NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/12/15/japan.pacifist.rollback.ap/index.html

Damn. My money was on them not growing back anything resembling balls until 2296. So, when do you think Germany and others will start?

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/12/15/japan.pacifist.rollback.ap/index.html

Damn. My money was on them not growing back anything resembling balls until 2296. So, when do you think Germany and others will start?

You know it's only a matter of time 'till we go at it with the Germans again.. it may be 100 years from now, but there's no stopping it.. :p Should be interesting, and besides, future generations of schoolkids need documentaries to fall asleep to in class.. :)

You know it's only a matter of time 'till we go at it with the Germans again.. it may be 100 years from now, but there's no stopping it.. :p Should be interesting, and besides, future generations of schoolkids need documentaries to fall asleep to in class.. :)

And rest assured, when that time comes, Germany still won't have anything resembling a military. Or, they'll have the "Holy Army of Islamic Germany."

And rest assured, when that time comes, Germany still won't have anything resembling a military. Or, they'll have the "Holy Army of Islamic Germany."

Nah, they'll probably start by liquidating the Turks, which we'll all politely ignore, followed by some reckless offensive that we'll beat back over a few months' time. Poland gets its ass leveled, half their population ends up in Chicago somehow, everyone gets medals, etc. Same old stuff. I'm just assuming future wars will start and end more quickly, given technology and all, with the 'few months' figure. :)

I never fell asleep during a documentary in class >_>
But I also listen to classical music, build computers, read long books with words like 'polysyllabic' in them and do pretty much everything I can to be 'uncool'.
It always astounded me, though, that other kids were BORED by the idea of millions of people killing each other in creative ways.
The part which always annoyed me was the inevitable idiotic 'open ended yet there is only one correct answer' question which followed.

Japan is sick of China being the dominant military power. Good on them I say, sure my grandad was nearly killed when they bombed Darwin and tried invading Australia in WW2, but Japan is far more civilized and advanced than China

I never fell asleep during a documentary in class >_>

Documentaries can be rough.. I had a pretty good track record of keeping awake through about half of them. I had the misfortune of sitting though European history rather than taking an elective that year.. bad choice. Nothing like a 90-minute biopic of Clemens von Metternich on a Monday morning.. :(

That was sort of inevitable. I suppose they looked west and saw a resurgent china that might not remember the greater asia co-prosperity sphere all that fondly and then they looked east a saw that the US might not be all that dependable as an ally because its foreign policy is dictated by the sordid little intramural squabbles of domestic politics, which made them realize they'd better get their own guns.

I bet they have nukes before the end of the decade.

Japan is sick of China being the dominant military power. Good on them I say, sure my grandad was nearly killed when they bombed Darwin and tried invading Australia in WW2, but Japan is far more civilized and advanced than China

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdgdBOTUSqg
Japan, superior.

Seriously, its not a good idea to go throwing around 'X is more civilized than Y', because you KNOW somebody from Z is going to be on your ass about it. Or do I need more Japanese gameshows?

If that's reneging on pacifism...well, Germany's had a Ministry of Defense for about 40 years.

As for "patriotism in schools", I have no idea what they mean by that: "to cultivate an attitude that respects tradition and culture, that loves the nation and home country."

I don't think it would be very popular in Germany. There's far more patriotic Japanese than there are patriotic Germans.

Damn. My money was on them not growing back anything resembling balls until 2296. So, when do you think Germany and others will start?

Because everyone knows that having a big army, screaming for pointless war, bullying and killing people would be proof of "balls". There can be no justification for a country not having a ridiculously large army. No, sir. Let's ignore the fact, for example, that Germany has active UN troops, and that Germany is under no threat from anyone. I mean, that would require an understanding of these countries, and that's too much of an effort. Much easier to accuse them of not having "balls". Perhaps they have brains, instead? Nasty, silly things, brains...

Militarise Tuvalu! :rolleyes:

http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=042105oq4.jpg
Japan, superior.


Yes, but the Japanese operate on a higher intellectual level than the Chinese, as you can see by comparing

http://www.drberlin.com/images/Mr%20Moto%20DVD%20Vol%201.jpg

to

http://www.thevintagetheatre.com/images/chancolor.jpg

I rest my case.

Good. Its about fucking time they shed the US forced BS and started showing some damn balls! JAPAN!!!

