Japan

Here's a geopolitical question for the class:

In light of the moves made lately by Dear Leader in the DPRK, who here thinks it would be a good idea for Japan to militarize to the point of offensive capability? Or, for that matter, go nuclear?

Tex wrote: Here's a geopolitical question for the class:

In light of the moves made lately by Dear Leader in the DPRK, who here thinks it would be a good idea for Japan to militarize to the point of offensive capability? Or, for that matter, go nuclear?

Yeah, let's exterminate all those terrorists that want to destroy the american way of life, Texas-boy. You're as clever as your leader.

Going nuclear is probably not a good idea, since we're trying to convince everybody that nobody else should have nukes (except us, of course, we promise to be good!) but it would be nice if Japan became militarily independent. Germany is now, why not Japan? It would relieve a lot of burden from the US, though I'm sure we'd still help them out in a pinch.

Spider Kombat wrote:

Tex wrote: Here's a geopolitical question for the class:

In light of the moves made lately by Dear Leader in the DPRK, who here thinks it would be a good idea for Japan to militarize to the point of offensive capability? Or, for that matter, go nuclear?

Yeah, let's exterminate all those terrorists that want to destroy the american way of life, Texas-boy. You're as clever as your leader.

Ummmmmm, yeah....

I'm going to go ahead and guess you didn't fully understand the question, child killing death squad-boy.

I would hope Japan is at the stage where it could do what it wants, especially with North Korea and China on its doorstep. Purely as a deterrent, of course.

Shellshocker wrote: Going nuclear is probably not a good idea, since we're trying to convince everybody that nobody else should have nukes (except us, of course, we promise to be good!) but it would be nice if Japan became militarily independent. Germany is now, why not Japan? It would relieve a lot of burden from the US, though I'm sure we'd still help them out in a pinch.

It would certainly be an interesting policy position for us to support Japan going nuclear because we're opposed to nuclear proliferation....

Tex wrote: Here's a geopolitical question for the class:

In light of the moves made lately by Dear Leader in the DPRK, who here thinks it would be a good idea for Japan to militarize to the point of offensive capability? Or, for that matter, go nuclear?

Interesting question. Japan has been our forward base in east Asia since the end of WWII. If Japana develops offensive capability, does that mean we're still calling the shots in Japan? Coupled with the Japanese economy, however bad it might temporarily be, I doubt we'd be calling the shots. Should we be calling the shots in another country? Prolly not, but it's all about national defense, so it's going to happen...

Since 1945, Japan has basically been going in the opposite direction of its long tradition not only of military power but also the warrior class. They were forced to by us, of course, but that's because prior to the end of the war, they ran roughshod over the Asian continent. And we didn't want that.

I think it would probably be in Japan's best interest to have a standing army (if they don't already), but be sure to keep checks on them. That's how the military came into power in the Thirties, they were able to manipulate and control the civilian government to do their bidding. Thus, the invasions of China and Pearl Harbor

Nukes, though?...something tells me the Japanese as a collective have mixed feelings about the possibility. I think we need to decide whether North Korea can be allowed to nuke up before we ponder the question of Japan having the bomb (and without sounding like a supporter of Dubya, it is up to the US to decide the NK issue)

Taboo # 7 wrote: Since 1945, Japan has basically been going in the opposite direction of its long tradition not only of military power but also the warrior class. They were forced to by us, of course, but that's because prior to the end of the war, they ran roughshod over the Asian continent. And we didn't want that.

I think it would probably be in Japan's best interest to have a standing army (if they don't already), but be sure to keep checks on them. That's how the military came into power in the Thirties, they were able to manipulate and control the civilian government to do their bidding. Thus, the invasions of China and Pearl Harbor

Nukes, though?...something tells me the Japanese as a collective have mixed feelings about the possibility. I think we need to decide whether North Korea can be allowed to nuke up before we ponder the question of Japan having the bomb (and without sounding like a supporter of Dubya, it is up to the US to decide the NK issue)

