a better word would be "muted", but it is there. Rather evident if you ever served in the armed forces and trained with us Japanese. As a former JMSDF officer, I speak out of experience. :)

 
.
I would argue that the Japanese fighting spirit was never 'neutered'. Perhaps a better word would be "muted", but it is there. Rather evident if you ever served in the armed forces and trained with us Japanese. As a former JMSDF officer, I speak out of experience. :)

skip to 1:29:07 and tell me that isn't brainwashing or re-education


but I hope so. even if Japan playsa secondary role, by giving fire support with howitzers or by air


but this is worrisome if it's accurate
CHd5DzKWwAAjvdM.jpg
 
.
skip to 1:29:07 and tell me that isn't brainwashing or re-education


but I hope so. even if Japan playsa secondary role, by giving fire support with howitzers or by air


but this is worrisome if it's accurate
CHd5DzKWwAAjvdM.jpg


1. The video was made over 70 years ago; different sentiment of that age

2. the poll is not given its source. in the end, if war comes to Japan, Japan will answer.

 
.

What about the no of "offensive weapons?" Is that included in "no power projection?"

If it is, and this no is truly gone, then does japan acquire offensive land-attack weapons like Tomahawk?

Tomahawk-1.jpg


Tomahawk-2.jpg


From the outside, as an observer without too much depth on Japanese arms procurement law, it still appears at though Japan is adhering to some restrictions beyond a commitment to being non-nuclear... even if they aren't legally bound to do so.

I understand Japan's priority is protecting the homeland, not starting a war that would require power-projection capabilities, beyond those needed to reclaim their islands like LHAs or Light carriers, but land attack missiles are as much a defensive as an offensive capability - in that they are a strong deterrent that tells an adversary, "we can hit you just as hard."
 
Last edited:
.
Japanese after ww2 made compromise

They abolished the Emperor ship , the people while respecting royals decided to do the logical thing accept a nuetured constitution.

They worked on building their economy , and the land left and population left worked hard
, they also kept growing their military under the disguise of Defence force , while technology they attained ensured they can always switch to aggressive stance

On one hand due to their diplomacy , donation and aid won over votes from small countries , to win strategic votes and status in world politics, they also wowed "countries" who won the war to feel less threatened by their rise.

But one thing is for sure a Japanese never forgets a loss in sports , in war in anything sometime ... may be days later or weeks later or decades later or centuries later , he will strike back to seek that past glory


The media in Japan routinely shows the dangers from North Korea as a fear factor to rally up local sentiment


Japan makes planes
Japan has large navy
Japan has best communication devices
Japan has Space program , so any Missile can be made easily
Japan has modern training / defensive weapons
 
Last edited:
.
What about the no of "offensive weapons?" Is that included in "no power projection?"

If it is, and this no is truly gone, then does japan acquire offensive land-attack weapons like Tomahawk?

Tomahawk-1.jpg


Tomahawk-2.jpg


From the outside, as an observer without too much depth on Japanese arms procurement law, it still appears at though Japan is adhering to some restrictions beyond a commitment to being non-nuclear... even if they aren't legally binding.

I understand Japan's priority is protecting their homeland, not starting a war that would require power-projection capabilities, beyond those needed to reclaim their islands like LHAs or Light carriers, but land attack missiles are as much a defensive as an offensive capability - in that they are a strong deterrent that tells an adversary, "we can hit you just as hard."



My friend the issue of offensive power projection is not contextual to Japanese technical inability, but more so on the legal aspects that has to be ironed out and discussed in the National Diet (the Parliament House of the Empire of Japan).

As you may know there are considerable number of Japanese patriots that are keen on the notion of pacifism , there are others that want a more proactive Japan. The two understand the need of the nation, without appearing militaristic as the Military Government that took power in the late 1930s. Japan, as a democracy, will iron out these issues with continuous national introspective dialogue, but the trends shows that revision on the constitution's regards to defense will be sooner than naught.

But one thing is for sure a Japanese never forgets a loss in sports , in war in anything sometime ... may be days later or weeks later or decades later or centuries later , he will strike back to seek that past glory

Not past glory, but future glory. We are a progressive minded society, never regressive. :)
 
.
My friend the issue of offensive power projection is not contextual to Japanese technical inability, but more so on the legal aspects that has to be ironed out and discussed in the National Diet (the Parliament House of the Empire of Japan).
.

Of course, I'd never doubt the technical capabilities or ingenuity of the Japanese people, but if the post-1945 legal restriction is gone, removing the self-imposed hurdle to procuring any offensive weapons, do they then develop or purchase such weapons?

It's not the technology that I question, but whether or not Japan is still adhering to the spirit of its Post-1945 restrictions, even when there's no law that enforces such.