Let's ignore the fact, for example, that Germany has active UN troops, and that Germany is under no threat from anyone.
And when it still was, it had half a million active soldiers and millions in reserves.

Hell, they even had jets ready to deliver nukes at a moment's notice. They may not officially have been Germany's nukes, but they were NATO's, to be delivered by Luftwaffe jets.

And when it still was, it had half a million active soldiers and millions in reserves.

Hell, they even had jets ready to deliver nukes at a moment's notice. They may not officially have been Germany's nukes, but they were NATO's, to be delivered by Luftwaffe jets.
If I can find proof of that on the 'net, that'll go very well in my History exam next June.

And when it still was, it had half a million active soldiers and millions in reserves.

Hell, they even had jets ready to deliver nukes at a moment's notice. They may not officially have been Germany's nukes, but they were NATO's, to be delivered by Luftwaffe jets.

Half a million? Wow, I'm sure that terrified 30 million Soviet troops.

Japans' been rolling back the pacifist pillars for years.

Article 9 in the constitution explicitly states that Japan forever renounces the use of force as the right of a sovereign nation (which was written by some young idealist american).

So the very fact that the SDF exists is in violation of that constitutition. But no, if it's only for self defence then it's alright... but then in the early 90s the SDF started participating in UN peacekeeping operations, and in 2003 the SDF sent forces to Iraq.

Japan doesn't want a full scale army to combat China. Infact the two countries get on fairly well internationally, this doesn't stop the Chinese president using hatred of Japan to divert the publics' attention from more sensitive issues.

Japan also feels that the US-Japan security treaty has become increasingly one-sided. It damages relations with other east asian nations as the treaty implicitly views them as a threat. US forces have become increasingly unwelcome on Japanese soil due to incidents around the Okinawa base. Finally, Japan also feels that the US has become overbearing and pushes Japan to act certain foreign policies. The treaty is also largely irrelevant as UN members are expected to come to the aid of any sovereign nation that is invaded.

Japan want's a military because they percieve that no one takes them seriously on the international stage. They want a seat on the permanent security council, but are condemned for just being a chequebook diplomat - especially by the Americans... the ones who made Japan sign the constitution in the first place.

If I can find proof of that on the 'net, that'll go very well in my History exam next June.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Cold_War_and_beyond
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/nsam-160/pal.html

Actually, it's still in force. A fighter-bomber squadron is still training to drop nukes, I believe.

EDIT: Found it. It's the JaboG 33 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdbombergeschwader_33) stationed in Büchel. It's secret how many nukes they store there, but the capacity is apparently 44.
http://www.bits.de/public/stichwort/buechel.htm

Didn't someone asdk about Germany? THe have had a damned fine force for a while now. THeir rangers are hot shit, and their tank corps is good as well. THey have served in Yugo, and Afghanistan, and fought well.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/12/15/japan.pacifist.rollback.ap/index.html

Damn. My money was on them not growing back anything resembling balls until 2296. So, when do you think Germany and others will start?
You think this is a good thing (http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/photos/rape3.jpg)?

Half a million? Wow, I'm sure that terrified 30 million Soviet troops.
Divide by 6 and you'll get there.

And besides, NATO seemed to think that the Bundeswehr was worth it. They were the ones pushing for its establishment, and in their plans the German troops played an absolutely vital part of the defensive efforts.

Nah, they'll probably start by liquidating the Turks, which we'll all politely ignore, followed by some reckless offensive that we'll beat back over a few months' time. Poland gets its ass leveled, half their population ends up in Chicago somehow, everyone gets medals, etc. Same old stuff. I'm just assuming future wars will start and end more quickly, given technology and all, with the 'few months' figure. :)

Over by Christmas perhaps:)

Divide by 6 and you'll get there.

I'm pretty sure the Warsaw Pact could field AT LEAST 20 million troops.

And besides, NATO seemed to think that the Bundeswehr was worth it. They were the ones pushing for its establishment, and in their plans the German troops played an absolutely vital part of the defensive efforts.

In NATO's plans, the Soviets always won, until the Allies used nukes.

I'm pretty sure the Warsaw Pact could field AT LEAST 20 million troops.
The USSR had roughly 5 million active troops in the eighties, and they couldn't even afford to properly maintain those. Many of the divisions weren't actually ready for combat.

If you think that the rest of the Warsaw Pact could field 15 million dudes from somewhere, I'd love to hear why.