:p

Japan's 9th Article in their Constitution ban war activities... They do have something called the "Self Defence Force" (I don't know how else to put it in English), but they are not allowed to wage war on other countries. In other words, if they are attacked, they are allowed to fight back in self defence, but they are not allowed to wage war or advocate war activities. This was because of the horrible atrocities that the Japanese government had done during WW2. (After WW2, a new Constitution was created, and thus, this Article was created within it.) Plus, even though Japan does have nuclear power plants, because of the fact that they were the only country to have been bombed by atomic weapons, the Japanese are heavily opposed to the usage of atomic weapons. (Believe me, if your country was bombed by a nuclear weapon, I don't think anybody in your country would advocate the usage of it.) Besides, why advocate war when there's too many people in the world advocating it anyways? The first step is to at least attempt to solve things diplomatically, not to bomb the living daylights out of a country immediately when there's a problem. I'm very appalled at the ignorance that is evident in this question. Surely, it would have been possible to do some research (online, even) about the topic, and about Japan's attitudes about war in general, as well as about the Article banning war activities to answer your question.

leather_girl wrote: Japan's 9th Article in their Constitution ban war activities... They do have something called the "Self Defence Force" (I don't know how else to put it in English), but they are not allowed to wage war on other countries. In other words, if they are attacked, they are allowed to fight back in self defence, but they are not allowed to wage war or advocate war activities. This was because of the horrible atrocities that the Japanese government had done during WW2. (After WW2, a new Constitution was created, and thus, this Article was created within it.) Plus, even though Japan does have nuclear power plants, because of the fact that they were the only country to have been bombed by atomic weapons, the Japanese are heavily opposed to the usage of atomic weapons. (Believe me, if your country was bombed by a nuclear weapon, I don't think anybody in your country would advocate the usage of it.) Besides, why advocate war when there's too many people in the world advocating it anyways? The first step is to at least attempt to solve things diplomatically, not to bomb the living daylights out of a country immediately when there's a problem. I'm very appalled at the ignorance that is evident in this question. Surely, it would have been possible to do some research (online, even) about the topic, and about Japan's attitudes about war in general, as well as about the Article banning war activities to answer your question.

Well-put, and thanks for setting me straight on what "military" the Japanese have now. I know there was something in the news recently about Japanese troops who had been deployed in Iraq being recalled (they were engineers and otherwise involved in non-combat capacities), thus I wasn't sure what kind of military force they had.

And yes, the military in WW2 (and prior to that, in China and Manchuria) was responsible for some horrific crimes, so it would stand to reason that they would be wary of having such a powerful force anywhere near the seat of government again. Tojo and his underlings were just as bad as Hitler and Stalin, and in many respects it would be fair to say that while not necessarily "fascist", the Japanese government of the prewar period wasn't bent towards democracy at all

leather_girl wrote: Japan's 9th Article in their Constitution ban war activities... They do have something called the "Self Defence Force" (I don't know how else to put it in English), but they are not allowed to wage war on other countries. In other words, if they are attacked, they are allowed to fight back in self defence, but they are not allowed to wage war or advocate war activities. This was because of the horrible atrocities that the Japanese government had done during WW2. (After WW2, a new Constitution was created, and thus, this Article was created within it.) Plus, even though Japan does have nuclear power plants, because of the fact that they were the only country to have been bombed by atomic weapons, the Japanese are heavily opposed to the usage of atomic weapons. (Believe me, if your country was bombed by a nuclear weapon, I don't think anybody in your country would advocate the usage of it.) Besides, why advocate war when there's too many people in the world advocating it anyways? The first step is to at least attempt to solve things diplomatically, not to bomb the living daylights out of a country immediately when there's a problem. I'm very appalled at the ignorance that is evident in this question. Surely, it would have been possible to do some research (online, even) about the topic, and about Japan's attitudes about war in general, as well as about the Article banning war activities to answer your question.