I think you and I have had this discussion here before, regarding Japanese land-attack missiles (I'll try to track that discussion down), but is there any plan to build, develop or buy them? Has japan truly removed its restrictions, not the laws, but the mindset?

It's been discussed in the media, but a year on, from when the discussion was the talk of the day, no movement has happened... a least not that we can see and to be fair Japan is rather secretive in its arms procurement activities:

Japan and the United States are exploring the possibility of Tokyo acquiring offensive weapons that would allow Japan to project power far beyond its borders, Japanese officials said.

Japan, U.S. Eye Offensive Military Weapons For Tokyo

I'm just wondering if Japan has plans to acquire land attack weapons now that the law seems to be removed, the "no power projection capability" no is gone, and if it's the mindset of retaining this no in spirit, but not law, that presents a hurdle if no such procurement is planned? Right now Japans arms procurement is defensive in nature, this includes:

Chu-SAM(KAI)
qhtsgjv.jpg


SM-3
USS_Lake_Erie_%28CG-70%29_SM-3_start.jpg


P-1
IMG_3641.jpg


ATD-X
p1526628.jpg


And even XASM-3:
img_0


Very impressive, but still defensive in nature. Nothing to reach out and touch an adversary's command and control infrastructure, bases or even their on-land launchers.

At present no procurement plans or programs have been noticed that feature ballistic or cruise missiles for land-attack purposes. Maybe they don't fit Japan's doctrine either, maybe Japan just wants to defend its land without attacking another, but with the constitutional restriction gone, are there plans for land-attack missiles?

...

Here's a related, but tangential question:

Beyond the LJDAM, what PGMs does Japan use?

12555500984_faea3b7293_b.jpg
 
.
Of course, I'd never doubt the technical capabilities or iniquity of the Japanese people, but if the post-1945 legal restriction is gone, removing the self-imposed hurdle to procuring any offensive weapons, do they then develop or purchase such weapons?

It's not the technology that I question, but whether or not Japan is still adhering to the spirit of its Post-1945 restrictions, even when there's no law that enforces such.

I think you and I have had this discussion here before, regarding Japanese land-attack missiles (I'll try to track that discussion down), but is there any plan to build, develop or buy them? Has japan truly removed its restrictions, not the laws, but the mindset?

It's been discussed in the media, but a year on, from when the discussion was the talk of the day, no movement has happened... a least not that we can see and to be fair Japan is rather secretive in its arms procurement activities:

Japan and the United States are exploring the possibility of Tokyo acquiring offensive weapons that would allow Japan to project power far beyond its borders, Japanese officials said.

Japan, U.S. Eye Offensive Military Weapons For Tokyo

I'm just wondering if Japan has plans to acquire land attack weapons now that the law seems to be removed, the "no power projection capability" no is gone, and if it's the mindset of retaining this no in spirit, but not law, that presents a hurdle if no such procurement is planned? Right now Japans arms procurement is defensive in nature, this includes:

Chu-SAM(KAI)
qhtsgjv.jpg


SM-3
USS_Lake_Erie_%28CG-70%29_SM-3_start.jpg


And even XASM-3:
img_0


At present no procurement plans or programs have been noticed that feature ballistic or cruise missiles for land-attack purposes.



Well, let me try to rephrase the term of 'Spirit of post-1945' since that term can be used by enemies of Japan as a way to label Japan's limitation or somewhat refer to Japan's change in psychology. I should say that, like most analysts, Japan has truly changed its conduct in waging war and treating prisoners of war and enemy combatants in lieu with the Geneva Convention and the United Nations' 1949 Article 2 known as the Law of War, which clearly specifies how combatant nations can and cannot act / behave against each other.

Japan's recent change in defense acquisition and clarification on the types of naval, land, and air inventory to be used provides the basis for further development of such a policy and the implementation of that policy. As for land attack missiles, and other more offensive-inclined inventory, i believe that this will be realized in the coming years.

Here's a related, but tangential question:

Beyond the LJDAM, what PGMs does Japan use?

12555500984_faea3b7293_b.jpg

Precision Guided Munition Planning System (PGMPS) is a component of Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS), this is liberally integrated throughout the JASDF's air fleet(s).

I cannot divulge too much information.
 
.
I cannot divulge too much information.

Not even for a friend:angel:.

:lol:Joking, it's likely that Japan retains a sizable stockpile of US made PGMs of its own, including the known LJDAM:

On the right is a DSU-33 air-burst seeker:
US_Navy_020227-N-2722F-030_USS_Stennis_-_JDAM.jpg


And CBU-87:
ypdfs0qvfclv5olu736a.jpg


Both of which Japan is known to posses, but also shares a stockpile with the US forces stationed throughout the Japanese islands. This arrangement is present in the Norwegian Armed Forces too. We have our own purchased munitions, but can make use of US stocks in our nation if needed.