In NATO's plans, the Soviets always won, until the Allies used nukes.
Source?

And regardless of who wins, it's pretty obvious that the German forces played a major role in the early stages of the fight in containing the Soviet Attack together with the British and US troops stationed there, until reinforcements could be shipped in. So you can't really say that Germany was a pacficist country in those days.

The USSR had roughly 5 million active troops in the eighties, and they couldn't even afford to properly maintain those. Many of the divisions weren't actually ready for combat.

If you think that the rest of the Warsaw Pact could field 15 million dudes from somewhere, I'd love to hear why.

Massive population. They did it in WWII, they could do it in WWIII.

Source?

And regardless of who wins, it's pretty obvious that the German forces played a major role in the early stages of the fight in containing the Soviet Attack together with the British and US troops stationed there, until reinforcements could be shipped in. So you can't really say that Germany was a pacficist country in those days.

I read it on Wikipedia; during wargames, the Soviet forces almost always won conventionally and the Allies used nukes first.

Massive population. They did it in WWII, they could do it in WWIII.
Yeah, but those aren't active troops. If you're going to introduce reserves, Germany could draw on decades worth of conscripts who all did military service and were consequently assigned a password to be made public through the radio. Once the password was given out, the relevant people were to make their way to the nearest barracks to be issued orders and equipment.

I know because that's what it was like with my dad. I never did ask him what his password was though, maybe I should. :p

I read it on Wikipedia; during wargames, the Soviet forces almost always won conventionally and the Allies used nukes first.
Surely you could find me the link then.

Surely you could find me the link then.

I'd have to do about an hour of Wiki-hunting. Too much trouble.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/12/15/japan.pacifist.rollback.ap/index.html

Damn. My money was on them not growing back anything resembling balls until 2296. So, when do you think Germany and others will start?



That was sort of inevitable. I suppose they looked west and saw a resurgent china that might not remember the greater asia co-prosperity sphere all that fondly and then they looked east a saw that the US might not be all that dependable as an ally because its foreign policy is dictated by the sordid little intramural squabbles of domestic politics, which made them realize they'd better get their own guns.

Nope. It was 1950 when MacArthur ordered the creation of a paramilitary police force when they "decided" to get their own guns.

I bet they have nukes before the end of the decade.

I seriously doubt that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdgdBOTUSqg
Japan, superior.

Seriously, its not a good idea to go throwing around 'X is more civilized than Y', because you KNOW somebody from Z is going to be on your ass about it. Or do I need more Japanese gameshows?

More, more! :D (I've seen "game" shows on TV here that would violate this sites TOS if posted!)

If that's reneging on pacifism...well, Germany's had a Ministry of Defense for about 40 years.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]As for "patriotism in schools", I have no idea what they mean by that: "to cultivate an attitude that respects tradition and culture, that loves the nation and home country."

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]I don't think it would be very popular in Germany. There's far more patriotic Japanese than there are patriotic Germans.

Good. Its about fucking time they shed the US forced BS and started showing some damn balls! JAPAN!!!

So you think Japan should shed the US forced SDF or are you confused about which side insisted on Article 9? (Hint: Prime Minister Kijuro Shidehara was the one who proposed it. And MacArthur was the one who ordered the creation of the NPR that was to become the SDF.)

Article 9 in the constitution explicitly states that Japan forever renounces the use of force as the right of a sovereign nation (which was written by some young idealist american).

Cool! I did not know that Prime Minister Kijuro Shidehara was a young idealistic American.

The idea for Article 9 was actually that of a Japanese statesman, then-Prime Minister Kijuro Shidehara. He suggested the idea of a pacifist Japan to General Douglas MacArthur, who agreed that it should be incorporated into the new constitution.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/beichman200404160935.asp

I'm pretty sure the Warsaw Pact could field AT LEAST 20 million troops.


Are you actually argueing that West Germany should have had as many troops as all Warsaw Pact nations combined?

[url]So, when do you think Germany and others will start?

The moment German politicians decide to commit suicide.

Are you actually argueing that West Germany should have had as many troops as all Warsaw Pact nations combined?

Of course not, since that's not actually POSSIBLE. But, something useful, at least. One million, one and half, maybe.

Of course not, since that's not actually POSSIBLE. But, something useful, at least. One million, one and half, maybe.

why would they do that though the European policy was better red than dead…

Of course not, since that's not actually POSSIBLE. But, something useful, at least. One million, one and half, maybe.A million? Wow, I'm sure that terrified 30 million Soviet troops.