And I, leather girl, am appalled that you don't seem to know what's going on in your own country. Perhaps you have not heard that there are discussions at the highest levels of amending the law to deal with the threat posed by NK.

leather_girl wrote: Japan's 9th Article in their Constitution ban war activities... They do have something called the "Self Defence Force" (I don't know how else to put it in English), but they are not allowed to wage war on other countries. In other words, if they are attacked, they are allowed to fight back in self defence, but they are not allowed to wage war or advocate war activities. This was because of the horrible atrocities that the Japanese government had done during WW2. (After WW2, a new Constitution was created, and thus, this Article was created within it.) Plus, even though Japan does have nuclear power plants, because of the fact that they were the only country to have been bombed by atomic weapons, the Japanese are heavily opposed to the usage of atomic weapons. (Believe me, if your country was bombed by a nuclear weapon, I don't think anybody in your country would advocate the usage of it.) Besides, why advocate war when there's too many people in the world advocating it anyways? The first step is to at least attempt to solve things diplomatically, not to bomb the living daylights out of a country immediately when there's a problem. I'm very appalled at the ignorance that is evident in this question. Surely, it would have been possible to do some research (online, even) about the topic, and about Japan's attitudes about war in general, as well as about the Article banning war activities to answer your question.

And I, leather girl, am appalled that you don't seem to know what's going on in your own country. Perhaps you have not heard that there are discussions at the highest levels of amending the law to deal with the threat posed by NK.

It wouldn't surprise me if the "high level talks" aren't just tactic to pressure China to deal with Kim Jong-Il.

To TEX: Knowing Japanese history, and having lived in Japan, even though NK is a global threat, their plan at the moment is not to drop bombs on them ASAP. Japan doesn't own any nuclear weapons, and if they were to create them, it would cause an huge outrage within the nation. But, my point is, the Japanese aren't planning at the moment to invade North Korea, neither are they planning to drop an atomic bomb on them. The Japanese aren't very keen on the idea of using violence as the answer to everything, unlike the US. The remarks that you made alledging that I haven't a clue about my country was insulting, especially coming from an American who apparently thinks the Japanese should own nuclear weapons, after what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The point is not whether the usage of such weapons back then in that particular situation was justified or not; the Japanese, being the only country to have been bombed by a nuclear weapon, understand the atrocities first-hand as a country. It is easy for an American to say "Bomb them immediately!", but the Japanese aren't advocating blood-shed to resolving problems or immediate war at the moment.

Japan wouldn't need atomic weapons to stop Kim Jong-Il if Mifune were still alive...

leather_girl wrote: To TEX: Knowing Japanese history, and having lived in Japan, even though NK is a global threat, their plan at the moment is not to drop bombs on them ASAP. Japan doesn't own any nuclear weapons, and if they were to create them, it would cause an huge outrage within the nation. But, my point is, the Japanese aren't planning at the moment to invade North Korea, neither are they planning to drop an atomic bomb on them. The Japanese aren't very keen on the idea of using violence as the answer to everything, unlike the US. The remarks that you made alledging that I haven't a clue about my country was insulting, especially coming from an American who apparently thinks the Japanese should own nuclear weapons, after what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The point is not whether the usage of such weapons back then in that particular situation was justified or not; the Japanese, being the only country to have been bombed by a nuclear weapon, understand the atrocities first-hand as a country. It is easy for an American to say "Bomb them immediately!", but the Japanese aren't advocating blood-shed to resolving problems or immediate war at the moment.

On your note of the constitution, it was made manditory by the Allies that Japan not have a standing army. It was not decided by them, but by the Allies worrying that Japan may rebuild another army.

Right now they have more of a police force, then an army. They can defend their country, like the Coast Guard could defend the United States. Most of their stuff is Veitnam era U.S. hand -me-down stuff.

I don't think Japan wants to make a standing army for good reasons:

1. The U.S. want Japan as a forward base (though we will be moving alot of our bases out in the next 20 years to either the Philipines, Guam or Australia).

2. U.S pays the Japanese government millions of dollars to rent the land the bases are on.

3. Japan can spend it's tax money on other issues other than the military, which would take millions of dollars (or yen) to catch up.

4. The U.S. service members add to their economy, and pulling out all U.S. military would hurt their economy.

5. Joining the Army in Japan has the same reputation as joining a police force in the U.S. People admire it, but don't really put that much thought into going into it. Not many of Japan's population would join. To make an Army, Japan would probably have to create a draft.

