NationStates Jolt Archive

That specifically is Article 9, stating that Japan may not wage war other than in self defense, nor must it deploy troops outside of Japan in any offensive action. I find that absurd for a few reasons. First, it leaves Japan's interests weak and unprotected. Every major oil importer, for example, has bases to protect weaker suppliers, including China. But not Japan, which is the world's second largest oil importer.
Secondly, it leaves Japan dependent on the US both militarily and psychologically. They really don't need it. The arrangement worked fine during the Cold War, but not now. Japan is a major economic power. If it chose to, it may be a respectable military power in a couple of years, much like Germany did. As I've said, it may need this.
Thirdly, it is a great counterweight in Asia. While the US would still keep Japan in a nuclear umbrella, Japan might be attacked by North Korea, or maybe even China, in the future, as Japan is rich yet weak. It might even feel threatened by a unified Korea should it come about.
Japan is a mature nation, and it is far from the slave-driving nation it was in the 1940s. The Japanese need to realize this, and let their nation make fully mature decisions.

actually I'd like to see that ammedment passed on all constitutions, a military should only be used for entirely defensive reasons,

and the Japanese are very patriotic and would not hesitate to defend their country

actually I'd like to see that ammedment passed on all constitutions, a military should only be used for entirely defensive reasons,

and the Japanese are very patriotic and would not hesitate to defend their country
It's not even that. It's the right for the Japanese to defend overseas interests. What's my stake in it, might you ask? Well, I'm an American, and I feel that our military babysitting of Japan is silly, as Japan can defend itself.

bump

It's not even that. It's the right for the Japanese to defend overseas interests. What's my stake in it, might you ask? Well, I'm an American, and I feel that our military babysitting of Japan is silly, as Japan can defend itself.
Our military isn't babysitting Japan, they are defending themselves.

Our military isn't babysitting Japan, they are defending themselves.
Actually, we still have a fleet off their coast at all times. We pretty much are baby-sitting them.

Our military isn't babysitting Japan, they are defending themselves.
As Luna Amore pointed out, the US 7th fleet is there. In addition, thousands of US troops are stationed there. I think some will always remain, but do we need so many if Japan was allowed to have a more proactive foreign policy?

Actually, we still have a fleet off their coast at all times. We pretty much are baby-sitting them.
More for dealing with NK then protecting china.

More for dealing with NK then protecting china.
You mean Japan. Even so, they've been their since the occupation.
Ultimately, however, this is beside the point. Japan has yet to fully rearm, and it cannot defend overseas interests. This will be important if Japan wants to hold its own in Asia, as the rest of the continent is growing in power.

The US 7th fleet is stationed off Taiwan in case China ever decides to take the island back. That's really the only threat of Nucelar war right now. Should China invade Taiwan, the 7th fleet is obliged to defend causing war between the US and China. The 7th fleet is not there for Japan.

You mean Japan. Even so, they've been their since the occupation.
Ultimately, however, this is beside the point. Japan has yet to fully rearm, and it cannot defend overseas interests. This will be important if Japan wants to hold its own in Asia, as the rest of the continent is growing in power.
No, I mean china. The Republic of China. Taiwan.

The Japanese are mostly extremely happy with their Constitution. They don't want it changed. Before the 19th century they were traditionally an insular society, they do well with that.

A few things I'd like to point out. Article nine of the Japanese constitution was put in place by the Japanese without American intervention, it was not forced on the, it was requested. Secondly, the Japanese are hardly defenceless and we are no more babysitting them than we are baby sitting Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iceland, Germany, or any other nation that has united states military forces located on it's soil. Japan is a strategic location, if they repeal article nine and build up a military to rival the US in technological might and China in raw man power, the United States would maintain the same presence there. It's strategic, it gives us a foothold into Asia, and short of the Japanese forcibly removing it, it's not going to go anywhere anytime soon. Personaly, I would love to see Japan re-enter the military world, first by reinstating the Samurai, and by bestowing that honor to it's military officers. If Japan picks up the sword again, expect to see China, Russia and North Korea start to bitch. . . why? Asian history. . . damned near all of it consists of Japan getting a big head and counquering portions of Asia. With all the threats they've been throwing around, if Kim Jong Il doesn't wet himself at Japan rearming and remobilizing, then he's as stupid as he is arrogant. Finaly, you forgot the "Baka Gaijin" option for voting, as it's Japan's constitution, and untill you are a citizen of Japan, your oppinion on thier internal matters means exactly nothing.

No, I mean china. The Republic of China. Taiwan.
Oh, that China. I see.

A few things I'd like to point out. Article nine of the Japanese constitution was put in place by the Japanese without American intervention, it was not forced on the, it was requested. Secondly, the Japanese are hardly defenceless and we are no more babysitting them than we are baby sitting Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iceland, Germany, or any other nation that has united states military forces located on it's soil. Japan is a strategic location, if they repeal article nine and build up a military to rival the US in technological might and China in raw man power, the United States would maintain the same presence there. It's strategic, it gives us a foothold into Asia, and short of the Japanese forcibly removing it, it's not going to go anywhere anytime soon. Personaly, I would love to see Japan re-enter the military world, first by reinstating the Samurai, and by bestowing that honor to it's military officers. If Japan picks up the sword again, expect to see China, Russia and North Korea start to bitch. . . why? Asian history. . . damned near all of it consists of Japan getting a big head and counquering portions of Asia. With all the threats they've been throwing around, if Kim Jong Il doesn't wet himself at Japan rearming and remobilizing, then he's as stupid as he is arrogant.

Well no one bitched when Germany rearmed, despite its historic track record. Now, it is an extremely fat chance for Germany to create the Fourth Reich. Japan would be just as unlikely to go back to its warrior days.

Hitler's rein in Germany was the exception, not the rule. He usurped power, the Japanese warrior is a tradition, something so time honored that even the Nazis took it as their model. The German stormtrooper of WWII was supposed to be a German Samurai, pure of blood and honor, a warrior unmatched, and unquestioningly loyal to his Daimyo. I somehow doubt that Japan has forgotten it's honor or it's pride so quickly, and if allowed back into power, the samurai families would undoubtily jump at it. It is simple sociology, the buisness leaders have taken on the Samurai ideals, if allowed a full military then why would they stop short of taking back thier heritage? As I said, unless you are a Japanese citizen, it really doesn't matter what any of us think about it. Also note, there was much bitching about Germany getting it's military back after WWI, after WWII it was occupied and the culture adapted and changed to fit the coming Cold War era. If Germany was our ally and an ally of the West, there was no reason to bitch about it getting its military back after WWII's occupation.

Hitler's rein in Germany was the exception, not the rule. He usurped power, the Japanese warrior is a tradition, something so time honored that even the Nazis took it as their model. The German stormtrooper of WWII was supposed to be a German Samurai, pure of blood and honor, a warrior unmatched, and unquestioningly loyal to his Daimyo. I somehow doubt that Japan has forgotten it's honor or it's pride so quickly, and if allowed back into power, the samurai families would undoubtily jump at it. It is simple sociology, the buisness leaders have taken on the Samurai ideals, if allowed a full military then why would they stop short of taking back thier heritage? As I said, unless you are a Japanese citizen, it really doesn't matter what any of us think about it.
Right. But I can still complain about it.
In any case, Germany was always trouble. Their warrior spirit helped to bring down the Romans. It was home to the Teutonic Order, and Frederick Barbarossa. And most famously, it was home to militant Prussia. Perhaps they lacked the discipline of the Japanese, but hey, it came at some point. Any trace of the warrior spirit in the Germans, I believe, died in the ruins of WWII, and was forgotten after Germany became the world's third largest economy, able to navigate the world peacefully. Those forces also worked in Japan, only stronger. Japan has been almost pacifisct since WWII. In fact, I think that many Japanese would feel fine leaving this article in place.

Right. But I can still complain about it.
In any case, Germany was always trouble. Their warrior spirit helped to bring down the Romans. It was home to the Teutonic Order, and Frederick Barbarossa. And most famously, it was home to militant Prussia. Perhaps they lacked the discipline of the Japanese, but hey, it came at some point. Any trace of the warrior spirit in the Germans, I believe, died in the ruins of WWII, and was forgotten after Germany became the world's third largest economy, able to navigate the world peacefully. Those forces also worked in Japan, only stronger. Japan has been almost pacifisct since WWII. In fact, I think that many Japanese would feel fine leaving this article in place.

Fair enough, and yeah, the Germans have been historicaly bitchy, but they've also been very historicaly a group of followers. A leader would rise and take them to war. Also note that they were crushed because they lost both WWI and WWII, both of which damaged the economic base for war.

I think Japan should rebuild its army so it saves the USA the money and effort... however Japanese re militarization would anger the East Asian nations which still remember Japan's heinous war crimes during WWII and who are still suspicious of Japanese motives. Therefore Japan would win more sympathy if their government first apologizes for its war crimes, dissociate itself from its war criminals like Tojo Hideki (who are currently worshipped as gods in the Shinto religion), and rewrite their school history textbooks to explain WWII (right now Japanese students are not taught WWII history, and many Japanese do not even know who won the war).

That specifically is Article 9, stating that Japan may not wage war other than in self defense, nor must it deploy troops outside of Japan in any offensive action.

Not quite correct.

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Japan/English/english-Constitution.html

As you can see, article 9 is actually much stricter than you suggest. The self-defence and no overseas deployments are due to an interpretation by the Supreme Court.

I find that absurd for a few reasons. First, it leaves Japan's interests weak and unprotected. Every major oil importer, for example, has bases to protect weaker suppliers, including China. But not Japan, which is the world's second largest oil importer.
Secondly, it leaves Japan dependent on the US both militarily and psychologically. They really don't need it. The arrangement worked fine during the Cold War, but not now. Japan is a major economic power. If it chose to, it may be a respectable military power in a couple of years, much like Germany did. As I've said, it may need this.
Thirdly, it is a great counterweight in Asia. While the US would still keep Japan in a nuclear umbrella, Japan might be attacked by North Korea, or maybe even China, in the future, as Japan is rich yet weak. It might even feel threatened by a unified Korea should it come about.
Japan is a mature nation, and it is far from the slave-driving nation it was in the 1940s. The Japanese need to realize this, and let their nation make fully mature decisions.

Good arguments against it. This is why it's been so hotly debated here recently.

A few things I'd like to point out. Article nine of the Japanese constitution was put in place by the Japanese without American intervention, it was not forced on the, it was requested.

True, however it has been suggested that MacArthur's aide Charles Kades suggested it to Prime Minister Shidehara.

Secondly, the Japanese are hardly defenceless and we are no more babysitting them than we are baby sitting Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iceland, Germany, or any other nation that has united states military forces located on it's soil. Japan is a strategic location, if they repeal article nine and build up a military to rival the US in technological might and China in raw man power, the United States would maintain the same presence there. It's strategic, it gives us a foothold into Asia, and short of the Japanese forcibly removing it, it's not going to go anywhere anytime soon.

Article 9 has largely been de facto repealed since the '50s, when the Supreme Court decided that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained" didn't mean the JSDF.
But you are correct about the strategic importance of Japan's location.

Personaly, I would love to see Japan re-enter the military world, first by reinstating the Samurai, and by bestowing that honor to it's military officers.

Doubtful, at best (unless that racist bastard Ishihara becomes PM.)

If Japan picks up the sword again, expect to see China, Russia and North Korea start to bitch. . . why? Asian history. . . damned near all of it consists of Japan getting a big head and counquering portions of Asia. With all the threats they've been throwing around, if Kim Jong Il doesn't wet himself at Japan rearming and remobilizing, then he's as stupid as he is arrogant.

yeah, you're right about Japanese history.

Finaly, you forgot the "Baka Gaijin" option for voting, as it's Japan's constitution, and untill you are a citizen of Japan, your oppinion on thier internal matters means exactly nothing.

True.

The Japanese are mostly extremely happy with their Constitution. They don't want it changed. Before the 19th century they were traditionally an insular society, they do well with that.

True, true, and somewhat untrue.
I know very few people here who are in favor of changing article 9. However , I don't come into much contact with the boys in the big black buses (http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/japan/japan246.html). ;) (Except when they drive by the house with the speakers blairing, like they are doing right now. :mad: ).
Japanese history has had periods of openess, some quite long and others quite short.

I think Japan should rebuild its army so it saves the USA the money and effort... however Japanese re militarization would anger the East Asian nations which still remember Japan's heinous war crimes during WWII and who are still suspicious of Japanese motives.

