But seriously, given all of the provocations by North Korea and China, this should be expected and may even provide deterrence against others' destabilizing moves in the region. The Japanese haven't displayed any aggressive policies since 1945.

(1) Carriers of Battle Of Midway 1942 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Carrier_Division)

Kaga and Akagi are classes of ships so there is and wil be a bunch of them. Hiryu and Soryu were specific ships, hopefully these names stay with them.

It’s “funny” how all the army ship games and manga

Kaga: A region of Japan

Akagi: A mountain in Japan (perhaps familiar to fans of Initial D)

Souryuu: lit. "Blue Dragon"

Hiryuu: lit. "Flying Dragon" -- really a modified Souryuu, named with the "dragon" (ryuu) suffix to show the relation to the Souryuu class.

The JMSDF also maintains several traditions from the Imperial Navy, such as the songs, ensigns, and technical terminology. One of the most well-known traditions that's been maintained across the two navies is the Japanese curry lunch served every Friday (there are even ads on trains for it as a tourist attraction).

IIRC the current naming system was also inherited from the Japanese navy, if you were curious about why two of the ships you named are named after places. Wikipedia has some more information on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Fo...

That is not at all the view of Japan in East Asia. Their neighbors, including S. Korea and China, distrust and even hate Japan to an extreme extent. For example, S. Korea recently negotiated military cooperation with Japan against N. Korea, but had to cancel it due to public outcry against deals with Japan. Japan is not viewed like Germany; Japan is viewed as unrepentant about WWII, unapologetic, and restrained only by the US and the East Asian order that depends (or depended) on the US providing security so that the countries there didn't get caught in an arms race to protect themselves from Japan (and vice versa), and run a high risk of wars due to the high levels of distrust and hostility.

That view has some basis in fact. Germany took full responsibility for its crimes, has major museums and memorials addressing them, outlaws Nazis, teach their children about their evils (AFAIK), transformed their country, is tied tightly in excellent relationships with its neighbors via the EU and NATO, and now feels a responsibility to be a leader in human rights. Japan has made some apologies which their neighbors feel are equivocal (though the neighbors have their own biases), but AFAIK they haven't done much more. Now their textbooks teach a revisionist history that whitewashes the war (based on a few articles I've read) and right-wing nationalists, who deny the crimes and praise the war, are gaining power.

This disruption is greatly magnified by the U.S.'s withdrawal from its security guarantees, China's expansion, and North Korea's nuclear weapons - all giving everyone there existential considerations. Japan's military expansion is a long-predicted step in a process that wiser people have strenuously avoided since WWII; it begins with nationalism, in the US and E. Asia, and ends very badly.

> may even provide deterrence against others' destabilizing moves in the region

This idea seems to be the first mistake everyone makes about international relations. Escalation doesn't deter escalation, it incites more. The other side won't cower, they will react in fear and/or anger to protect themselves. If you bought a knife to protect yourself against your dangerous neighbor and then your neighbor escalated and bought a gun, would you just say 'oh well' and capitulate? In reality, maybe you'd call the police, but there are no international police; maybe you'd move, but countries are stuck with their neighbors forever; so now what? You're stuck next to this armed crazy person. So you buy a gun and both sides become even more scared, inviting yet more escalation and overreactions. The original escalation provided no additional security; it cost both sides money and made the situation even more unstable and dangerous.

The mission of international relations is to not let B-level conflicts turn into A-level conflicts (said some expert whose name I can't remember).

I think there are examples both ways. Hiroshima, Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Crisis, involved escalations that were not met with further escalation.

Sure, nothing is 100%, but to address the parent point in detail:

First, there's a logical inevitability to that statement. If escalation never stopped, then the tiniest diplomatic insult would eventually result in nuclear war. If the diplomats do their job and the politicians listen, issues are deescalated whenever possible. It'd definitely possible to do. The point is that each escalation tends to increase danger for both sides; due to second-order effects, it's bad for the escalator.

Second, I think escalation does sometimes work when the escalator has such superior power that their enemy can't hope to match it. In the mid-1990s, China threatened Taiwan with missile launches. The U.S. sailed a couple aircraft carrier battle groups through the Taiwan Strait, a massive show of force that China couldn't hope to match at the time (they were militarily much less capable than now), and China backed down. On the other hand, China didn't back down: China felt humiliated and that event instigated the current decades-long military buildup in China, with a primary focus on the prevention of US aircraft carriers from intervening in Taiwan and naval control of nearby seas. Now the situation is more dangerous than ever, for Taiwan, China, and the US.

Finally, I don't think the examples in the parent support the case (though I'm sure there are examples that do).

Hiroshima: This event was during total war, when maximum escalation already had happened years before. Both sides were throwing everything they had at each other; one side happened to have more. (Also, the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima.)

Cuban Missile Crisis: A prime example of the dangers of escalation; humanity almost was destroyed by nuclear weapons due to the brinkmanship of both sides. The USSR put nuclear weapons in Cuba, a clear escalation, and the US implemented a blockade to stop it; (both?) sides threatened war. It ended in a secret deal where the USSR removed its missiles from Cuba and the U.S. secretly removed theirs from Turkey. But I think the definition of escalation is tricky here: Putting the missiles in Cuba was an escalation, and the results matched the theory in the GP: It increased danger for both sides and achieved nothing. I'm not sure the US blockade was an escalation or a non-escalating response; e.g., an obvious escalation would have been for the US to put twice as many nuclear missiles on the USSR border as the USSR put in Cuba, and IMHO it's likely that such a (hypothetical) escalation would have again increased danger with no benefit.