Also, like Leather Girl stated before, they are more against atomic or nuclear warfare than any other country out there. Not to say that other countries are not against it, but the attitude towards it is different than any other country I have been to.

JHC

Now, Mifune is good. But he needs a strong ally.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country...

Mifune appeals to Dear Leader's heart....

Emperor Hirohito is in no way insecure about his *ahem* power

68Pontiac wrote:

leather_girl wrote: To TEX: Knowing Japanese history, and having lived in Japan, even though NK is a global threat, their plan at the moment is not to drop bombs on them ASAP. Japan doesn't own any nuclear weapons, and if they were to create them, it would cause an huge outrage within the nation. But, my point is, the Japanese aren't planning at the moment to invade North Korea, neither are they planning to drop an atomic bomb on them. The Japanese aren't very keen on the idea of using violence as the answer to everything, unlike the US. The remarks that you made alledging that I haven't a clue about my country was insulting, especially coming from an American who apparently thinks the Japanese should own nuclear weapons, after what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The point is not whether the usage of such weapons back then in that particular situation was justified or not; the Japanese, being the only country to have been bombed by a nuclear weapon, understand the atrocities first-hand as a country. It is easy for an American to say "Bomb them immediately!", but the Japanese aren't advocating blood-shed to resolving problems or immediate war at the moment.

On your note of the constitution, it was made manditory by the Allies that Japan not have a standing army. It was not decided by them, but by the Allies worrying that Japan may rebuild another army.

Right now they have more of a police force, then an army. They can defend their country, like the Coast Guard could defend the United States. Most of their stuff is Veitnam era U.S. hand -me-down stuff.

I don't think Japan wants to make a standing army for good reasons:

1. The U.S. want Japan as a forward base (though we will be moving alot of our bases out in the next 20 years to either the Philipines, Guam or Australia).

2. U.S pays the Japanese government millions of dollars to rent the land the bases are on.

3. Japan can spend it's tax money on other issues other than the military, which would take millions of dollars (or yen) to catch up.

4. The U.S. service members add to their economy, and pulling out all U.S. military would hurt their economy.

5. Joining the Army in Japan has the same reputation as joining a police force in the U.S. People admire it, but don't really put that much thought into going into it. Not many of Japan's population would join. To make an Army, Japan would probably have to create a draft.

Also, like Leather Girl stated before, they are more against atomic or nuclear warfare than any other country out there. Not to say that other countries are not against it, but the attitude towards it is different than any other country I have been to.

JHC

Thank you for adding additional information. I'm only 18, and I'm not an expert on anything, but I'm glad that the ignorance of the original poster is clear at this point.

leather_girl wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

leather_girl wrote: To TEX: Knowing Japanese history, and having lived in Japan, even though NK is a global threat, their plan at the moment is not to drop bombs on them ASAP. Japan doesn't own any nuclear weapons, and if they were to create them, it would cause an huge outrage within the nation. But, my point is, the Japanese aren't planning at the moment to invade North Korea, neither are they planning to drop an atomic bomb on them. The Japanese aren't very keen on the idea of using violence as the answer to everything, unlike the US. The remarks that you made alledging that I haven't a clue about my country was insulting, especially coming from an American who apparently thinks the Japanese should own nuclear weapons, after what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The point is not whether the usage of such weapons back then in that particular situation was justified or not; the Japanese, being the only country to have been bombed by a nuclear weapon, understand the atrocities first-hand as a country. It is easy for an American to say "Bomb them immediately!", but the Japanese aren't advocating blood-shed to resolving problems or immediate war at the moment.

On your note of the constitution, it was made manditory by the Allies that Japan not have a standing army. It was not decided by them, but by the Allies worrying that Japan may rebuild another army.

Right now they have more of a police force, then an army. They can defend their country, like the Coast Guard could defend the United States. Most of their stuff is Veitnam era U.S. hand -me-down stuff.

I don't think Japan wants to make a standing army for good reasons:

1. The U.S. want Japan as a forward base (though we will be moving alot of our bases out in the next 20 years to either the Philipines, Guam or Australia).