Chinese nationalism has a lot to do with it as well.

Therefore Japan would win more sympathy if their government first apologizes for its war crimes,

Already been done. (http://www.gainfo.org/SFPT/JapanPMMurayamaApologizesForWWII15Aug1995.htm)

dissociate itself from its war criminals like Tojo Hideki (who are currently worshipped as gods in the Shinto religion),

Sort of correct. The class A war criminals were enshrined at Yasukuni, but not as gods (kami).
http://www.yasukuni.or.jp/english/
The visits by various Japanese PMs are largely for domestic political purposes.

and rewrite their school history textbooks to explain WWII (right now Japanese students are not taught WWII history, and many Japanese do not even know who won the war).

Again, sort of correct. The textbooks skirt around the issue, but pretty much everyone knows that there was a war and that the US won. Why there was a war and the conduct of the war isn't so widely known.

Riiiight... Lessee, Japan repeals its 9th, NK uses that as an excuse to nuke Japan WAY before it can START organizing an army. For starters, it wouldn't work. Ethically, the 9th article is perfect as well, and the less any country spends in military "people", the better.

For some reason no one has mentioned that there are JSDF troops in Iraq. Article 9 doesn't prevent Japan from stationing troops overseas. It doesn't even prevent them from making preemptive attacks, so long as any preemptive strike is done purely for self defense.

Riiiight... Lessee, Japan repeals its 9th, NK uses that as an excuse to nuke Japan WAY before it can START organizing an army. For starters, it wouldn't work. Ethically, the 9th article is perfect as well, and the less any country spends in military "people", the better.

Hmmm... I think members of the JSDF (http://www.cdi.org/issues/Asia/japanmil.html) might be a bit insulted at the suggestion that they aren't organized.
:rolleyes:

For some reason no one has mentioned that there are JSDF troops in Iraq. Article 9 doesn't prevent Japan from stationing troops overseas. It doesn't even prevent them from making preemptive attacks, so long as any preemptive strike is done purely for self defense.

Please re-read article 9. It says nothing of the sort. Yes, the Supreme Court decided it means what you've just said, even though it is quite clear it does not. Welcome to the wonderful world of Japan, in which the law that's written is for face value only. ;)

I think Japan should rebuild its army so it saves the USA the money and effort... however Japanese re militarization would anger the East Asian nations which still remember Japan's heinous war crimes during WWII and who are still suspicious of Japanese motives. Therefore Japan would win more sympathy if their government first apologizes for its war crimes, dissociate itself from its war criminals like Tojo Hideki (who are currently worshipped as gods in the Shinto religion), and rewrite their school history textbooks to explain WWII (right now Japanese students are not taught WWII history, and many Japanese do not even know who won the war).
That'd be quite fair. But the only real road block is psychological. Otherwise, it seems like a great idea.

I think Japan should rebuild its army so it saves the USA the money and effort... however Japanese re militarization would anger the East Asian nations which still remember Japan's heinous war crimes during WWII and who are still suspicious of Japanese motives. Therefore Japan would win more sympathy if their government first apologizes for its war crimes, dissociate itself from its war criminals like Tojo Hideki (who are currently worshipped as gods in the Shinto religion), and rewrite their school history textbooks to explain WWII (right now Japanese students are not taught WWII history, and many Japanese do not even know who won the war).

Are you stupid, or do you have an aversion to reading what I posted? I've specificly and clearly stated several times, that Japan's military might has absolutly NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICA'S PRESENCE THERE. Why did I capitilize this? In the hopes that it trickles through that thick cranium you've got. Asia is strategic, it's got resources, tinpot dictators that need to be smited if they get bitchy, not to mention the fact that it's always nice to be able to have a foothold incase you need to launch a full scale invasion. Not like Bush hasn't been hinting at North Korea being knocked down to size. . .

Look at South Korea, Though they have thier own military force, America still has a rather sizable military presence there.


Riiiight... Lessee, Japan repeals its 9th, NK uses that as an excuse to nuke Japan WAY before it can START organizing an army. For starters, it wouldn't work. Ethically, the 9th article is perfect as well, and the less any country spends in military "people", the better.

Wake up and learn what you think you are talking about. Repealing the 9th amendment would likely just be renaming the Japanese self defence force into the full scale Japanese Military. North Korea knows that if it launches even one balistic missile, that it's screwed. Not just "turned into a glass crater" screwed, "oh shit, china's cut off the oil pipeline keeping us afloat, South Korea and the US are marching in from the south, and all our major cities have been reduced to ruble, and to top it all of, we don't have any more nukes. . . " screwed. North Korea wants nuclear weapons for one reason, and one reason only. . . to keep America from getting itchy trigger fingers and trying to pull an Iraq in south east Asia.

That specifically is Article 9, stating that Japan may not wage war other than in self defense, nor must it deploy troops outside of Japan in any offensive action. I find that absurd for a few reasons. First, it leaves Japan's interests weak and unprotected. Every major oil importer, for example, has bases to protect weaker suppliers, including China. But not Japan, which is the world's second largest oil importer.
Secondly, it leaves Japan dependent on the US both militarily and psychologically. They really don't need it. The arrangement worked fine during the Cold War, but not now. Japan is a major economic power. If it chose to, it may be a respectable military power in a couple of years, much like Germany did. As I've said, it may need this.
Thirdly, it is a great counterweight in Asia. While the US would still keep Japan in a nuclear umbrella, Japan might be attacked by North Korea, or maybe even China, in the future, as Japan is rich yet weak. It might even feel threatened by a unified Korea should it come about.
Japan is a mature nation, and it is far from the slave-driving nation it was in the 1940s. The Japanese need to realize this, and let their nation make fully mature decisions.And yet they are still as xenophobic and aggressive as they were 50 years ago, so no it shouldn't be repeal, but it should be ammended, in such a way that it would allow Japan some freedom but not entire freedom of movement, affer all they have a bad habit of suprise attacks. But America will still remain top dog millitarily so we should use Japan to it's utmost capability.

PS: your wrong America is 1st in import, China is 2nd, and Europe is 3rd as for japan I'm not sure.

And yet they are still as xenophobic and aggressive as they were 50 years ago, so no it shouldn't be repeal, but it should be ammended, in such a way that it would allow Japan some freedom but not entire freedom of movement, affer all they have a bad habit of suprise attacks. But America will still remain top dog millitarily so we should use Japan to it's utmost capability.
I agree that the US will always have a presence there. But I disagree that Japan will somehow be its old self. It's been beaten out of them for the past fifty years, and they have found better ways to advance themselves.
PS: your wrong America is 1st in import, China is 2nd, and Europe is 3rd as for japan I'm not sure.
I knew China was creeping up there, but I wasn't sure if it surpassed Japan yet. In any case, I believe that it is third, as Europe only imports more oil as a continent. There are many countries in Europe as well.

As a Japanese man myself, I have to say that the constitution should NOT and never should be amended. Our self-defense force is fine, but if the constitution is amended ... who knows what might happen?

I can speak for many of my fellow countrymen when I say, NO. We will not have another Hiroshima and Nagasaki on our heads. END OF STORY.

As a Japanese man myself, I have to say that the constitution should NOT and never should be amended. Our self-defense force is fine, but if the constitution is amended ... who knows what might happen?

I can speak for many of my fellow countrymen when I say, NO. We will not have another Hiroshima and Nagasaki on our heads. END OF STORY.
That, however, provides that new military power is used responsibly. You believe that it won't be?

Try having your nation get involved in a war which it sees as perfectly justifiable (The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor partialy in responce to American blocades of Oil and Steel into Japan) having your nation's military decimated, all of your holding overseas conquered and subjugated, your homeland constantly bombed and millions of your citizens dead, then having two of your largest cities attacked with atomic weapons. Maybe then you'll lose your taste for war. The Japanese don't want a military outside of the Self Defence Force, I think Gaijin should respect that and let Japan run it's own affairs.

Try having your nation get involved in a war which it sees as perfectly justifiable (The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor partialy in responce to American blocades of Oil and Steel into Japan) having your nation's military decimated, all of your holding overseas conquered and subjugated, your homeland constantly bombed and millions of your citizens dead, then having two of your largest cities attacked with atomic weapons. Maybe then you'll lose your taste for war. The Japanese don't want a military outside of the Self Defence Force, I think Gaijin should respect that and let Japan run it's own affairs.
I'm not dictating policy to Japan. I'm just voicing what I feel must be done.
But you hit on an important point. The Japanese have lost their taste for war. Now, they can use their military responsibly.

But you hit on an important point. The Japanese have lost their taste for war. Now, they can use their military responsibly.

Which they choose to limit to self-defence. Which is perfectly okay.

The Japanese have dictated that they see the way to use thier military effectivly is to use it only in self defence. The Japanese Self Defence Force isn't like police organizations or even like the National Guard. It is, for all intents and purpouses a military without the ability to wage offencive warfare. If the Japanese don't see a reason to repeal it, and many in Japan do not see any reason, then it should not be repealed. Furthermore, I'm dubious about your reasoning behind Japan needing a military. For the past sixty years they have been fine without a military other than the Self Defence Force, what circumstances exist now that threaten them more than they've been threatened in the past? North Korea is potentialy a nuclear power, but they are not stupid enough to authorize a first strike that they know will spell the end of them. Furthermor, South Korea is more in danger of a nuclear strike that Japan is.

Chinese nationalism has a lot to do with it as well.
I agree that China's nationalism would destabilize the region, that is why I support Japanese rearmament. However Japan's WWII policies, and Japan's refusal to acknowledge them, are themselves truly aggravating for East Asians... every time the PM visits Yasukuni there will always be huge protests in not only CHina but Korea. A large part of Korea's self identity is defined by the experiences of Japanese occupation... their national independence day (from Japan) is always a bitter commemoration with strong anti-Japanese rhetoric (though very often based on exaggeration and lies).

Already been done.

THe Socialist Murayama's apology is rightly seen by most Asians as pointless, because immediately thereafter the Socialist Party was forced by domestic opinion to basically repudiate the apology by introducing many war time symbols (flags, chants, and such) to the schools, and many Socialists had to save their political careers by making the obligatory run to Yasukuni. And the Socialist party is dead today, the xenophobic nationalist LDP is firmly in power, school textbooks are strictly censored, and Yasukuni glorification of war criminals is still state policy. So IMO any credible apology would have to combine with some meaningful reforms of Japanese culture to acknowledge WWII history, and show some true national self reflection.

Are you stupid, or do you have an aversion to reading what I posted? I've specificly and clearly stated several times, that Japan's military might has absolutly NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICA'S PRESENCE THERE. Why did I capitilize this? In the hopes that it trickles through that thick cranium you've got. Asia is strategic, it's got resources, tinpot dictators that need to be smited if they get bitchy, not to mention the fact that it's always nice to be able to have a foothold incase you need to launch a full scale invasion. Not like Bush hasn't been hinting at North Korea being knocked down to size. . .

Look at South Korea, Though they have thier own military force, America still has a rather sizable military presence there.
Hey bitch, don't get so pissy about this, ok? People were having a calm normal conversation in this thread and why did an asshole like you have to jump in with your attitude?

Anyways to the point, East Asian country's military size DIRECTLY CORRELATE with shrinking American presence there. Sure, we will never fully withdraw from East Asia because an American force present is always a good deterrent (an attack on even a skeleton crew can guarantee full scale retalation by the US) but if Japan is allowed to increase her forces, we Americans don't have to station as many of ours there, so as I said it would save us money and effort.

Your point about South Korea proves my argument... In the 50s we had millions of American troops in Korea, in the 60s we had hundreds of thousands, now we have about 40,000 which Donald Rumsfeld is further trying to redeploy outside of Korea. And while we have decreased our presence, South Korea has built its army up from its worthless Korean War era impressed army to today's highly motivated and high quality force of about a million soldiers. Koreas' military might has EVERYTHING TO DO with America's presence, and it will be the same in Japan.

Wake up and learn what you think you are talking about. Repealing the 9th amendment would likely just be renaming the Japanese self defence force into the full scale Japanese Military. North Korea knows that if it launches even one balistic missile, that it's screwed. Not just "turned into a glass crater" screwed, "oh shit, china's cut off the oil pipeline keeping us afloat, South Korea and the US are marching in from the south, and all our major cities have been reduced to ruble, and to top it all of, we don't have any more nukes. . . " screwed. North Korea wants nuclear weapons for one reason, and one reason only. . . to keep America from getting itchy trigger fingers and trying to pull an Iraq in south east Asia.
Anthrus has already made a good point about Japan's armed forces - it's not just about North Korea's nukes. If Japan rebuilds its army it can contain China, in addition, Japan can protect overseas oil interests. Japan is generally pro-Taiwan so Japan, through possessing a respectable military, should definitely have influence over the outcome of any conflict that arises in the Taiwan strait, whether diplomatic or military.