Your words Kievan-Prussia.

why would they do that though the European policy was better red than dead…
Hardly. The Bundeswehr formed the biggest part of NATO's ground forces in Central Europe, and would've been on the front line from the word 'go'.

They didn't do it because it would've been pointless. They didn't need to spend the money when they already had enough to do what needed to be done. Remember, the Bundeswehr didn't have much of a navy, and no missions abroad. It's entire force was dedicated to this one mission in this one theatre. Any more than the 12 divisions there in peace time would've been overkill.

Cool! I did not know that Prime Minister Kijuro Shidehara was a young idealistic American.


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/beichman200404160935.asp

No, but Douglas MacArthur was... well, perhaps not young...

Fisher, R - 'The Erosion of Japanese Pacifism' Cornell International Law Journal Vol 32 (1999), p. 397
Frustrated with the Japanese attempts at drafting the new constitution, MacArthur ordered his staff to help the Japanese in drafting a document that after some modification became the Constitution of Japan.(16)

Article 9 went through several revisions prior to the Constitution's adoption. Originally, MacArthur submitted three principles to Prime Minister Shidehara that he considered fundamental to the future constitution.(17) The second principle, the precursor to Article 9, stated:

'War as a sovereign right of the nation is abolished. Japan renounces [war] as an instrumentality for settling its disputes and even for preserving its own security. . . . No Japanese Army, Navy or Air Force will ever be authorized and no rights of belligerence will ever be conferred on any Japanese force.'(18)

(16). See Douci~s MACARTHUR, R INIsCENcIs 399 (1964). MacArthur felt thatJapa-
nese efforts to create a constitution along the lines of democracy and pacifism were half-
hearted and too slow for his liking. The Japanese government's reluctance is probably
attributable to unfamiliarity with democratic institutions and the resulting destruction
of imperial power. See LAWRENCE W. Bmst & HIR05HI IToH, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CASE
LAW OF JAPAN, 1970 THROUGH 1990, at 13 (1996); BEA5LEY, supra note 12, at 219.
(17). SeeJames E. Auer, Article Nine: Renunciation of War, ~fl JAPANESE CONSTITUTIONAL
LAw 69, 70-7 1 (Percy R. Luney, Jr. & Kazuyuki Takahashi eds., 1993).
(18). Id. (quoting OSOMU NISHI, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE NATIONAL DEFENSE LAw
SYSTEM INJAPAN 73 (1987)). While there is some debate about whether the renunciation
clause was the idea of MacArthur or Prime Minister Shidehara, its submission by MacAr-
thur as a fundamental principle suggests that he supported and believed in it. See id. at
71. There is evidence that Shidehara denied that he was the architect of Article 9. See
Leslie Wolf-Phillips, Commentary, in CONSTITUTIONS OF MODERN STATES: SELECTED Tnx-rs
AND COMMENTARY 105 (Leslie Wolf-Phfflips ed., 1968); HIROYUKI HATA & Go NAKAGAWA,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF JAPAN 21 (1997).So as you can see there is a dispute as to whom Article 9 originates from. I believe that the idea behind Article 9 originates from the Americans with the precise wording being proposed by Shidehara. I believe Shidehara was complicit in the proposing Article 9 as he desired to protect the Imperial throne. The Emperor had renounced his divinity - this was shock in itself, so for the Emperor to be tried as a war criminal would be unthinkable and revolt in Japan.

A million? Wow, I'm sure that terrified 30 million Soviet troops.

Your words Kievan-Prussia.

And... why in world would the Bundeswehr be ATTACKING the Soviets?

And... why in world would the Bundeswehr be ATTACKING the Soviets?I thought it was about the numbers.

Is there a difference if the German million was attacking or defending against the alleged Soviet 30 million?

I thought it was about the numbers.

Is there a difference if the German million was attacking or defending against the alleged Soviet 30 million?

Yes; who in their right mind attacks with only a million?

Yes; who in their right mind attacks with only a million?
Yeh. Give us a call when you are done pounding youself.

I think the Japanese should have a larger military. I'd rather see them as allies rather than wards under our protection. Beyond that, if the shit ever hits the fan in that region, we could sure as hell use their help.

