More missiles pointed at Japan is less missiles towards Taiwan or more spending from China. And it won't be just missiles then. Basically opens up a whole new theatre to the east for NATOAUKUS.
Depends who you ask. PRC MoD says 1.2%, SIPRI says 1.7%. Of course to an extent they are measuring different things, SIPRI is interested in international comparisons so adopts as far as possible a standardised system of what is or is not included as part of the military budget. The reason for this is because different countries include different things as counting towards the military budget. For example, military pensions, "gendarmeries" like PAP and coast guards may be included by some countries but not others. Whathever the "true" number, as a %GDP China's spending is less than half that of USA (~3.7%).
For modern Japan,US loss in Taiwan scenario means:
(1)complete collapse of their current security model (~70 years of comfortable existence + 1980s sacrifices for naught).
(2)complete reversal of last 150(!) years, when Japan was either east Asian dominant, or dominant representative of "pax Americana" in the East.
With this in mind, expecting Japan not to participate in Taiwan scenario is arguably more optimistic than expecting US to stand aside and watch.
It isn't like Australia which simply forgot that they themselves may actually suffer the consequences of their actions (incomprehensible!) - Japan in this case is caught by its throat.
I applaud. This is what most people don't understand. Calling Japan a US vassal is not accurate enough even though it is mostly true. Countries like the UK and Japan have a vested interest in the continuation of Pax America. They will fight unless they are deterred (basically intimidated) not to do so.
A quarter of China's air and rocket forces are enough for Taiwan. And Japan is not a new theater. US Military's presence in Japan is the core of the American power projection in the West Pacific. Ever since 1991, the biggest threat vector towards China was Japan. Look at where most PLAAF bases are if you don't believe this. Then look at which of China's naval fleets have a reputation for the best officers (Hint: one close to Japan). Japan has been the heater. But the important thing is unlike Japan, China doesn't have a shrinking nominal GDP. China can escalate a lot more.
You're so correct Sir!!!!, Beijing first priority is the SCS which is part of the first island chain having secured it the next logical step is the second island chain and the fulcrum is Japan. From my point of view, The collective west try to bait China regarding Taiwan BUT the Chinese did the reverse making those US bases including Guam easy target, further straining the already stretch US resources. China had gain Escalatory Dominance and those so called US vassal knows it, just ask Taiwan, they don't control the Taiwan strait anymore and it will become a norm for Japan as both the Chinese and Russian play around her backyard...lol
China already has enough high-end missiles to shut down Taiwan's airfields and allow lower cost munitions to be launched from trucks or airplanes. And these high-end missiles are relatively short-ranged (and therefore lower cost) because Taiwan is only 200km from China.
In comparison, opening up another theatre to the East (aka Japan) requires China to field a different set of longer-ranged missiles with a range of 1000-2000km. Opening up this theatre means Japan is no longer a safe rear area to host airplanes or missiles, which is a net negative for Japan and NATOUKUS
Interesting read
I see the collapse of Japan's current security model as inevitable, given Chinese growth.
---
If you look at the numbers, Japan doubling military spending to 2% of GDP means an increase from $50 to $100 billion by 2027
But remember that China adds a Japan-sized economy roughly every 4 years, whilst the Japanese economy is stagnant. SIPRI also estimate that China only spends 1.7% of GDP of the military, which is lower than the 2% target set by Japan and indeed, the NATO minimum.
So China has ample scope to increase military spending.
In 10 year's time, I expect the Japan to face a military balance similar to what Taiwan faces today.
China will enough high-end ballistic/hypersonic missiles to shut down Japanese airfields, which then allows lower cost munitions to be delivered by plane or launched from trucks. And like Taiwan, Japan is essentially a small but densely populated island with no natural resources and which is far from friendly support or resupply, but comparatively very close to China.
Yes, Japan could develop a counter-strike capability, but this wouldn't change the end-result in a China-US/Japan war.
Yes, Japan building a counter-strike capability will factor into Chinese calculations, but it isn't something China can't handle. In any case, China is perfectly fine with a neutral Japan. So once China builds up its forces, it will be up to Japan to declare national suicide by joining the US and declaring war, instead of staying neutral.
---
On the economic front, Japan's industries are facing greater competition from China and elsewhere, and are de-industrialising anyway.
The example of the Japanese automobile industry is instructive.
There is no scenario where Japan's automakers successfully transition and maintain electric vehicle production if Japan goes to war with China.
1. If the Japanese automakers decouple and don't embrace the Chinese EV supply chain, their sales will likely shrink in half as they've really fallen behind Tesla and the Chinese automakers in electric vehicle technology. Half of Japan's car production is exported abroad and therefore cannot hide behind Japanese protectionism
2. If Japanese automakers successfully make the transition to EVs by embracing the Chinese supply chain, all those gains will be lost if Japan goes to war with China.
Note that the auto industry is the bedrock of the Japanese economy and tax base, which will have to fund any arms buildup against China.
So in 10 years time, in the event of a China-Taiwan war, I do expect Japan to stand aside and remain neutral
It isn't predetermined. At least not yet. Missiles aimed at each other, unless nuclear of course, don't matter that much: they sleep.You aim at me, I aim at you, we can live and even trade like this for decades. The mutual threat itself is a reasonable guarantee.
Right now Japan can be broadly described as follows:
Industrial, maritime country, firmly economically intertwined into the added-value chain of pax Americana, completely dependant on two main groups of SLOCs - eastern (transpacific to US west coast and Panama) and western (SEA, Gulf, Europe).
The whole "western" group is completely reliant on US maritime power, and in case of any breach in the 1st Island chain, but especially in case of Taiwan (which is basically lone large terrestrial piece controlling all the surroundings - behind it we basically get empty western Pacific) this guarantee doesn't cost any paper it is on. Japan simply can't do anything equal to China, it's simple geography.
Japan, in the end, is a functioning society - part of the larger group of US-aligned, sea-linked societies forming the outer rim of the East Asian mainland. Break the rim - and this model just breaks. You can move the SLOCs away from East Asian mainland, but you can move them only this much outwards to still work. And Taiwan controls the western group in any case.