The Japanese have dictated that they see the way to use thier military effectivly is to use it only in self defence. The Japanese Self Defence Force isn't like police organizations or even like the National Guard. It is, for all intents and purpouses a military without the ability to wage offencive warfare. If the Japanese don't see a reason to repeal it, and many in Japan do not see any reason, then it should not be repealed. Furthermore, I'm dubious about your reasoning behind Japan needing a military. For the past sixty years they have been fine without a military other than the Self Defence Force, what circumstances exist now that threaten them more than they've been threatened in the past? North Korea is potentialy a nuclear power, but they are not stupid enough to authorize a first strike that they know will spell the end of them. Furthermor, South Korea is more in danger of a nuclear strike that Japan is.
The threat has changed. Before, the only thing Japan truely needed to worry about was the Soviet Union, and the US handled them for Japan. Now, the threat is different. As we've seen ten years ago, a terrorist attack on Japanese soil has stunning and deadly effects. China is growing in power, and while it may not be agressive, it certainly gives China more influence and leverage in Asia. And if Korea unifies, the combined Korean army will be ten times the size of Japan's, according to Francis Fukuyama. Even the smaller countries to the south are gaining power. This will be too much for the US alone to handle in the region, and the two nation's interests may conflict. So it is imperative that Japan maintains a force that can deploy across Asia.

As a Japanese man myself, I have to say that the constitution should NOT and never should be amended. Our self-defense force is fine, but if the constitution is amended ... who knows what might happen?

I can speak for many of my fellow countrymen when I say, NO. We will not have another Hiroshima and Nagasaki on our heads. END OF STORY.

Anata to onaji o omou.

While I do believe that Japan is a VERY responsible country, much more than militaristic excuses-for-countries, I also believe that EVERY country should have an ammendment like the 9th, and am proud to be from a country that does (Brazil). I admire the Japanese culture and study their language, and the 9th ammendment is the jewel of the Japanese constitution: The proof of the ability of the Japanese to learn from their mistakes and from what militarism brings. The 9th ammendment should not be repealed EVER, what it should be is added to certain countries *coughUSAcough*. Repealing the 9th article would be the same as adding the article "we're willing to kill for no good reason" in the Japanese constitution - even though the Japanese nation is NOT willing to kill for no good reason. But it would give that sorry excuse for a man that is Koizumi (and if Tony Blair is Bush's poodle, Koizumi is Bush's pet tanuki) power to mis-use Japanese resources and manpower AGAIN in the next war some militaristic countries will decide to wage. Hence, I must again show my disgust towards the idea that repealing the 9th would be anything near acceptable, let alone desirable.

I have a positive opinion Article Nine of the Japanese constitution. While I'm uncertain whether it would be appropriate here in America, I have to admire a people who will willingly constrain themselves like that. And, ultimately, it's the decision of the people of Japan how to write their Constitution, and how to interpret it. Therefore, I don't think it;s justified for any American to criticize their Constitution. If it needs to be changed, they can change it themselves.

I don't think it;s justified for any American to criticize their Constitution.

And that's precisely what those non-people called John Bolton and Richard Armitage did.

Why should we make Japan change their constitution? Why don't we just leave? That would force a decision upon the Japanese to either remain a peaceful nation, or take up their guns and start turning into another US. And by that I mean, taking their military out around the world. They can even help the US take over some more countries, like North Korea.

If you missed the sarcasm in that paragraph, shame on you.

Stop thinking we're trying to turn Japan into a mini-US first off. Incidents with China are on the rise. Or did we all happen to miss a Japanese Kongo class Destroyer had to chase out an unidentified Submarine from Japanese Waters not to long ago, and was given permission to sink said submarine if it managed to get a good firing solution?

The U.S. policy in Asia is called a tripwire, 40,000 US troops in Korea wont stop a million plus North Koreans but they can hold ground until more troops form the U.S./Allied Nations arrive. Several thousand troops in Japan wont stop an attack, but it was always generally though they would hold out long enough for ships to arrive with reinforcements from the US,Guam etc etc. Should Article Nine be repealed? Lets wait another five years on the state of the world to see whether or not it should. Even then its a Japanese matter. If they want to repeal Article Nine let them. Its part of their highly valued MacArthur Constitution and more power to them, but the fact that the JSDF is expanding in size is more than proof that the Japanese realize the threat and are taking steps to meet it in some fashion.

Should all countries have an Article Nine proposal? Idealistic at best, plenty of folks dont want, and will never want such a proposal. Look at Africa.If the world played nice and stopped shooting at folks the US wouldnt need to have a large military. Keep in mind the US with a large military is still a rather new thing compared to other nations and their histories(France and Britian to name a few).

As for the gentlemen who said Japan should return to the way of the Samurai and their honor code...do you realize many Japanese committed suicide after WWII rather than admit surrender because of that honor code? That the Japanese gave their gaves in a futile attempt to fight a war already lost? That it was this "honor code" which helped militarists get into power and expliot the population to fight a war of Pacific expansion? That if those same people had their way the Emperor would have been overthrown the night before the surrender was announced and continued the war well on into 1946? Yea, lets bring back the way of the Samurai :rolleyes:

If they want to repeal Article Nine let them.

They don't. Plain and simple, the vast majority of the Japanese population doesn't want it, proof that they learned what militarism is.

Try having your nation get involved in a war which it sees as perfectly justifiable (The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor partialy in responce to American blocades of Oil and Steel into Japan) having your nation's military decimated, all of your holding overseas conquered and subjugated, your homeland constantly bombed and millions of your citizens dead, then having two of your largest cities attacked with atomic weapons. Maybe then you'll lose your taste for war. The Japanese don't want a military outside of the Self Defence Force, I think Gaijin should respect that and let Japan run it's own affairs.

You make it seem as if Japan is the victim in that.

Lets not forget why the US stopped oil and steel shipments. We didnt blockade Japan, we just did what OPEC did to the US in the 70s by not sending them the materials they needed to carry on with their war.

As for their overseas holdings conquered and subjugated...really? What holdings would these be? Most of what Japan lost belonged either to Europe, China, or was going to be independent from the US if it hadnt been for the war(Philippines). Then you got the Home Islands, dont suppose the US was going to leave Japan in that state huh? Subjugation is hardly the word I would use. But yea..after losing as bad as they did in WWII, from achieving almost certain victory in several theaters no wonder they lost their taste for war.

They don't. Plain and simple, the vast majority of the Japanese population doesn't want it, proof that they learned what militarism is.

Like I said, wait five years, and see how the people react to any more "accidental" intrusions upon the home waters by the Chinese.

Well, as fighting such "incursions" is a act of self defence, most Japanese won´t loose any sleep over using their SELF DEFENCE forces to hunt them down.

Well, as fighting such "incursions" is a act of self defence, most Japanese won´t loose any sleep over using their SELF DEFENCE forces to hunt them down.
But there is a greater cause behind these incursions. China is showing Japan that it is the new power in Asia. If Japan rearms, China will think twice about it.

Well, as fighting such "incursions" is a act of self defence, most Japanese won´t loose any sleep over using their SELF DEFENCE forces to hunt them down.

They will if the Chinese take steps to harm Japan outside of what can be considered a self defense interest..not every attack needs to come directly at a person. Warfare itself is not confined to one singular definition.

Like I said, wait five years, and see how the people react to any more "accidental" intrusions upon the home waters by the Chinese.

Japan is a culture that's more than FOUR THOUSAND YEARS OLD. That's about twenty times the age of the US. Five years won't change their ideology, especially considering that they've been near China as an unwelcome neighbor for more than a HUNDRED. They'll not hesitate in using the JSDF if need be, and the people there are smart enough to know that the 9th doesn't prevent SELF-DEFENSE. Of course, the Americans would like nothing more than their tanuki, Junichiro Koizumi, having power to use the JSDF as the US tool. But it won't happen, no matter what Bolton or Armitage whine.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/29/news/china.html

An article I found, the US is deploying more Submarines to the pacific, and on page two it talks about the Chinese submarine which moved through Japanese territorial waters and shadowed a joint US/Japanese fleet conducting exercises.

But there is a greater cause behind these incursions. China is showing Japan that it is the new power in Asia. If Japan rearms, China will think twice about it.

Sure they'll think twice - then they'll go "oh wait! We could prevent them from rearming and threatening US by either economically attacking them or by declaring war to them, lessee, WHICH WILL IT BE?".

Japan is a culture that's more than FOUR THOUSAND YEARS OLD. That's about twenty times the age of the US. Five years won't change their ideology, especially considering that they've been near China as an unwelcome neighbor for more than a HUNDRED. They'll not hesitate in using the JSDF if need be, and the people there are smart enough to know that the 9th doesn't prevent SELF-DEFENSE. Of course, the Americans would like nothing more than their tanuki, Junichiro Koizumi, having power to use the JSDF as the US tool. But it won't happen, no matter what Bolton or Armitage whine.

Four thousand? Whats your point? They've been pacificist for the past 60 years, and it only took them about 5 years of being short of a U.S. commonwealth to accept that fact.

"stating that Japan may not wage war other than in self defense"

Hahaha! That law is useless. You can make ANYTHING "self defense". For Hitler, they were "defending" themselves from the Polish, for Dubya, defending themselves from the terrorists. It's silly.

Japan is a culture that's more than FOUR THOUSAND YEARS OLD. That's about twenty times the age of the US. Five years won't change their ideology, especially considering that they've been near China as an unwelcome neighbor for more than a HUNDRED. They'll not hesitate in using the JSDF if need be, and the people there are smart enough to know that the 9th doesn't prevent SELF-DEFENSE. Of course, the Americans would like nothing more than their tanuki, Junichiro Koizumi, having power to use the JSDF as the US tool. But it won't happen, no matter what Bolton or Armitage whine.
Hey the USA culture is like 4000 yrs old too, its not like our culture suddenly sprang into existence in 1776, the colonists brought the ancient western civilization from Europe. Oh and another thing, Japan has been around China for millions of years, and for most of human history Japan has been China's unwelcome neighbor not the other way around.

"stating that Japan may not wage war other than in self defense"

Hahaha! That law is useless. You can make ANYTHING "self defense". For Hitler, they were "defending" themselves from the Polish, for Dubya, defending themselves from the terrorists. It's silly.
The pacifist movement is extremely strong in Japan, so the 9th article has actually been more or less strictly enforced to the letter and to the spirit of the law.

Sure they'll think twice - then they'll go "oh wait! We could prevent them from rearming and threatening US by either economically attacking them or by declaring war to them, lessee, WHICH WILL IT BE?".

Economic factors dont always prevent war, and who knows what the Chinese military might do to obtain status as a superpower? A top Chinese military offical said a handful of years ago that the only thing stopping the Chinese from being a Superpower was the U.S. being in the way. Five years can go along way..look what September 11th did to the U.S.

Edit:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T230287.htm

They may not be repealing it, but they sure as heck are changing and expanding it. Like I said earlier, they are modifing the JSDF to suit their needs and in five years should those needs change they will probably adapt to that as well.

Economic factors dont always prevent war, and who knows what the Chinese military might do to obtain status as a superpower? A top Chinese military offical said a handful of years ago that the only thing stopping the Chinese from being a Superpower was the U.S. being in the way. Five years can go along way..look what September 11th did to the U.S.

Edit:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T230287.htm

They may not be repealing it, but they sure as heck are changing and expanding it. Like I said earlier, they are modifing the JSDF to suit their needs and in five years should those needs change they will probably adapt to that as well.

Unlike the US, Japan has learned via two atomic bombs not to launch wars unprovoked.

Four thousand? Whats your point? They've been pacificist for the past 60 years, and it only took them about 5 years of being short of a U.S. commonwealth to accept that fact.

The 9th was proposed by the Japanese themselves. They learned by themselves the result of military action.

The 9th was proposed by the Japanese themselves. They learned by themselves the result of military action.

Yes but most evidence suggest that it was proposed by the government in power. That being the U.S. which didnt want to fight the same war twenty years later(as Roosevelt put it). Of course as the Cold War came into effect this turn became a bad idea and we ended up rearming the Germans and asking the Japanese to take up arms as well once more.

And stopping bringing the U.S. into this. If anything we want Japan to increase the JSDF so that we dont need to keep a CVBG at Yokohama anymore.

But you contradict yourself with your own statement..they went against 4,000 years of history for pacifism in about 3 years of occupation. A rather large minority couldnt even consider to surrender in 1945. And the rest still believed the Emperor when they said they were defeating the Americans.

They should repeal it, since Japan should be able to have a powerful military force to protect its interests. Also, what kind of army is it that will only sit and repel attacks? You can never win a war by being purely defensive.

What I think is REALLY funny is that.....
Japan has the Heavy Support Vehicle.

Heavy Support Vehicle = M1 Abrams.

Support Bomber

I think thats the F-15 Strike Eagle.

They should repeal it, since Japan should be able to have a powerful military force to protect its interests. Also, what kind of army is it that will only sit and repel attacks? You can never win a war by being purely defensive.

It's not "staying on the defense", it's "going to war only if there's an ACTUAL threat".

It's not "staying on the defense", it's "going to war only if there's an ACTUAL threat".
And under the current constitution, it can only confront threats near or at the homeland. Besides, I also believe that a military is needed to deter threats.

And under the current constitution, it can only confront threats near or at the homeland.

Because Japan has that many colonies?

Besides, I also believe that a military is needed to deter threats.

Funny, that's what NK says about the atomic bombs. An eye for an eye will get everyone blind. A military is not needed for anything.

Funny, that's what NK says about the atomic bombs. An eye for an eye will get everyone blind. A military is not needed for anything.
So this is a differing of ideaologies, I see. Well, fine. Believe what you want. But let me tell you that this vision is distant from reality.

So this is a differing of ideaologies, I see. Well, fine. Believe what you want. But let me tell you that this vision is distant from reality.

Reality is, 85% of the Japanese people are against repealing the 9th.

Reality is, 85% of the Japanese people are against repealing the 9th.
Well, they need to reconsider. All they really have to do is wait for a few more incursions by China and North Korea, and a nice attack on their oil interests in the Middle East (which will trigger an energy shortage in Japan, no doubt). Hey, it's even possible that a terror cell might attack, just like domestic terrorists did in 1994 and 1995.

Well, they need to reconsider.

No, they don't. And it's not your place to tell them what to do, at least until Bush's little god raises from the dead the 100,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS that were murdered in this war for WMDs that WEREN'T THERE, all because the US has no self-defense ammendment in THEIR constitution.

All they really have to do is wait for a few more incursions by China and North Korea, and a nice attack on their oil interests in the Middle East (which will trigger an energy shortage in Japan, no doubt). Hey, it's even possible that a terror cell might attack, just like domestic terrorists did in 1994 and 1995.

Japan's energy is mostly nuclear. China and North Korea won't ACTUALLY attack Japan unless they want themselves and the world obliterated, and repealing the 9th would only give China and NK an excuse. The domestic terrorists were caught. Bin Laden, that attacked the US, is still at large after the US attacked Iraq (curious, Iraq had NOTHING with Al Qaeda whatsoever) with no provocation. Who's successful again? Japan has a SELF DEFENSE force, which means they'll attack terrorists if they are attacked - and which brings me to the reason Japan was NOT attacked: Japan never attacked people unprovoked ever since WWII. The US did. Did so in Vietnam (pretty picture there. What was it? 57,000 dead drones?) , did so in Afghanistan (helping and CIA-training Bin Laden? Gee, that worked out well), helped Saddam Hussein to power (Quite a statesman, isn't he? Unlike that Salvador Allende that the CIA deposed in favor of a certain Augusto Pinochet, that murdered thousands in Chile.). And the list goes on. Japan and Brazil have both a policy of not using their military for idiotic or evil purposes. And neither has been involved in any conflict since WWII. Do the maths.

More for dealing with NK then protecting Japan.
No, there are 38,000 military personnel in South Korea for that.

More for dealing with NK then protecting Japan.
No, there are 38,000 American military personnel in South Korea for that.

An eye for an eye will get everyone blind.
At what point did you think quoting a half-naked, toilet-carrying heathen would help your argument?

At what point did you think quoting a half-naked, toilet-carrying heathen would help your argument?

At about the same point that I realized that someone that calls Mahatma Ghandi a half-naked, toilet-carrying heathen is either too stupid to make a decent argument in a challenge or too violent to give a damn about human lives. The "half-naked, toilet-carrying heathen" you're talking about simply LIBERATED INDIA PEACEFULLY, something which does not seem to be in your vocabulary.

No, they don't. And it's not your place to tell them what to do, at least until Bush's little god raises from the dead the 100,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS that were murdered in this war for WMDs that WEREN'T THERE, all because the US has no self-defense ammendment in THEIR constitution.



Japan's energy is mostly nuclear. China and North Korea won't ACTUALLY attack Japan unless they want themselves and the world obliterated, and repealing the 9th would only give China and NK an excuse. The domestic terrorists were caught. Bin Laden, that attacked the US, is still at large after the US attacked Iraq (curious, Iraq had NOTHING with Al Qaeda whatsoever) with no provocation. Who's successful again? Japan has a SELF DEFENSE force, which means they'll attack terrorists if they are attacked - and which brings me to the reason Japan was NOT attacked: Japan never attacked people unprovoked ever since WWII. The US did. Did so in Vietnam (pretty picture there. What was it? 57,000 dead drones?) , did so in Afghanistan (helping and CIA-training Bin Laden? Gee, that worked out well), helped Saddam Hussein to power (Quite a statesman, isn't he? Unlike that Salvador Allende that the CIA deposed in favor of a certain Augusto Pinochet, that murdered thousands in Chile.). And the list goes on. Japan and Brazil have both a policy of not using their military for idiotic or evil purposes. And neither has been involved in any conflict since WWII. Do the maths.

And all that time the US military was the de facto military force of Japan. It isn't so much anymore, but it certainly was during the Korean and Vietnam war. In addition, Japan staunchly backed the US, and often shared the same interests. Japan is famous for its checkbook foreign policy, which had the same objectives that the US did.
No, that was not the reason Japan wasn't attacked. Japan has never been attacked because a.) there was no strong naval presence in Asia that could attack Japan, until now, b.) it is not as sexy of a target for terrorists as the US or Europe is, and c.) the US protected it from the Soviet Union when it existed.
Times are changing. The Northeast Asian area isn't as important to US foreign policy as it once was (meaning less troops in Japan and Korea), the Chinese, Koreans, Thais, and Philipinos are getting more powerful, Japan has global economic interests, and terrorists can strike anywhere. In fact, one deleted section of the Sept. 11th plan was to hijack planes in East Asia. It was too difficult for them to coordinate such a large operation, but they could have done it separately. In any case, there are a plethora of reasons that Japan needs to be more proactive abroad. It can't rely solely on the checkbook anymore.

100,000? Thats a very liberal number. The amount varies and no one will truely know how many died. But 100,000 is a very liberal number especially when some of those very counts consider suicide bombers targeting civilians only. And acts carried out against the population by the insurgents.

As for your other points:
Umm..so Vietnam we attacked an innocent country? North Vietnam for supplying the VC? Or maybe Laos and Cambodia who allowed the NV to walk right on through into South Vietnam.

As for Afganistan, the US didnt really invade in the 1980s did it? Not to mention we were paying the Soviets back for Vietnam and Korea. Lets not forget who flew the MiG-15s in Korea, and who gave the SAMs in Vietnam.(One of the reasons why the Chinese fought with the Vietnamese in the mid 70s.)

As for Saddam Hussien, okay whats your point? He was more cosy with the Soviets than the U.S. As if things countries do dont come back to haunt them.

As for Bin Laden, I'm sorry, do you have a crystal ball you've been keeping from the world that we should all know about? Did you know Bin Laden would turn out the way he did? Because if you knew about it that kinda makes you implicit in murder.

And Pinochet is a toss up question..3,000 dead over 10 years versus Chile being a modern economy that didnt become a basketcase nation with a horrid economy. Knowing a few Chileans they werent exactly displeased with what Pinochet did to keep the country from falling into anarchy. Heck he could have been one of those dictators who loots a country for his own will, but instead he modernized the nations economy and they've managed to continue to be an economic power while their neighbors go to hell.

Also none of those examples you gave even remotely constitute invasions. Vietnam was a defense, Bin Laden and Pinochet were CIA subversive acts to stiff the Soviet Union.

there are a plethora of reasons that Japan needs to be more proactive abroad. It can't rely solely on the checkbook anymore.

Again: Their decision. Not yours. And Iraq is proof that proactiveness has nothing to do with accuracy. Japan happens to have the largest navy in east Asia. They don't need to be trigger-happy to feel respected, and they surely don't need it to save themselves. The terrorists won't attack it because Japan has an intelligence that WORKS. Or you think a country that has a reactive ideology won't be A LOT more vigilant? Japan HAS a military spending, which is invested in making it able to defend itself should a threat arise - not able to obliterate fictional enemies that have imaginary WMDs at the push of a button for no reason.

At about the same point that I realized that someone that calls Mahatma Ghandi a half-naked, toilet-carrying heathen is either too stupid to make a decent argument in a challenge or too violent to give a damn about human lives. The "half-naked, toilet-carrying heathen" you're talking about simply LIBERATED INDIA PEACEFULLY, something which does not seem to be in your vocabulary.

It was peaceful because of who he had to deal with. The British were stretched thin after WWII and in no condition to fight another war over India. Heck it was just too expensive to maintain the Empire anymore. There are many reasons why Ghandi was successful, being peaceful wasnt exactly one of them. Ho Chi Ming tried to be peaceful with the French..and ended up fighting a massive civil war in South East Asia.

Lets not forget the countless African countries who had to fight for their independence as "peaceful" solutions in the 60s didnt work for them. You can point out one fluke example all you want, but that exception is not the rule. Not when you account for human history.

The terrorists won't attack it because Japan really isn't a target.Fixed.

And I find it dubious, at best, that Japan has the largest navy in East Asia. Got any links to back that up?

Again: Their decision. Not yours. And Iraq is proof that proactiveness has nothing to do with accuracy. Japan happens to have the largest navy in east Asia. They don't need to be trigger-happy to feel respected, and they surely don't need it to save themselves. The terrorists won't attack it because Japan has an intelligence that WORKS. Or you think a country that has a reactive ideology won't be A LOT more vigilant? Japan HAS a military spending, which is invested in making it able to defend itself should a threat arise - not able to obliterate fictional enemies that have imaginary WMDs at the push of a button for no reason.
I'm not debating US policy here. I'm debating about Japan's. Japan needs an adequate detterant that they can deploy outside the country. If it makes you feel happy, they probably will only deploy to waters around Asia, and maybe a few troops in South Korea (plus a base or two in the Middle East and Central Asia).

100,000? Thats a very liberal number.

Gee, so let's assume it was 20,000. What's wrong, not ENOUGH dead people for you to regret it?

As for Afganistan, the US didnt really invade in the 1980s did it? Not to mention we were paying the Soviets back for Vietnam and Korea.

Gee, so you feel justified in involving a THIRD country into a two-country conflict? Very noble, makes me wish the US was weaker and Mexico and Canada were at war.

As for Bin Laden, I'm sorry, do you have a crystal ball you've been keeping from the world that we should all know about? Did you know Bin Laden would turn out the way he did? Because if you knew about it that kinda makes you implicit in murder.

Yeah, extremist muslim that wanted a theocracy of fundamentalist islam - and the CIA KNEW it - and got into power in a place with no democratic tradition, it had EVERYTHING to work out well!

And Pinochet is a toss up question..3,000 dead over 10 years versus Chile being a modern economy that didnt become a basketcase nation with a horrid economy.

Allende was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. As was João Goulart, in MY COUNTRY, before IT BECAME A DICTATORSHIP! What's the matter, not feeling like so much of a "liberator" anymore?

Again: Their decision. Not yours. And Iraq is proof that proactiveness has nothing to do with accuracy. Japan happens to have the largest navy in east Asia. They don't need to be trigger-happy to feel respected, and they surely don't need it to save themselves. The terrorists won't attack it because Japan has an intelligence that WORKS. Or you think a country that has a reactive ideology won't be A LOT more vigilant? Japan HAS a military spending, which is invested in making it able to defend itself should a threat arise - not able to obliterate fictional enemies that have imaginary WMDs at the push of a button for no reason.

China has fictional WMDs? North Korea(We hope they have fictional WMDs)? The threats are there. Ignore them if you will. Neither the Chinese, nor the North Koreans have any love for Japan...long stemming hatred for all the imperialism in the 20th century. And neither would shed a tear if China became the big dog on the planet. Especially with the fact that China props up North Korea..but whatever..this is all hypothetical and opinions anyway. It could be in five years, it could be in ten years. It could be never that China decides to flex its military muscle on someone. Should it be Taiwan, will Japan sit back and watch and wonder if they are next? Will Japan sit back and lose a trade part as another one rushes off to defend Taiwan?

Consider it like this...it used to be the entirety of the population 90+% which considered Article Nine to be important..that number has changed has it not? As time goes on and China gets stronger and increases the number of its submarines to the point of surpassing what the U.S. has in the Pacific then how long do you think it will stay in the 80s? A time will come when folks think Article 9 is a hinderance to the military and its ability to protect Japan. Its one thing to defend the homeland its another to be able to defend its interests outside of the homeland.

I'm not debating US policy here. I'm debating about Japan's. Japan needs an adequate detterant that they can deploy outside the country. If it makes you feel happy, they probably will only deploy to waters around Asia, and maybe a few troops in South Korea (plus a base or two in the Middle East and Central Asia).

They won't repeal the 9th. Would be political suicide for politicians to do it. And they HAVE a deterrent, named the JSDF, that CAN attack even in case of iminent threat - ACTUAL iminent threat, if you know what that means.

They won't repeal the 9th. Would be political suicide for politicians to do it. And they HAVE a deterrent, named the JSDF, that CAN attack even in case of iminent threat - ACTUAL iminent threat, if you know what that means.
At the moment, it would be political suicide. But I don't think it will be forever. At its current state, Japan's good security is unsustainable.

The simple fact that you called a diplomatic leader, one that's recognized worldwide as one of mankind's best, a "heathen" as an attempt to discredit me is enough of a reason for me to believe you're not a worthy opponent in an argument.

At the moment, it would be political suicide. But I don't think it will be forever. At its current state, Japan's good security is unsustainable.

And after the rising bloodcount in Iraq for nothing you think they learned nothing of US's horrid mistake?

And after the rising bloodcount in Iraq for nothing you think they learned nothing of US's horrid mistake?
That's the US. Japan can do whatever it wishes with its military, though mostly for defence in the near abroad.

Consider it like this...it used to be the entirety of the population 90+% which considered Article Nine to be important..that number has changed has it not? As time goes on and China gets stronger and increases the number of its submarines to the point of surpassing what the U.S. has in the Pacific then how long do you think it will stay in the 80s? A time will come when folks think Article 9 is a hinderance to the military and its ability to protect Japan. Its one thing to defend the homeland its another to be able to defend its interests outside of the homeland.

Japan will ALWAYS be important for the US, if nothing as a strategic point. Or you think the US will simply fade into nothingness and not be a force in the world when China grows?

That's the US. Japan can do whatever it wishes with its military, though mostly for defence in the near abroad.

And that, they can do under the 9th Ammendment. Repealing it would be seen by NK as tantamount to a war declaration. It would be an excuse. Plain and simple.

And that, they can do under the 9th Ammendment. Repealing it would be seen by NK as tantamount to a war declaration. It would be an excuse. Plain and simple.
So then, let's take a hypothetical. Suppose the North Korean regime collapses suddenly, and Korea is unified. Would your position change at all?

Gee, so let's assume it was 20,000. What's wrong, not ENOUGH dead people for you to regret it?
Get a grip, civilians die in war. 10,000 died in the first week of Normandy alone. I'm not saying war is good. I'm saying dont inflate numbers for your own point.It happens in war, its regretable all the time, but I take some solice in that we dont purposely go out round civilians against a wall and shoot them.


Gee, so you feel justified in involving a THIRD country into a two-country conflict? Very noble, makes me wish the US was weaker and Mexico and Canada were at war.
Which conflict? Vietnam? Try fourth and fifth, who do you think trained the NVA? Who do you think supplied the SAMs, and MiGs they used? Why do you think we never mined Haiphong harbor? Or attacked SAM Sites while they were being constructed? Vietnam could have been won in 2 years if Johnson hadnt been afraid of killing Soviet and Chinese military advisors directly.

Or were you talking about Afganistan? If I wasnt mistaken the people overthrew the communist Afgani government and the Soviets moved in to restore the communist government. So it was already a two party conflict, and the Soviets threw their hat into the ring.




Yeah, extremist muslim that wanted a theocracy of fundamentalist islam - and the CIA KNEW it - and got into power in a place with no democratic tradition, it had EVERYTHING to work out well!

Popular misconception there. The mujahadeen wasnt made up entirely of muslim extremists. They became extremists when they were abandoned by the U.S. A mistake on our part we do not wish to repeat. So stop with the ad hoc attacks.


Allende was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. As was João Goulart, in MY COUNTRY, before IT BECAME A DICTATORSHIP! What's the matter, not feeling like so much of a "liberator" anymore?

Stop putting words in my mouth and give me a chance to at least respond before you try to berate me any my countries actions :rolleyes: Allende would have turned Chile communist..and looking at other communist countries of that decade give me a break. Pol Pot killed how many in less time than Pinochet? And correction..3,000 over 20 years. Thats about 150 people a year, give me a flipping break. I dont agree with the deaths and I dont agree with the methods but as far as tyrants go he was mediocore at best. He improved the nations economy, got a new constitution in place, willfully transfered power over and everything..

So then, let's take a hypothetical. Suppose the North Korean regime collapses suddenly, and Korea is unified. Would your position change at all?

Let's see: Korea is the new deterrent against an attack from China on Japan; Japan has no reason to worry about Korea, ergo doesn't need to even THINK of going trigger-happy. China, like Korea, would see repealing the 9th as a declaration of war. Meaning, it would reinforce my position.

Popular misconception there. The mujahadeen wasnt made up entirely of muslim extremists. They became extremists when they were abandoned by the U.S. A mistake on our part we do not wish to repeat. So stop with the ad hoc attacks.

The mistake was starting a war to begin with.

Stop putting words in my mouth and give me a chance to at least respond before you try to berate me any my countries actions :rolleyes: Allende would have turned Chile communist..

Communist, not socialist. Pinochet was a DICTATOR!!! The CIA overthrew an ELECTED president. E-LEC-TED!!!

and looking at other communist countries of that decade give me a break. Pol Pot killed how many in less time than Pinochet? And correction..3,000 over 20 years. Thats about 150 people a year, give me a flipping break. I dont agree with the deaths and I dont agree with the methods but as far as tyrants go he was mediocore at best. He improved the nations economy, got a new constitution in place, willfully transfered power over and everything..

How NICE of him to willfully transfer power that WAS NOT HIS TO HAVE! After killing THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE! Really, HOW FRICKING NICE! I live in South America. In Brazil, a country that ALSO had a CIA-backed dictatorship. But you won't EVER know what a military dictatorship feels like. You know, like the ones the CIA helped install. By the way, Allende was PEACEFUL. Nice going.

The mistake was starting a war to begin with.
But you fail to realize...we didnt start the damn war. What part of that are you failing to comprehend? The communist government was overthrow and the Soviets intervined, and the U.S. decided if the Soviets were going to think Afganistan was going to be another Hungary they were sorely mistaken.



Communist, not socialist. Pinochet was a DICTATOR!!! The CIA overthrew an ELECTED president. E-LEC-TED!!!
Prove it, prove it with actual facts and not an anti-US website. The CIA plotted to overthrow Allende in 1970, not 1973. There is proof the US knew of the coup two days before it happened but said nothing. Nor would they have said anything to help someone who was incomingly becoming a dictator himself simply because the Chilean Senate didnt pass all of his radical reforms.


How NICE of him to willfully transfer power that WAS NOT HIS TO HAVE! After killing THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE! Really, HOW FRICKING NICE! I live in South America. In Brazil, a country that ALSO had a CIA-backed dictatorship. But you won't EVER know what a military dictatorship feels like. You know, like the ones the CIA helped install. By the way, Allende was PEACEFUL. Nice going.

If I'm not mistaken, the Chilean Senate asked the military to restore order in the country. Or were the major strikes which took place by the middle class workers calling for Allendes resignation fabricated by CIA intelligence? As for not knowing what a dictatorship is like...amazing..you forget the U.S. is a land of immigrants. But we must all be white imperialists to you huh?

As for Brazil, give me a break, go bitch to Russia about the countries they fucked up as well. The U.S. isnt the only nation to meddle in the affairs of others and it wont be the last. Dont like it? To bad. Stop bringing up the fringe, first you try and say the US invaded several countries, and all you've been able to prove is that the CIA was at one point not nearly as inept as it was throughout the 90s.

But you fail to realize...we didnt start the damn war. What part of that are you failing to comprehend? The communist government was overthrow and the Soviets intervined, and the U.S. decided if the Soviets were going to think Afganistan was going to be another Hungary they were sorely mistaken.

As for Brazil, give me a break, go bitch to Russia about the countries they fucked up as well. The U.S. isnt the only nation to meddle in the affairs of others and it wont be the last. Dont like it? To bad. Stop bringing up the fringe, first you try and say the US invaded several countries, and all you've been able to prove is that the CIA was at one point not nearly as inept as it was throughout the 90s.

I'll condemn whatever nation I want for fucking up MY country, and guess who did it, the US. Regardless, the US ATTACKED a defenseless, WMD-less nation. In 2003. For no good reason. Without being attacked. Resulting in death. Meaningless, IRREVERSIBLE death. Of soldiers and of actual people. Which is why the US should have an article like the 9th, as should all countries.

I'll condemn whatever nation I want for fucking up MY country, and guess who did it, the US. Regardless, the US ATTACKED a defenseless, WMD-less nation. In 2003. For no good reason. Without being attacked. Resulting in death. Meaningless, IRREVERSIBLE death. Of soldiers and of actual people. Which is why the US should have an article like the 9th, as should all countries.

AMAZING! You jumped from one arguement to another and didnt back anything with a single fact. I came to grips with what the U.S. did but you have gone from as far back as Vietnam, back to Iraq, on an issue not even directly related to the Japanese and whether or not in the FUTURE as I've said, the role of article nine will no longer be needed because of other circumstances in the world.

Your an idealist, commendable really. But blind to humanity. You try and impose an Article Nine in Africa and see how far you get. Look throughout human history, the US prior to both WWs had what can be considered article nine militaries, defending itself and its meager interest here and there but never really on the offensive anywhere..and where did that leave the US? Ill-equipped to fight two major wars. After WWII the US once again cut its military and where did that leave the US? Fighting for the life of South Korea at the Pusan perimeter.

As for the WMD issue, get a grip, thats not the topic of this discussion, you dont know what Bush knew. I dont know what Bush knew. I dont know if he's lying or not, and neither do you. Evidence can be produced to show that he had stuff he shouldnt have and likewise it can be proved to show it didnt. Again, if you had a crystalball capable of looking into the future you should have told people not to pay attention to the UNSCOM reports and Hussiens previous attempts at hiding his WMDs throughout the majority of the 90s until he kicked the UN out in 98.

AMAZING! You jumped from one arguement to another and didnt back anything with a single fact. I came to grips with what the U.S. did but you have gone from as far back as Vietnam, back to Iraq, on an issue not even directly related to the Japanese and whether or not in the FUTURE as I've said, the role of article nine will no longer be needed because of other circumstances in the world. Your an idealist, commendable really. But blind to humanity. You try and impose an Article Nine in Africa and see how far you get.

Japan is not Africa, it's evolved enough to have a 9th.

As for the WMD issue, get a grip, thats not the topic of this discussion, you dont know what Bush knew. I dont know what Bush knew. I dont know if he's lying or not, and neither do you. Evidence can be produced to show that he had stuff he shouldnt have and likewise it can be proved to show it didnt. Again, if you had a crystalball capable of looking into the future you should have told people not to pay attention to the UNSCOM reports and Hussiens previous attempts at hiding his WMDs throughout the majority of the 90s until he kicked the UN out in 98.

No run-up for war would have ever happened if the US had an ammendment like the 9th, now would it?

Japan is not Africa, it's evolved enough to have a 9th. Oh my god...I wont even begin to call you a racist for that one..oops already did.



No run-up for war would have ever happened if the US had an ammendment like the 9th, now would it?