This "patriotism in school" thing however is somewhat worrisome. Sounds alot like indoctrination. I'd much prefer they don't go back to the ol' days.

No, but Douglas MacArthur was... well, perhaps not young...

Fisher, R - 'The Erosion of Japanese Pacifism' Cornell International Law Journal Vol 32 (1999), p. 397
So as you can see there is a dispute as to whom Article 9 originates from. I believe that the idea behind Article 9 originates from the Americans with the precise wording being proposed by Shidehara. I believe Shidehara was complicit in the proposing Article 9 as he desired to protect the Imperial throne. The Emperor had renounced his divinity - this was shock in itself, so for the Emperor to be tried as a war criminal would be unthinkable and revolt in Japan.

I know there's some dispute there, however I (obviously) fall on the side of Shidehara's having proposed it, largely on MacAruthur's having credited it to him and his having admited it (after having previously denied it) in his memoirs. Furthermore, he was a civilian politician who opposed the militarist and a pre-war pacifist, and it was MacArthur was the one who ordered the article to be violated, both of which lend support to the argument that Shidehara would have been the one to propose it.

I think instilling some patriotism into your citizens wouldn't hurt.
Just don't go overboard with it...

And 2006 is a different time than 1945, the reality is Japan is completely different now.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/12/15/japan.pacifist.rollback.ap/index.html

Damn. My money was on them not growing back anything resembling balls until 2296. So, when do you think Germany and others will start?

Germany already has. They've been building their military since 1990 when they reunited with East Germany.

And... why in world would the Bundeswehr be ATTACKING the Soviets?

You mean aside from the fact that there are no more Sovjets?

As if anyone should be surprised that Japan would increase their military. They've had the giant robot army hidden away for decades. And have been secretly training spandex clad special forces teams for just as long.

"you're a Pacifist?"

"Isn't that one of those things a child sucks on?"

"You mean, like a Pedaphile?"

"You're talking about a Pacifier!"

"Oh...well, I was thinking of something totally different..."

"He's a P***yfist."

Japan is sick of China being the dominant military power. Good on them I say, sure my grandad was nearly killed when they bombed Darwin and tried invading Australia in WW2, but Japan is far more civilized and advanced than China

Of course China would arm itself to the teeth.

China suffered no less than 3,200,000 military causlties and more than 17,530,000 civilian caualties from Japanese aggression between 1937-1945.

If a foreign force had come in and killed THAT many Austrlians (or even that proportion) in the past, I don't imagine Australians would ever forget or forgive.

Frustrated with the Japanese attempts at drafting the new constitution, MacArthur ordered his staff to help the Japanese in drafting a document that after some modification became the Constitution of Japan.(16)

Article 9 went through several revisions prior to the Constitution's adoption. Originally, MacArthur submitted three principles to Prime Minister Shidehara that he considered fundamental to the future constitution.(17) The second principle, the precursor to Article 9, stated:

'War as a sovereign right of the nation is abolished. Japan renounces [war] as an instrumentality for settling its disputes and even for preserving its own security. . . . No Japanese Army, Navy or Air Force will ever be authorized and no rights of belligerence will ever be conferred on any Japanese force.'(18)

Ironic, considering America invaded both Afghanistan AND Iraq on the ground sof "National security". Is it just me or does it seem that the rules don't seem to apply for America or American-backed countries (Israel)?

Ironic, considering America invaded both Afghanistan AND Iraq on the ground sof "National security". Is it just me or does it seem that the rules don't seem to apply for America or American-backed countries (Israel)?Of course, the Americans don't have it in their constitution. Instead they talk about the right to bear arms and militias and shit.

Ironic, considering America invaded both Afghanistan AND Iraq on the ground sof "National security".

Err... how exactly is it ironic that the US doesn't follow the provisions of the Japanese constitution that the Japanese insisted on* themselves?

*With a tip of the hat to fair dinkum objections of The Infinite Dunes even though I disagree.

Is it just me or does it seem that the rules don't seem to apply for America or American-backed countries (Israel)?

No, it's not just you. Of course Article 9 of the Japanese constitution don't apply (seemingly or otherwise) to the US or any of it's allies other than Japan. Most of us realise that. ;)

Of course, the Americans don't have it in their constitution. Instead they talk about the right to bear arms and militias and shit.

Exactly so. :) (With reservations regarding the "and shit" bit.... ;))

Sweet..