Berlin Air Lift: That's an example of the opposite, a non-escalating response. When the USSR blockaded Berlin (a West German city surrounded by East German territory, other than a channel to W. Germany), the US (or was it NATO?) didn't respond by attacking the blockade or by blockading USSR cities; they simply flew in supplies around the clock until the blockade ended. They accomplished the goal without increasing the threat to the USSR.

It made sense to defang Japan in the post-war period, but unilateral disarmament is foolhardy --and they know it given they have SDF as a workaround the limitations... so given they are by no means foolish, why keep on being somewhat hamstrung by article 9, specially given N. K's behavior?

It is an inspiring idea to give up weapons, even if it hasn't worked in practice.

It would be terrible if the world were plunged into another catastrophe like WW1 or WW2. Unfortunately the lessons from those wars seems to be leaders are only to eager to start war to extend their power and prestige.

I’m sure nobody here wants war, it’s up to us to stop it!

The US performs provocative military exercises outside the borders of Russia, China and North Korea. We have jets buzzing each other and having close calls.

During the cold war, things were much worse on a daily basis. It was so common that it was hardly reported on.

The presence of conflict does not mean war is at hand, or that we do not have peace. It just means that there are competing agendas between players with sharp elbows.

Those 3 countries are extremely belligerent, and now that the US is finally countering them instead of appeasing them is a good thing. Russia took over a big chunk of Ukraine, and we did nothing. China made a grab for the south china sea, attacking the Philippines, and we did nothing. North Korea is engaged in nuclear threats and proliferation.

These activities will cause other countries to take appropriate measures.

It makes perfect sense that Japan, seeing the recent spate of appeasement on the part of the US, would realize it needs to take a larger role in defense of its own interests.

Besides, def establishment is already clamoring for a "why not both option"[2] with increasing the development of capabilities to conduct war in space.

[0] I have some ideas about how this can be done in practice in the future, though I suspect some could call it the War on Humans™

[1] https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069 "Tetherless magnetothermal deep brain neuro-stimulation"

[2] http://spacenews.com/air-force-chief-goldfein-well-be-fighti...

Without a sufficiently good reason, governments won't put money directly into research (at least, in the eye-wateringly large quantities spent in wartime).

I don't know why someone would even think that unless they were extremely ignorant of history.

True, but it is also true that periods of heightened tension even short of shooting wars do accelerate development. The Space Race is the classic example. The Internet is also a product of the Cold War. The jet engine was developed in the period before WW2 when things were already looking fraught.

That’s historical fact; “worth it” is a whole ‘nother matter.

The kind of technical breakthrough that saves billions?

I'm not especially a fan of this approach, but the absolutist stance that you've taken seems obviously falsifiable.

None of this is justification to start a war, nor would our ethics largely permit us to proceed towards uncertain success contingent upon the sacrifice of many lives.

That said - for example the American Civil War was potentially a 'justifiable' war, costing many lives to improve lives; there is little reason to think that a technical breakthrough could not justify a war.

---

NB: Besides - the GP talked about the 'technical breakthroughs outweighing the direct deaths'.

It's certainly plausible that we've saved more lives since WW1/2 than we lost in WW1/2 on account of technology developed for the war.

This has probably been studied and proven right/wrong, so it's entirely plausible to check (and to be curious about).

That's not a justification to start a war necessarily, but that's not at all GP's phrasing.

Restrospectively wondering if the deaths of millions, which as a side effect inspired innovation, isn't exactly the same thing though. The murder of one person causes non existence of all of their future descendents, so the moral calculus of future lives isn't clear either.

Either way the original comment was callous and borderline sociopathic.

That's not to say that technological innovation should be some perverse incentive for war, or that war even guarantees any benefits, but there are inadvertent benefits to some wars and other negative events in the world.

Definitely not denying the benefit that innovation brought, but just because the human testing on humans in concentration camps brought medical advances doesn't justify the original crime.

Featurecreap.

"Work on the design of the new cruiser continues. Our plans for its development are not dependent on the outcome of the Harrier trials"

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1971/oct/21/throu...

Handily enough, when the RN was forced to decommission its big-deck carriers in the mid-1970s the through-deck cruiser was outfitted for Sea Harriers and became a light carrier...

Japan is also a very rich nation, still 3rd in the world by GDP I believe and were only relatively recently overtaken by the PRC in that regard as they were 2nd in the world for a very long time. So even with a limit of 1% of national GDP, that is a pretty large budget and they still rank among the big spenders in terms of absolute dollars spent on their military every year.

Given they live under the American nuclear umbrella, and American treaty obligations state that the US will come to Japan's aid should it be attacked, the Japanese have focused their defense dollars around a Self Defense Force, less blue water and more green water for their navy for example. Helicopter carriers rather than large aircraft carriers because their focus is on anti-submarine warfare, not force projection.

If their focus had been on force projection and the restrictions in their constitution didn't exist, then the PRC would most likely have been stymied long ago trying to project power out into the South China Sea.