Amazing by this definition, forget U.S. citizens taken hostage by Manuel Noriega. Forget the middle east, Jewish people? Homeland? Whats that to them? All the worlds problems would still exist..the only country that does anything about it though wouldnt exist though.

The US could never sustain an article nine, simply because that would preclude the U.S. from a good majority of peacekeeping roles. Who do you suppose would take over the role of that?

Oh my god...I wont even begin to call you a racist for that one..oops already did.

You know fully well what I meant. Ideologically evolved. And if it helps diffuse the "racism" remark, the US isn't evolved enough to have a 9th either.

Amazing by this definition, forget U.S. citizens taken hostage by Manuel Noriega. Forget the middle east, Jewish people? Homeland? Whats that to them? All the worlds problems would still exist..the only country that does anything about it though wouldnt exist though.

The US could never sustain an article nine, simply because that would preclude the U.S. from a good majority of peacekeeping roles. Who do you suppose would take over the role of that?

Japan has peacekeepers protected by article 9.

You are a bigot of the lowest calibur.

You also have no idea what Saddam or his cronies managed to sneak out of the country during the war. Or what is hidden in the miles and miles of desert. Basic chemical weapons HAVE been found. WMD delivery systems HAVE been found. Which, by the way, were ILLEGAL for Iraq to have as per the UN resolutions.

I've noticed that you also seem to like playing as if nothing was said when you were proven utterly wrong.

You know fully well what I meant. Ideologically evolved.

Oops my crystalball must be broken :rolleyes: There are plenty of countries which arent 'ideologically' evolved enough for an article nine..and do you want to know what would happen? Consider it a different New World Order. And a much nastier one at that.


Japan has peacekeepers protected by article 9.

Care to explain to me then why then Indonesia was their biggest deployment since WWII and why before Iraq they never deployed anywhere else?

You are a bigot of the lowest calibur.

You also have no idea what Saddam or his cronies managed to sneak out of the country during the war. Or what is hidden in the miles and miles of desert. Basic chemical weapons HAVE been found. WMD delivery systems HAVE been found. Which, by the way, were ILLEGAL for Iraq to have as per the UN resolutions.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

I've noticed that you also seem to like playing as if nothing was said when you were proven utterly wrong.

You don't seem to have a problem with your president doing it.

Oops my crystalball must be broken :rolleyes: There are plenty of countries which arent 'ideologically' evolved enough for an article nine..and do you want to know what would happen? Consider it a different New World Order. And a much nastier one at that.

A world in which no country attacks unless attacked first? Wow, how horrible.

Care to explain to me then why then Indonesia was their biggest deployment since WWII and why before Iraq they never deployed anywhere else?

They were - as part of the UN peacekeepers.

You don't seem to have a problem with your president doing it.

Amazing, you've been arguing how the US deserves no special treatment or anything and we should have an article nine and stuff, and yet you think we should afford you some special tratment? You arent the president last time I checked so if you want to argue try not to jump from point to point. You arent Jack Johnson, you arent Mohammed Ali, and you arent Evander Hollyfield. Dodging attacks in an arguement doesnt mean you win the fight.

Amazing, you've been arguing how the US deserves no special treatment or anything and we should have an article nine and stuff, and yet you think we should afford you some special tratment? You arent the president last time I checked so if you want to argue try not to jump from point to point. You arent Jack Johnson, you arent Mohammed Ali, and you arent Evander Hollyfield. Dodging attacks in an arguement doesnt mean you win the fight.

Because his style which consists of solely ad hominem attacks is very good to win an argument? There were no WMDs, plain and simple. Bush refuses to apologize for the lives he took. If there WERE an article 9 in the US constitution, the whole useless bloodbath would not have happened.

A world in which no country attacks unless attacked first? Wow, how horrible.
Ya know...they tried this with the League of Nations...there is something inherently flawed with humans. You typically get the bad seed every couple of decades who declares war on the planet for sake of global domination. So every country gets an article nine, and when someone decides to pick off another country one by one who comes to their assistance?



They were - as part of the UN peacekeepers.

I'm sorry the U.N has had how many other peacekeeping operations between its inception and today?

Also it isnt a UN Peacekeeping operation. Its a humanitarian relief operation, the military forces which are deployed are being coordinated outside of the UN, unless it directly relates to something the U.N. requested(helicopters,planes) however there is no overall UN Commander for this and thus its not a peacekeeping operation. Care to try again?

Because his style which consists of solely ad hominem attacks is very good to win an argument? There were no WMDs, plain and simple. Bush refuses to apologize for the lives he took. If there WERE an article 9 in the US constitution, the whole useless bloodbath would not have happened.

I was more or less refering to my arguements which you seemed to drop your own after confronted.

I was more or less refering to my arguements which you seemed to drop your own after confronted.

Conversely, you are yet to either explain what good did the lack of an article 9 did to the Iraqis that are now dead due to the search for the WMDs that WEREN'T or concede that they'd be a little more ALIVE if the US had said article. Which proves that Japan should not repeal it.

Conversely, you are yet to either explain what good did the lack of an article 9 did to the Iraqis that are now dead due to the search for the WMDs that WEREN'T.

Go back to the post before that and try answering my question on the lack of Indonesia not being a peacekeeper operation.

Again, could you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt pre-2003 that Iraq had no WMDs? That Iraq was in complete compliance with about seven different UN resolutions passed from 91-98? Shit even Clinton attacked Iraq in 98.

Go back to the post before that and try answering my question on the lack of Indonesia not being a peacekeeper operation.

What's your point? They didn't fire a shot there.

Again, could you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt pre-2003 that Iraq had no WMDs? That Iraq was in complete compliance with about seven different UN resolutions passed from 91-98? Shit even Clinton attacked Iraq in 98.

The US GOVERNMENT admitted that no WMDs were found. There WAS NO THREAT in Iraq. And now people are dead. Well, people and soldiers.

What's your point? They didn't fire a shot there.

Then they arent peacekeepers now are they? Doesnt that fly in the face of Article Nine?


The US GOVERNMENT admitted that no WMDs were found. There WAS NO THREAT in Iraq. And now people are dead. Well, people and soldiers.

Okay thats nice, get that out of the way..what would you like to be done about it? :rolleyes: Any twit can read the paper, try giving a plausable solution.

Then they arent peacekeepers now are they? Doesnt that fly in the face of Article Nine?

Considering that they fired no shot there and were seemingly accepted by Indonesia - unless countries stopped firing at invaders when being invaded - it was NOT a war operation.

Okay thats nice, get that out of the way..what would you like to be done about it? :rolleyes: Any twit can read the paper, try giving a plausable solution.

1-Bush admitting he was wrong and apologizing.
2-The American population learning about the value of self-defense, as opposed to wars for free.

Oh, wait, plausible? Neither of them, because Bush is a megalomaniac that believes his god is leading him and the American people still believe that violence solves things.

I gotta go to bed. I'll keep it on tomorrow.

Let's see: Korea is the new deterrent against an attack from China on Japan; Japan has no reason to worry about Korea, ergo doesn't need to even THINK of going trigger-happy. China, like Korea, would see repealing the 9th as a declaration of war. Meaning, it would reinforce my position.
First off, it's not trigger-happiness. Secondly, China would not declare war. Why? Because Japan and China are very interconnected societies. They need eachother to survive. War is obviously possible, but Article 9 being repealed is not a likely trigger. It's merely an excuse for China to groan.
As for the peacekeepers you mentioned, it is fuzzy whether or not they are allowed in Article 9. It can be interpreted that Japan maintains little more than a police force. Reapealing that article can lead to a lot less confusion.

First off, it's not trigger-happiness. Secondly, China would not declare war. Why? Because Japan and China are very interconnected societies. They need eachother to survive. War is obviously possible, but Article 9 being repealed is not a likely trigger. It's merely an excuse for China to groan.
As for the peacekeepers you mentioned, it is fuzzy whether or not they are allowed in Article 9. It can be interpreted that Japan maintains little more than a police force. Reapealing that article can lead to a lot less confusion.

Considering how China acts, an excuse to groan is more than enough. And repealing the 9th isn't the solution. Clarifying and, preferably, broadening it, is.

Considering how China acts, an excuse to groan is more than enough. And repealing the 9th isn't the solution. Clarifying and, preferably, broadening it, is.
Well I disagree. A mobile detterant that can be deployed overseas is what needs to prevent war.
As for China, they have been involved in no major action since Mao died. To the contrary, they have become more peaceful, preffering simply to rattle their sabers every once in a while, but rarely engage in large military action. In fact, I think the last time was their invasion of Vietnam, and that was 25 years ago.

Well I disagree. A mobile detterant that can be deployed overseas is what needs to prevent war.
As for China, they have been involved in no major action since Mao died. To the contrary, they have become more peaceful, preffering simply to rattle their sabers every once in a while, but rarely engage in large military action. In fact, I think the last time was their invasion of Vietnam, and that was 25 years ago.

The US is enough of a deterrent. And if China is so peaceful, why would Japan NEED to repeal its 9th, in effect displeasing not only its population, but also a great part of the world except for the idiotic hawks that seem to enjoy watching bloodsheds, such as John Bolton and Richard Armitage?

The US is enough of a deterrent. And if China is so peaceful, why would Japan NEED to repeal its 9th, in effect displeasing not only its population, but also a great part of the world except for the idiotic hawks that seem to enjoy watching bloodsheds, such as John Bolton and Richard Armitage?
Because there are several other threats out there.

Because there are several other threats out there.

Aside from China and NK (that aren't problems in the scenario you made up), none to Japan, precisely because precisely of a non-interventionist policy.

Aside from China and NK (that aren't problems in the scenario you made up), none to Japan, precisely because precisely of a non-interventionist policy.
Well, some of the governments in the south are quite unstable. And the Japanese have said that they see a threat from a united Korea.

Well, some of the governments in the south are quite unstable. And the Japanese have said that they see a threat from a united Korea.

None of the governments in the south have real harming ability, and anyways repealing the 9th would be just seen as a veiled threat by Japan. The 9th isn't "we are harmless", it's "we will defend ourselves if need be".

None of the governments in the south have real harming ability, and anyways repealing the 9th would be just seen as a veiled threat by Japan. The 9th isn't "we are harmless", it's "we will defend ourselves if need be".
But in today's world, weakness breeds danger.

But in today's world, weakness breeds danger.

You call that weakness? Japan HAS a force. And has contacts with enough people that nobody sane would start a war with Japan. What I call weakness and what IS breeding danger is starting meaningless wars for no good reason whatsoever.

You call that weakness? Japan HAS a force. And has contacts with enough people that nobody sane would start a war with Japan. What I call weakness and what IS breeding danger is starting meaningless wars for no good reason whatsoever.
I'm not refering to Japan. I'm referring to states in the south. If they are allowed to become weak, it's over.

I'm not refering to Japan. I'm referring to states in the south. If they are allowed to become weak, it's over.

Well, that's their problem, not Japan's.

Well, that's their problem, not Japan's.
That lesson the US learned the hard way.

That lesson the US learned the hard way.

The one in Iraq the US is learning.

The one in Iraq the US is learning.
Very true. So it'd be best if the rest of the world takes heed at the US's troubles.

Very true. So it'd be best if the rest of the world takes heed at the US's troubles.

We are. Right now the US has the trouble of being ruled by a psychotic idiot that thinks he's LITERALLY God's gift to the world. And the world is taking heed.

We are. Right now the US has the trouble of being ruled by a psychotic idiot that thinks he's LITERALLY God's gift to the world. And the world is taking heed.
Do you believe I have an ulterior motive in suggesting this?

Do you believe I have an ulterior motive in suggesting this?

??

??
You keep making references to the US. What do you feel I am selling you?

You keep making references to the US. What do you feel I am selling you?

It's not about what's your point, I'm using the US as a counterexample of what happens when a nation does NOT have an ammentment like the 9th.

So you believe that arms cause war?

So you believe that arms cause war?

No, I believe that willingness to start war unprovoked causes war.

Following the debate with great interest, although I'm lazy, and generally agree enough with Heikoku not to feel any particular need to weigh in. A few facts I wanted to comment on, preferably in as condescending a way as possible (dates probably accurate to within a century or so; it's been awhile since I've dug into any of this stuff):

Japan's history is not 4000 years old, but closer to 1800-2000, starting either with the Nara period or the pre-Nara witch queen dynasty, although you could tack a couple hundred more years onto that by going back to various tribal peoples (the Jo-an, if I remember correctly. And I probably don't). About 1600 years of that is the current dynasty, if I remember correctly.