Well, let me try to rephrase the term of 'Spirit of post-1945' since that term can be used by enemies of Japan as a way to label Japan's limitation or somewhat refer to Japan's change in psychology.

Not quite what I meant though. Is japan still following a law or restriction that is no longer legally binding? The restriction on power projection capabilities, as per the OP article, is gone and thus Japan isn't legally barred from buying or developing these munitions. But they still, and this is from the perspective of an outside observer, focus elusively on defensive weapons - almost as if the law on no power projection was still in place.

It would be difficult to quantity without access to the inner workings of the Japanese military, but with the law gone, it seems the mindset hasn't caught up just yet. Or maybe this is a testament to the Japanese military and Political leadership's willingness to remain non-confrontational and pacifist?

I cannot divulge too much information.

Follow-up, semi-military question, then I'm off to see Star Wars with the Svensonovs and will leave you alone... for now:devil::

Any plans to expand the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System beyond its sole functional unit? 4 were planned, but only one is in orbit. As an augment to the US GPS system, and a solely defensive capability, I'm wondering if expanding the program to its intend, but ultimately non-achieved state is in the works?
 
Last edited:
.
Not even for a friend:angel:.

Not against you, my dear, but because I am restricted from divulging too much sensitive military information (i am an ex-JMSDF officer).

Not quite what I meant though. Is japan still following a law or restriction that is no longer legally binding? The restriction on power projection capabilities, as per the OP article, is gone and thus Japan isn't legally barred from buying or developing these munitions. But they still, and this is from the perspective of an outside observer, focus elusively on defensive weapons - almost as if the law on no power projection was still in place.

It would be difficult to quantity without access to the inner workings of the Japanese military, but with the law gone, it seems the mindset hasn't caught up just yet. Or maybe this is a testament to the Japanese military and Political leadership's willingness to remain non-confrontational and pacifist?

To be honest, there are segments in the Japanese government that have retained the hesistancy inherited from past generations (1960s, 1970s , 1980s , 1990s) since there has been such aversion to war and the effects of war due to negative images of Japan's Imperialism. I would say an excessive self-inhibition mentality, really. It is a plaque that must , should, be removed.

Any plans to expand the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System beyond its sole functional unit? 4 were planned, but only one is in orbit. As an augment to the US GPS system, and a solely defensive capability, I'm wondering if expanding the program to its intend, but ultimately non-achieved state is in the works?

A pseudo-answer to your follow-up question:

U.S.-Japan Military Space Alliance Promises To Grow In 'New Ways'

US, Japan Strike New Military Agreement
 
.
Unable to send troops because of the war-renouncing Constitution, Japan, which at the time bought 90 percent of its oil from the Middle East, instead contributed $13 billion to help fund the military operation.

That means 90 percent of Japan's oil has to travel through the SCS.:)

China submarines outnumber U.S. fleet: U.S. admiral| Reuters
US Admiral: Chinese Subs Outnumber America’s | The Diplomat

And once the oil tankers reach Japan, the oil needs to be stored somewhere.:)

Q325SR0.jpg

94HZ7qT.jpg

FNAg9QF.jpg


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

Turning off the Tap: Bombing Japan's Oil Refineries and Storage Centers

By Bob Hackett

By 1944, as outlined in my preceding six Special Features, American air attacks on Southeast Asian oil refineries and storage facilities under Japanese control, combined with air and submarine predation on shipping, had effectively cut off the flow of crude oil to the home islands.

The Imperial Navy (IJN) was Japan’s largest consumer of fuel oil. In July 1944, the situation had become so desperate that the oiled-starved navy was forced to take such measures as cutting a hole in the bottom of sunken battleship MUTSU’s hulk and pumping out 580-tons of fuel oil for use by their ships in Operation Take ("Bamboo"). In the latter part of 1944, the IJN's naval aviation fuel situation had become so desperate that it began investigating the possibility of extracting aviation fuel from pine roots.

By 1945, most of Japan's naval and merchant fleet was rusting on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean; nevertheless, Japan stubbornly soldiered on. Now, her urgent need was for aviation gasoline for fighter aircraft to defend against increasing raids by American Boeing B-29 “Superfortress” heavy bombers that in March 1945 had fire-bombed and destroyed most of Tokyo and threatened the Emperor in his Imperial Palace. Aviation gasoline was also needed to power Japan’s final weapon, their “kamikaze” suicide planes.

Japan's Oil Refineries and Storage Centers, Bob Hackett
 
. .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom