From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: America Doesn't have a Chance (was: DOES AMERICA SAY YES TO JAPAN?)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:07:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.182550.3614@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.191630.28985@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>>In article <thomasd.41.724958695@tps.COM> thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec19.004520.29380@leland.Stanford.EDU> strange@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mike Strange) writes:

>>For a fairly complete discussion of this issue I would suggest "The Coming
>>War with Japan".  The authors discuss Japan's rise as a power, including their
>>war with Russia and their invasion of other countries to locate raw materials.
>>When the U.S. cut oil exports to Japan they felt they needed to obtain oil
>>without incurring U.S. wrath and so bombed Pearl Harbor.

>We did discuss this book a while ago. IMO, pretty alarmist for no real reason.
>And they conclude with the line reading roughly "this may be the first of 
>several wars between the US and Japan".

>>After the war, both Germany and Japan were in essentially starvation situations
>>and there were those who would have kept them that way.  When North Korea
>>invaded South Korea in 1950 the U.S. was the only country with much of a
>>military or economic capability.  The U.S. urged Japan to rebuild to have an
>>ally in the Far East.  Now that the Soviet Union is not a power house that it
>>was, the U.S. no longer needs to support German or Japanese economics.  The
>>authors contend that in order to protect it's imports, Japan will create a
>>military that will be a powerhouse in the Far East.

>China, Korea, and Russia might have megatons of disapproval for that. The world 
>is a very different place than it was 50-odd years ago. To become a military
>power, it would require at least the passive acceptance of those nations, plus
>the US. Not to mention that a) all that would be against the Japanese Constitu-
>tion and b) the Japanese just announced a proposed CUT in defense spending, 
>hardly the way to go if one is intent on building a military.

I agree that China, Korea, Russia and the U.S. will not passively succomb to
Japan becoming the might it became in the 30's.  However, if the U.S. withdraws
some of it's support from Japan (or even if Japan thinks it might), then Japan
will need to protect it's raw material supply.  One possibility is that they
aid Russia economically.  This would keep China off their backs which would
also help India (another protector of their middle East oil supplies).

>>Likewise, Germany could well be as powerful as they were during WW II as they
>>reunite with the areas they controlled at that time.  One issue keeping the
>>EC from finishing its Union is the distrust of Germany by Britain and France.

>Actually, France was one of Germany's most vocal advocates during the reunifi-
>cation and in the EC negotiations. It has been Britain's reluctance to tie
>its currency to the EC dollar that has been one of the major stumbling blocks.
>And of course, in the various recent referenda, the EC treaty has won 
>endorsement by very slim margins. It was actually POLAND who objected most
>strenuously to German power, and they demended assurances that Germany would
>give up all claims to land lost as a result of WWII.

I suspect that France envisioned Germany being bogged down economically by
reunification.  After serious defeats in both World Wars neither France nor
Britain want to see Germany continue as the middle European powerhouse.  Again,
if the U.S. removes troops from Europe, Germany will need to pick up the slack.

>>In neither of these cases is the Soviet Union available to counter Japanese or
>>German interests.  With regard to the East, the question of which countries
>>Japan allies itself with may determine what happens in that area.
>
>See 'megatons' argument above. A very real consideration for any nation wishing
>to expand its influence militarily these days. In the case of Germany, substi-
>tute France and Great Britain for China and Korea. So far as Japanese alliances
>are concerned, they have yet to demonstrate the diplomatic ability to forge
>them with anyone but the US.

>And of course, that is not even taking into account that both Germany and Japan
>have found the current peace/alliance with the US to be very profitable indeed.

In the last forty years, both have done well at the U.S. expense (with the U.S.
paranoia about the Soviet).  The present U.S. deficit (both trade and budget)
are a direct result of these moves and I'm sure the U.S. citizenry will not
wish to support more of the same.  Bush's defeat was to a large measure a 
result of the economic decline of the U.S. and the incoming administration will
need to further cut Defense spending if they're to fulfill their promises in
Social Welfare.  The people whose taxes were cut since then are not about to
agree to big increases in the Federal Budget.  It's interesting that Bush's
bone to pick included Capital Gains (while presently the greatest tax rate is
lower than the capital gains rate after the Kennedy-Johnson cuts).

Charlie