That said, the country is by no means peaceful in an historical sense. Post-10th century or so it's been effectively ruled by a series of shogunates (military leaders), ranging from agressive and imperialistic to conservative and isolationist. There were several wars (some relatively successful) in China and Korea over that period, although no foreign invader had any success on Japanese soil pre-WWII (largely due to fortuitous wind storms, kamikaze).

Come mid-19th century, you get into the Meiji period, which restored the Emperor to actual as well as theoretical head of state, and marked huge leaps forward technologically, as well as wide-spread social changes. In 1904 Japan defeated Russia in a skirmish over a couple of islands, which is generally taken to be the first sign of its rise as a global military power. Colonize Korea and a couple of SE Asian countries, attack China and you've got yourself the war in the Pacific (by which point the military had overpowered civil authority in Japan), in which Japan committed atrocities on a scale that would be better remembered if the Nazis hadn't been doing their best to surpass them on the other side of the world.

Point is, pacifism is rather new to the country (just as, to be fair, it's rather new to the world), and for all that there _is_ widespread support for article 9, there is increasing criticism as well. A number of conservative politicians have tendered resignations over the last few years after pro-war, bigoted, jingoistic outbursts. Many more, most notably Tokyo mayor Ishihara Shintarou, are completely unapologetic for similiar comments, and enjoy enormous success. I love Japan and the Japanese as much as anybody, but there're some very disturbing trends in the country (need I mention that the conservative rag Yomiuri Shinbun is allegedly Japan's most widely distributed and popular newspaper?)

Military spending-wise, Japan apparently spent about US$45 billion in 2003, which is fairly low given Japan's wealth, but by no means inconsequential (about 1% of its GDP, comparable to the UK's spending in total amount, and to Canada's in terms of percentage). In East Asia, only China exceeds it for total spending (at about US$60 billion).

http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

So the allegation that Japan's Navy is the most powerful in that part of the world is by no means impossible: it is a technologically sophisticated island nation with a large military budget (albeit a relatively small part of Japan's huge GDP). I'm sure there're sources that could say definitively either way, but it's also the case that I'm too tired to perform even a perfunctory google search. Night y'all, discuss lots so I've got something to read tomorrow :)

Personaly, I would love to see Japan re-enter the military world, first by reinstating the Samurai, and by bestowing that honor to it's military officers.

You do know that the samruai were not all warriors of high honour, but some were also savage slaughterers of those below them in the social order, rapers of women and a whole host of other despicable acts. Remember, the samurai class was a cross section of society, and had all sorts in there. They weren't always the honourable, worthy warriors the myths want us to believe!

I have no illusions about Japan's past, Sengoku included, which is precisely why I argue that they learned from it. I know that there are some non-people in Japan that support rearming and more war and so on, but, while successful, they are still a minority. One can wonder if Ishihara-kun, for instance, enjoys such popularity DUE TO his little "opinions" or IN SPITE OF them. Same with Yomiuri Shinbun, really. Also, in this aspect, Bush's tanuki that goes by the name of Koizumi Junichiro helped the pacifists a LOT, by making them rally around protecting the 9th. The conservatives will not be successful in repealing the 9th or making Japan a bloodthirsty nation anytime soon.

Indeed, a historical curiosity: Japan never lost a war it didn't start (Russia) and never won a war it DID start (WWII).

No, I believe that willingness to start war unprovoked causes war.
So why are you against the possession of arms?

So why are you against the possession of arms?

1-Because willingness to have arms is a symptom of willingness to use them.
2-Because those with arms get less and less careful, more willing to attack others for no reason.
3-Because arms are based ONLY upon the premise that a fellow human being needs killing.
4-Based on the principle that people cannot be trusted to have this kind of power over other people. The examples stack, with countries and with people: Columbine, Iraq, Vietnam, Hiroshima, JFK's death, Lincoln even.

I have no illusions about Japan's past, Sengoku included, which is precisely why I argue that they learned from it. I know that there are some non-people in Japan that support rearming and more war and so on, but, while successful, they are still a minority. One can wonder if Ishihara-kun, for instance, enjoys such popularity DUE TO his little "opinions" or IN SPITE OF them. Same with Yomiuri Shinbun, really...

Ishihara I could almost buy. The man allegedly has stupendous charisma, although I always have trouble seeing it. Part of it is the remarkable forgivingness of Japanese politics; Ishihara has referred to China on numerous occaisions as "shina". Can you imagine what would happen to a popular American governer such as, say, Arnold, if he were to refer to African Americans as "niggers"? Yet the public seems to consider the word one of Ishihara's cute little quirks, like his calls to have all foreigners expelled from Japan in order to reduce crime :rolleyes:

Yomiuri Shinbun, though, I have trouble taking as anything but a bad sign. There're plenty of respectable, moderate papers in the country (Asahi, although it's perhaps a bit leftist, Mainichi, Nihon Keizai, and so forth). And yet, the one which condemns "Third Country" people (southeast asian nationals living in Japan) as a a huge source of vice and crime in Japan, loudly praises Koizumi whenever he makes a trip to Yasukuni, claims that the wishes and comfort of the majority overrule those of the minority (such as the wife of a dead JDF soldier who didn't want her husband concescrated in Yasukuni), and, yes, demands the dissolution of the 9th, somehow has the highest readership.
^^^
(Holy run-on sentence batman. Hopefully it's understandable)

Ishihara I could almost buy. The man allegedly has stupendous charisma, although I always have trouble seeing it. Part of it is the remarkable forgivingness of Japanese politics; Ishihara has referred to China on numerous occaisions as "shina". Can you imagine what would happen to a popular American governer such as, say, Arnold, if he were to refer to African Americans as "niggers"? Yet the public seems to consider the word one of Ishihara's cute little quirks, like his calls to have all foreigners expelled from Japan in order to reduce crime :rolleyes:

Yomiuri Shinbun, though, I have trouble taking as anything but a bad sign. There're plenty of respectable, moderate papers in the country (Asahi, although it's perhaps a bit leftist, Mainichi, Nihon Keizai, and so forth). And yet, the one which condemns "Third Country" people (southeast asian nationals living in Japan) as a a huge source of vice and crime in Japan, loudly praises Koizumi whenever he makes a trip to Yasukuni, claims that the wishes and comfort of the majority overrule those of the minority (such as the wife of a dead JDF soldier who didn't want her husband concescrated in Yasukuni), and, yes, demands the dissolution of the 9th, somehow has the highest readership.
^^^
(Holy run-on sentence batman. Hopefully it's understandable)

Oh, don't take me the wrong way. It DOES worry me, BUT not to a big point yet (yet...). As I said, the bloodshed in Iraq caused rallying around the 9th. Ishihara-kun may be as cute as he pleases, but he's not very powerful. And we have also to wonder wether or not newspapers are that powerful as a media in Japan. Regardless, for now - and, if the Iraq war goes on, for a long time - most of the Japanese people favor keeping the 9th, and any bloodthirster with any power who supports repealing it will be committing political suicide.

Off-topic...

1-Because willingness to have arms is a symptom of willingness to use them.
True. Though you imply it as a negative; not all gun usage is inherantly negative.
2-Because those with arms get less and less careful, more willing to attack others for no reason.
Not true. The willingness to harm another human being without sustaining pyschological damage is an aspect of sociopathy and psychopathy. Both are pre-existing conditions.
3-Because arms are based ONLY upon the premise that a fellow human being needs killing.
They are based on the premise that something (be it human or animal) needs killing, maiming, or a deterant.
4-Based on the principle that people cannot be trusted to have this kind of power over other people. The examples stack, with countries and with people: Columbine, Iraq, Vietnam, Hiroshima, JFK's death, Lincoln even.
All people have the power to kill another person; it exists independantly of guns or any other weapon you can conceive.

Off-topic...
True. Though you imply it as a negative; not all gun usage is inherantly negative.

It is negative. It's the murdering of another human being.

Not true. The willingness to harm another human being without sustaining pyschological damage is an aspect of sociopathy and psychopathy. Both are pre-existing conditions.

Even assuming this is true, guns will give these sociopaths and psychopaths a tool.

They are based on the premise that something (be it human or animal) needs killing, maiming, or a deterant.

I refer to guns used between humans. We already have perfectly good deterrents - shockers, for instance.

All people have the power to kill another person; it exists independantly of guns or any other weapon you can conceive.

Guns make it MUCH easier. And I'm against arms-owning by countries as well. And you can't argue that, without arms, the army of a country will fly to the other one and go strangle them.

It is negative. It's the murdering of another human being.


While guns can be used to kill, they can also be used as tools for self-cultivation, spiritual improvement, and meditatitive contemplatation. They also have their recreational uses. No one can honestly say that comepetetive shooting isn't fun and rewarding or that the target shooting doesn't promote spiritual growth.

While guns can be used to kill, they can also be used as tools for self-cultivation, spiritual improvement, and meditatitive contemplatation. They also have their recreational uses. No one can honestly say that comepetetive shooting isn't fun and rewarding or that the target shooting doesn't promote spiritual growth.

Which is why in England there ARE recreative guns, used ONLY recreatively. And that can be done with harmless bullets, paintball, rubber bullets and so on. THIS kind of weapon is acceptable, every weapon else is not.

Which is why in England there ARE recreative guns, used ONLY recreatively. And that can be done with harmless bullets, paintball, rubber bullets and so on. THIS kind of weapon is acceptable, every weapon else is not.

There is no such thing as harmless bullets, even a paintball can kill. It is people who forget that who cause sorrowfull firearms mishaps. The ability of a gun to kill is one of the reasons mastery of it can help attain spiritual growth. As an artform, gunmanship is far more dangerous than most others. Truely mastering it requires a great deal of discipline and care. The idea of "recreational" guns for "recreational" use cheapens that and instead fosters carelessness. The sword that saves is also the sword that kills. The two are intertwined in such a way that you can't have one without the other.

There is no such thing as harmless bullets, even a paintball can kill. It is people who forget that who cause sorrowfull firearms mishaps. The ability of a gun to kill is one of the reasons mastery of it can help attain spiritual growth. As an artform, gunmanship is far more dangerous than most others. Truely mastering it requires a great deal of discipline and care. The idea of "recreational" guns for "recreational" use cheapens that and instead fosters carelessness. The sword that saves is also the sword that kills. The two are intertwined in such a way that you can't have one without the other.

Then weapons should be banned, period.

But, you see. That is impossible. Anything can be a deadly weapon if used as one. Books can be used as bludgeons and pencils make great stilletos. Should we ban reading and writing because of this?

But, you see. That is impossible. Anything can be a deadly weapon if used as one. Books can be used as bludgeons and pencils make great stilletos. Should we ban reading and writing because of this?

Can you use a gun for anything other than killing or achieving some elusive state of awareness that does not seem to exist, considering how the NRA acts? No. You CAN and NORMALLY use a pencil to WRITE.

It is negative. It's the murdering of another human being.
Can you use a gun for anything other than killing or achieving some elusive state of awareness that does not seem to exist, considering how the NRA acts? No. You CAN and NORMALLY use a pencil to WRITE.
Once again, have you ever been to a charity target shooting? Or handled a Hilty in construction? Or used a paintball gun as a tool to paint? You can use a gun for other purposes than killing, purposes which are extremly positive.

Even assuming this is true, guns will give these sociopaths and psychopaths a tool.
Yes, and is also gives everyone else a tool. Which a gun is, not a toy, but a tool. A pyschopath faces a significantly increased risk of being killed themselves when preying upon a person armed witha gun. Without guns, physical strength and willingness to kill decide who kills who. The majority of the time, the born killer is going to come out on top.

I refer to guns used between humans. We already have perfectly good deterrents - shockers, for instance.
Shockers have repeatedly proven ineffective against people which extremely high amounts of alcohol or other narcotics in their systems. I seen people take a can of bear mace and keep attacking. They are not "perfectly good" deterants. Nothing stops a person or animal with the intent to kill or harm you like an exposed gun, bullet in the shoulder, or bullet in the head.

Guns make it MUCH easier.
"God didn't make everyone equal, Mr. Colt did." The creation of the multi-fire gun took the superior ability to kill away from the few, and gave it to the majority. The ability to kill is the final deciding factor in any discussion. If you disagree with me, and your dead, who's left to argue against me?