2. U.S pays the Japanese government millions of dollars to rent the land the bases are on.

3. Japan can spend it's tax money on other issues other than the military, which would take millions of dollars (or yen) to catch up.

4. The U.S. service members add to their economy, and pulling out all U.S. military would hurt their economy.

5. Joining the Army in Japan has the same reputation as joining a police force in the U.S. People admire it, but don't really put that much thought into going into it. Not many of Japan's population would join. To make an Army, Japan would probably have to create a draft.

Also, like Leather Girl stated before, they are more against atomic or nuclear warfare than any other country out there. Not to say that other countries are not against it, but the attitude towards it is different than any other country I have been to.

JHC

Thank you for adding additional information. I'm only 18, and I'm not an expert on anything, but I'm glad that the ignorance of the original poster is clear at this point.

So, your 18 and remarking on other people's "ignorance".....

Anyway, I think the good Commrade makes a solid point about even the threat of Japanese nukes pushing China off the fence.

And while it's true I've never been to Japan, my country never had atomic weapons used agaist it, etc., etc., etc., what I do know (as an unfrozen cave man lawyer once said)is that self preservation trumps moralistic posturing every time.

Tex wrote:

leather_girl wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

leather_girl wrote: To TEX: Knowing Japanese history, and having lived in Japan, even though NK is a global threat, their plan at the moment is not to drop bombs on them ASAP. Japan doesn't own any nuclear weapons, and if they were to create them, it would cause an huge outrage within the nation. But, my point is, the Japanese aren't planning at the moment to invade North Korea, neither are they planning to drop an atomic bomb on them. The Japanese aren't very keen on the idea of using violence as the answer to everything, unlike the US. The remarks that you made alledging that I haven't a clue about my country was insulting, especially coming from an American who apparently thinks the Japanese should own nuclear weapons, after what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The point is not whether the usage of such weapons back then in that particular situation was justified or not; the Japanese, being the only country to have been bombed by a nuclear weapon, understand the atrocities first-hand as a country. It is easy for an American to say "Bomb them immediately!", but the Japanese aren't advocating blood-shed to resolving problems or immediate war at the moment.

On your note of the constitution, it was made manditory by the Allies that Japan not have a standing army. It was not decided by them, but by the Allies worrying that Japan may rebuild another army.

Right now they have more of a police force, then an army. They can defend their country, like the Coast Guard could defend the United States. Most of their stuff is Veitnam era U.S. hand -me-down stuff.

I don't think Japan wants to make a standing army for good reasons:

1. The U.S. want Japan as a forward base (though we will be moving alot of our bases out in the next 20 years to either the Philipines, Guam or Australia).

2. U.S pays the Japanese government millions of dollars to rent the land the bases are on.

3. Japan can spend it's tax money on other issues other than the military, which would take millions of dollars (or yen) to catch up.

4. The U.S. service members add to their economy, and pulling out all U.S. military would hurt their economy.

5. Joining the Army in Japan has the same reputation as joining a police force in the U.S. People admire it, but don't really put that much thought into going into it. Not many of Japan's population would join. To make an Army, Japan would probably have to create a draft.

Also, like Leather Girl stated before, they are more against atomic or nuclear warfare than any other country out there. Not to say that other countries are not against it, but the attitude towards it is different than any other country I have been to.

JHC

Thank you for adding additional information. I'm only 18, and I'm not an expert on anything, but I'm glad that the ignorance of the original poster is clear at this point.

So, your 18 and remarking on other people's "ignorance".....

Anyway, I think the good Commrade makes a solid point about even the threat of Japanese nukes pushing China off the fence.

And while it's true I've never been to Japan, my country never had atomic weapons used agaist it, etc., etc., etc., what I do know (as an unfrozen cave man lawyer once said)is that self preservation trumps moralistic posturing every time.

Whatever....I'm not a know-it-all, and of course, I'm young. But what I can tell you is, I'm not one of those idiotic people in my age group who can't pinpoint various countries on a map, or anything of that sort.