From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: America Doesn't have a Chance (was: DOES AMERICA SAY YES TO JAPAN?)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:58:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.150749.15752@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.182550.3614@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:

>>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).

Assuming they do aid Russia, they do not really need to insure any other
sources of raw materials: Russia can supply them with all they need, and provide
its own defense to protect those supply lines (but protect against who?). They
do, however, have that "little problem" of the islands to resolve. India? Maybe
but it seems India is too far separated to do much to protect Japan's Pacific
shipping, particularly if China and/or Russia are the projected threats. And 
this still presumes better diplomatic skills than the Japanese have shown so
far. And of course, Japan is left with the problem of selling its consumer goods
to poorer countries; not quite as lucrative as selling them here and in Europe.

>>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.

Uh, why will Germany (or anyone) need to "pick up the slack"? The need for this
is rapidly disappearing, as business seems pretty good for all concerned. Who
would Germany need to protect themselves from, exactly? And, once again, 
a re-arming Germany would need to consider that Russia, France, and Britain
all have nuclear weapons. Not, IMHO, a position Germany would like to put
itself in, particularly when selling BMWs, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, etc, 
has proven so lucrative. And if France envisioned Germany being bogged down
with the reunification, their projections were considerably better than those
of the Germans. And Germany would not be so "bogged down" if they were not
paying billions to help rebuild all of Eastern Europe.

>>>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).

About the defict: as has been posted repeatedly, Japan and Germany BOTH have
deficits roughly the same as ours when taken as % of GDP, so they haven't done
THAT well at US expense. BTW, our deficit is largely the result of the last
10-12 year spending frenzy, not the result of a 40-year standoff. Also, Germany
had the second largest NATO force for all those years, so they weren't exactly
shirking their responsibilities. Besides, this sort of thing kinda puzzles me:
are you implying that Japan and Germany now need to "shoulder more of the
burden" of their defense? Isn't that the same as rearming, a scenario which
caused you some concern in the paragraphs above?

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is obviously either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally-
deficient, weak-willed, inconsequential, namby-pamby tool of some vague but
conveniently defined conspiracy, or b) my wife.