And I'm against arms-owning by countries as well. And you can't argue that, without arms, the army of a country will fly to the other one and go strangle them.
No, the soldiers would find the nearest stick or rock and use that to kill. People didn't start killing other people with the invention of the gun. We started out strangling and using our fists, then used stones and sticks, then blades and arrows, then the gun.

Once again, have you ever been to a charity target shooting? Or handled a Hilty in construction? Or used a paintball gun as a tool to paint? You can use a gun for other purposes than killing, purposes which are extremly positive.


Yes, and is also gives everyone else a tool. Which a gun is, not a toy, but a tool. A pyschopath faces a significantly increased risk of being killed themselves when preying upon a person armed witha gun. Without guns, physical strength and willingness to kill decide who kills who. The majority of the time, the born killer is going to come out on top.

Too bad the murder rates of England (per inhabitant) versus the ones of the US (per inhabitant) so clearly contradict you.

Shockers have repeatedly proven ineffective against people which extremely high amounts of alcohol or other narcotics in their systems. I seen people take a can of bear mace and keep attacking. They are not "perfectly good" deterants. Nothing stops a person or animal with the intent to kill or harm you like an exposed gun, bullet in the shoulder, or bullet in the head.

People with extremely high amounts of alcohol and other narcotics? Riiiiight. Let's PRETEND this is true and I'll point out that these people aren't exactly very accurate in their attacks.

"God didn't make everyone equal, Mr. Colt did." The creation of the multi-fire gun took the superior ability to kill away from the few, and gave it to the majority. The ability to kill is the final deciding factor in any discussion.

Great. Give to the dumb majority the power to take life. Real smart. As I pointed out, there are ways other than having your Sacred Gun (tm).

If you disagree with me, and your dead, who's left to argue against me?

Someone else that thinks the same as me. And even assuming you'd kill them all, we'd still be right.

No, the soldiers would find the nearest stick or rock and use that to kill. People didn't start killing other people with the invention of the gun. We started out strangling and using our fists, then used stones and sticks, then blades and arrows, then the gun.

The reason you can't win is simple: If you argue that people can kill people without weapons, it goes to show that they are not needed. If you argue that people CAN'T kill people without weapons, it goes to show that they are undesirable. You can't argue that weapons will help kill "the right" people, so unless you try some other venue you have got nothing.

1-Because willingness to have arms is a symptom of willingness to use them.
2-Because those with arms get less and less careful, more willing to attack others for no reason.
3-Because arms are based ONLY upon the premise that a fellow human being needs killing.
4-Based on the principle that people cannot be trusted to have this kind of power over other people. The examples stack, with countries and with people: Columbine, Iraq, Vietnam, Hiroshima, JFK's death, Lincoln even.
I see. Well, it'd be fruitless to argue with you further, as I believe it takes years to change different ideaologies.

Debaters tactic, dismissal. You ignore the good points of firearms and concentrate purely upon the negative.

Too bad the murder rates of England (per inhabitant) versus the ones of the US (per inhabitant) so clearly contradict you.
I have yet to see statistics which compare how many people are killed while perpetrating, or attempting to perpetrate, a crime.

People with extremely high amounts of alcohol and other narcotics? Riiiiight. Let's PRETEND this is true and I'll point out that these people aren't exactly very accurate in their attacks.
Debater tactic, again dismissal. An attack does not have to be very accurate to cause injury or be fatal. I have also seen, rather large, people free from intoxication take a taser round without adverse effects. Stun weapons are hardly the most effective self defense weapons.


Great. Give to the dumb majority the power to take life. Real smart. As I pointed out, there are ways other than having your Sacred Gun (tm).
If Nazi Germany hadn't banned personal possession of guns and five million Jews were armed through the 1940's, how many do you think would have gone to camps? If fifteen million Russians were armed, how many do you think would have been starved, forcably relocated, and murdered under Stalin. If the thousands of Japanese Canadians were armed through the 1940's how many do you think would have been forced into 'holding camps' up north and had their property seized? If black slaves in the US were allowed to own guns, how many do you think would have done what their master ordered them to do? Every single government in history which has barred it citizens from possessing weapons, from Mongol controlled China through Hitlers Germany, has sought the enslavment its people. The armed "dumb majority" is the only respectable defense against a totalitarian government.


Someone else that thinks the same as me. And even assuming you'd kill them all, we'd still be right.
They'd be dead with no opinion to express and would have had no way to defend themselves. Millions upon millions believe the same as me, and they're armed, I challange any organiztion to attempt to take American citizens guns away while keeping their lives. The differance is, the majority of these people support other peoples right not to carry a gun.



The reason you can't win is simple: If you argue that people can kill people without weapons, it goes to show that they are not needed.
This is a specious argument with a conclusion you offer no support for. That's like saying because people have legs, cars are not needed.

If you argue that people CAN'T kill people without weapons, it goes to show that they are undesirable.
For someone properaly trained, its is simple to kill another human being in close quarters. But its is impossible to do the same thing several hundred feet away. Hence the creation of the gun. Once again, a specious argument with a conclusion you offer no support for.

You can't argue that weapons will help kill "the right" people, so unless you try some other venue you have got nothing.
I can easilly argue guns kill the right people. Someone is about to murder me, you, somebody I've never met before. I kill them. The right person is dead.
It also works the other way around, someone is trying to murder me, you, someone I've never met before. I try to kill them to prevent that outcome, but I fail. The wrong person died.

Yes - we need to counterbalance China. Should have done that a long time ago.

Debaters tactic, dismissal. You ignore the good points of firearms and concentrate purely upon the negative.

The good point of firearms is that they give the majority the power to kill? See, I don't NEED to dismiss this argument, it's simply wrong.

I have yet to see statistics which compare how many people are killed while perpetrating, or attempting to perpetrate, a crime.

Again: Less violent crimes in UK than in US.

Debater tactic, again dismissal. An attack does not have to be very accurate to cause injury or be fatal. I have also seen, rather large, people free from intoxication take a taser round without adverse effects. Stun weapons are hardly the most effective self defense weapons.

Stun weapons are effective enough to deter an attack. With guns you only have the option of killing a person.

If Nazi Germany hadn't banned personal possession of guns and five million Jews were armed through the 1940's, how many do you think would have gone to camps? If fifteen million Russians were armed, how many do you think would have been starved, forcably relocated, and murdered under Stalin. If the thousands of Japanese Canadians were armed through the 1940's how many do you think would have been forced into 'holding camps' up north and had their property seized? If black slaves in the US were allowed to own guns, how many do you think would have done what their master ordered them to do? Every single government in history which has barred it citizens from possessing weapons, from Mongol controlled China through Hitlers Germany, has sought the enslavment its people. The armed "dumb majority" is the only respectable defense against a totalitarian government.

Oh yes, because Japan and UK, where guns are banned, are both VERY tyrannical countries. Guns weren't banned in Taleban Afghanistan, or Iraq, either, now were they? This must mean both were very democratic.

They'd be dead with no opinion to express and would have had no way to defend themselves. Millions upon millions believe the same as me, and they're armed, I challange any organiztion to attempt to take American citizens guns away while keeping their lives. The differance is, the majority of these people support other peoples right not to carry a gun.

How very democratic of you. Like most gun-toters, the idea of elliminating an opposition through their demise seems appealing to you. However, stun guns would be just as able to stop you, like they do in England - and to take you to a well-deserved life sentence, if you actually shot people for their opinions.

This is a specious argument with a conclusion you offer no support for. That's like saying because people have legs, cars are not needed. For someone properaly trained, its is simple to kill another human being in close quarters. But its is impossible to do the same thing several hundred feet away. Hence the creation of the gun. Once again, a specious argument with a conclusion you offer no support for.

Hence the creation of stun guns, too. Or because they don't take life, they become worthless? Guns aren't necessary to preserve safety. Indeed, if their production was halted, it would be nice to see a would-be criminal attempting to make them by himself. (This is in counter to the idiotic vitriol "if guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns")

I can easilly argue guns kill the right people. Someone is about to murder me, you, somebody I've never met before. I kill them. The right person is dead. It also works the other way around, someone is trying to murder me, you, someone I've never met before. I try to kill them to prevent that outcome, but I fail. The wrong person died.

Two students entered school with machine guns. The wrong people died.
Two idiots practiced target shooting at random bystanders (sniper case). The wrong people died.
A postman with a gun went, why not say, postal. The wrong people died.
And the list goes on and on.

Yes - we need to counterbalance China. Should have done that a long time ago.

Very smart, taking down Article 9 thereby giving NK AND China both an excuse to attack Japan. Wouldn't work unless Japan knew how to make weaponry and soldiers appear out of thin air - and that would be a threat to NK and China, resulting, guess, in them attacking. The Article 9, again, DOES NOT MEAN STAYING ON THE DEFENSE. It means reacting IF NEED BE. Without the Article 9, Japan could be simply another idiotic nation that attacks other nations under false pretenses and causes hatred towards itself and 100,000 deaths.

The good point of firearms is that they give the majority the power to kill? See, I don't NEED to dismiss this argument, it's simply wrong.
"A gunless society is a safe society." Adolf Hitler. The problem with only the few having the power to kill, is that the few tend to use that power to kill to gain control over the majority of those who don't. While a person may be able to kill another easily, they can be killed just the same. It takes impunity and the potential for power-through-arms away from those who would otherwise be the few.
Again: Less violent crimes in UK than in US.
People are less able to defend themselves and are constantly watched in the streets by video cameras in some areas. Freedom is more important than what is done with it.
Stun weapons are effective enough to deter an attack. With guns you only have the option of killing a person.
In many cases stun weapons are an effective deterant; in cases where an attacker has a gun themself, they are not most effective deterant.
Not true. The presence of a gun on a potential victim is a significant deterant to a predator. A shot into the ground will make all but the most intent reconsider. A round into a foot stops virtually everyone and has a small chance of fatality. An attacker who still persists is suicidal and will not stop until killed.
Oh yes, because Japan and UK, where guns are banned, are both VERY tyrannical countries. Guns weren't banned in Taleban Afghanistan, or Iraq, either, now were they? This must mean both were very democratic.
Recreational usage of guns is still permited in the UK with liscences, guns are not entirely outlawed. I am not familiar with Japanese guns laws. Guns prevent a state from obtaining absolute control, the will of the people brings democracy.
Guns weren't banned in the United States, this must be a terribly chaotic country. In 229 years they've never had a dictatorship.
Look how difficult it was for the Afgani and Iraqi governments to enforce their will upon their unwilling populous. Thousands of years of tribal warfare tends to encourage people to kill their neighbors, no lack of guns changes that.
How very democratic of you. Like most gun-toters, the idea of elliminating an opposition through their demise seems appealing to you. However, stun guns would be just as able to stop you, like they do in England - and to take you to a well-deserved life sentence, if you actually shot people for their opinions.
How do you think North American, Japan, or the UK attained democracy? Their kings and Emperors did not just decide to give up their power on a whim. It was democracy or death.
I do not own a gun like all of these filthy, murdering "gun-toters" you so despise. You make assumptions on a thin base. I support peoples right to choose to carry one. You seek to deny people the freedom choice and self-defence, I seek to encourage it.
In both cases I pointed out a fact of life. Any organization which would attempt to take, by force, fire arms away from any group who believes it is their right to posses fire arms will be risking the lives of its members.
Hence the creation of stun guns, too. Or because they don't take life, they become worthless?
You're criticising logic you used prior and again now, not logic I used.
Guns aren't necessary to preserve safety. Indeed, if their production was halted, it would be nice to see a would-be criminal attempting to make them by himself. (This is in counter to the idiotic vitriol "if guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns")
A gun can be made from a metal tube, the ignition peice any common lighter, a ball bearing, sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter. All available in various products around the house. That "idiotic vitriol" "if guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns," is true. You see it in every country which bans fire arms.
Two students entered school with machine guns. The wrong people died.
Two idiots practiced target shooting at random bystanders (sniper case). The wrong people died.
A postman with a gun went, why not say, postal. The wrong people died.
And the list goes on and on.
Ex-husband charges ex-wife with a knife, intent on killing her. Ex-wife shoots, right person dies. And the list goes on and on...

Ex-husband charges ex-wife with a knife, intent on killing her. Ex-wife shoots, right person dies. And the list goes on and on...

Armed intruder enters a house at night, woman is home alone and hides in closet. Intruder opens closet to find women has her husbands shotgun, intruder finds himself suddenly minus most of his head.

Plenty of stories like this.

Usage of guns have a long and sorted history. Its how humans are really. Its not the weapon, its those with the intent.