I fail to see the logic here, can you spell this out for me? Are you saying:

1. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore does not need to defend itself from this greater threat?

2. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore should not be allowed to defend itself from this greater threat? It should just be conquered as a type of moral punishment (wasn't Japan already nuked, conquered, and occupied? Wasn't that enough? If not, why not?)

3. There is no greater threat. That Japan pissed off countries in the past has no bearing on the level of threat facing Japan today, in which case they should be allowed to spend as much as their neighbors on defense and the past is a non-issue.

4. There is a negative threat -- that Japan pissed off countries in the past means that they are now more secure and therefore less in need of defense?

Which of these are you arguing?

I am a little lost about how Japan committing war crimes in the past means they do need to spend as much on defense today, as this is a very counterintuitive claim, and it appears you are arguing for 4 or, if a dark personality, for 2. In which case, I'd like you to spell it out for the community to hear.