As February of 2025 winds down, with all the manufactured hysteria from the political and social extreme-Left in the United States, and an increasingly nervous European Union facing the reality that the Trump administration is serious about not playing ‘patty-cake’ with them anymore, and with the increasingly dire situation in Central Africa, an observer could be forgiven for thinking that Asia is a calm reflecting pool…but things are stirring, and as angry as most states are at Communist Chinese posturing in the South China Sea, a different dragon has been stirring, that is worrying – or should be worrying – every nation in the region.
At the end of World War 2, the victorious American occupiers imposed a new constitution on Japan that “renounced war”. While certainly understandable, given the events of World War 2 in the Pacific, the notion of “renouncing war as a sovereign right of the state” was a creature mostly of Douglas MacArthur’s unbelievable ego. The end result was that the United States was forced to anchor defending Japan as a core concept of its strategy for the next six decades.
Restricted by Article 9 of its constitution, Japan maintained nothing more than a well-armed coast guard and a tiny army. This tiny “self defense force” (the “JSDF”), created only in 1954, was barely large enough to maintain internal order and disaster relief, much less actually “defend” the island nation against large and aggressive states like the USSR and Communist China…that was the job of the United States, because it was the US that hamstrung the Japanese state from effectively defending itself.
For most of the Cold War, this situation remained the status quo. Fortunately, no serious test of Japan’s defenses – or the US plan for the same – occurred. But, as the “Global War On Terror” (the “GWOT”) began to wind down with the end of George W. Bush Presidency and the ascension of Barack Obama, Tokyo suddenly noticed that the United States had become very lukewarm about it’s own defenses, and that there seemed to be a real reluctance in Washington to care very much about the defense of Asia. To be sure, there was a lot of talk about “pivoting towards China“, but there was not a lot of action. As recruiting numbers began falling in the post-GWOT period, the US Navy had to lay up more and more ships, as there were too few sailors to crew all the ships the Navy knew that it needed.
Because of these post-GWOT developments, Japanese leaders watched with increasing alarm as the United States seemed to increasingly care very little, in any real sense, about its long-time ally in the Philippines having to face off against the massive Chinese Communist state – and if the US was seemingly willing to abandon the Philippines to more than lip-service, what did that imply for Japan?
The only answer for Japan was rearmament.
But…What about Article 9? A large segment of the Japanese population – well-versed in the abuses and horrors of the Imperial military’s Shogun-like rule during the war years – were adamantly, even hysterically, opposed to any kind of change to Article 9. But Tokyo, not having any other options, began to take steps to rearm.
The Japanese Army and Air Force are, for the most part, capable and effective forces, if far too small for their missions. The Army is relatively easy to expand, while the Air Force would take more time, but still can expand in a viable timeframe. But the real problem was the Japanese Navy.
Naval forces are tremendously expensive entities, no matter their fighting capabilities. Building a force to significantly augment – or replace – the US Navy, even at a low level, required an entirely new take on Japan’s naval strategy…because that would require aircraft carriers, something Japan has not operated at any level since 1945.
Beginning in 2010, however, Japan began to do just that.
Japan’s recent transformation of its Izumo-class “helicopter destroyers” into aircraft carriers capable of operating F-35B strike fighters marks a significant shift in both Japanese defense policy and regional power dynamics. This development, while technically maintaining Japan’s constitutionally-mandated defensive posture, represents the country’s first carrier capability since World War II.
And, given the potential of carrier warfare – which Japan was the first to actually demonstrate – this naturally concerns any state within the range of Japanese shipping.
The modified Izumo and Kaga, each displacing around 24,000 tons, make them considerably smaller than America’s supercarriers but align with a growing trend toward light carriers, both among Asian navies and in other navies worldwide. The vessels’ new capability to operate F-35Bs provides Japan with significant power projection abilities, particularly valuable given the country’s island geography and increasing regional tensions.
More importantly, this capability serves as a “training test bed” for modern Japanese naval officers to relearn those skills that disappeared after 1945.
This naval evolution reflects the reality of Japan’s post-2010 strategic environment. China’s rapidly expanding naval capabilities, including the start of construction on multiple aircraft carriers, as well as attempts at building artificial island bases, have altered the maritime balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region. North Korea’s continued missile development and nuclear program add another layer of complexity to these challenges.
The carriers also represent a significant psychological shift. Post-war Japan has deliberately avoided capabilities that could be seen as offensive weapons, especially aircraft carriers, but including both strategic bombers and long-range missiles. The decision to operate carriers, even if designated as “multi-purpose escort ships,” signals Japan’s growing comfort with maintaining military capabilities well beyond strictly defensive systems.
However, these vessels serve multiple roles beyond power projection. Their ability to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations proved valuable during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. In an era of increasing natural disasters and climate-related challenges, this flexibility adds significant value to Japan’s maritime capabilities.
The international reaction has been notably mixed. While the United States strongly supports Japan’s military modernization, China has previously expressed concern about what it perceives as Japanese remilitarization. Other regional nations, particularly those with historical grievances against Japan, watch these developments carefully, though many quietly welcome a stronger Japanese presence as a counterbalance to growing Chinese influence.
From a technical perspective, the F-35B’s capabilities significantly enhance these ships’ effectiveness, although the numbers the carriers can operate are very small. The aircraft’s stealth characteristics and advanced sensors, combined with its ability to operate from austere locations, provide Japan with new options for defending its remote island chains and maintaining maritime awareness across vast oceanic areas.
The carriers also enable closer integration with allied forces, particularly the U.S. Marine Corps and British Royal Navy, which operate similar F-35B aircraft. This interoperability enhances Japan’s ability to participate in multinational operations and strengthens its strategic partnerships beyond the U.S. alliance.
Japan’s perspective on its role in World War II, however, remains a source of both internal debate and international tension. Unlike Germany’s direct confrontation with its Nazi past, Japan’s approach to its wartime history has been more nuanced and, at times, contradictory.
The mainstream Japanese narrative acknowledges the war’s devastating impact while often framing Japan as both aggressor and victim. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with the firebombing of major cities, feature prominently in Japanese collective memory. However, discussions of Japan’s own wartime actions, particularly in China, Korea, the Philippines, and Southeast Asia, tend to be more muted in public discourse.
This selective historical memory manifests in ongoing controversies, such as debates over history textbooks’ treatment of events like the Nanjing Massacre or the comfort women issue. Official apologies have been made by various Japanese governments, but these are sometimes undermined by statements from individual politicians or visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, where convicted war criminals are among those honored.
Younger generations of Japanese increasingly view the war through a different lens, focusing more on its lessons for peace and Japan’s postwar achievements. However, rising regional tensions, particularly with China, have led to renewed interest in military history and debates about Japan’s proper role in international security.
Although the Japanese government’s position generally emphasizes Japan’s post-war commitment to peace while avoiding detailed examination of wartime conduct, neighboring countries are very worried that the dragon of the Kanto Plain is reawakening, which is a thing all those states fear.
This current situation is almost a textbook care of “unintended consequences”, as a different path than a self-aggrandizing imposition of idiotic Utopianism would likely have made this step of Japanese rearmament more palatable to a nervous region.
Actions have consequences, and those consequences are usually very visible, if one cares enough to look ahead, and act responsibly.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Wayne P Hughes Jr. USN (Ret.) (2018), Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations, Third Edition
- Julian Thompson (1994), Lifeblood of War: Logistics in Armed Conflict
- Thomas Ricks (2012), The Generals
- James F. Dunnigan (2003), How To Make War, 4th Edition
- James F. Dunnigan (1991), Shooting Blanks
