NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I'm going to stray from form a bit, and say that I while I prefer that we go by dictionary definitions, if you can give a contextually reasonable usage that might differ a bit, that's cool, too.

When I lived there, I was under the belief that yes, the contemporary Japanese are pacifists in that they reject war and violence as solutions.

I know they maintain a small army, navy, and air force for self defense, but also that there has been discussion (perhaps it has happened already) about removing the part of their constitution that renounces war for all time.

But in their daily lives and in the sentiments they expressed to me, they seem to be pacifists to me.

Someone has suggested to me that this is not correct, and I'd love to hear some NSG debate.

Who isn't, I mean really, who isn't a pacifist, I mean, do we really have war-ists, people who are just like 'fuck it, let's just have a war for no reason, I can't stand all this peace around here, let's invade some other country for the fuck of it'

I mean, really, who would be like that?

So, I guess all Japanese are pacifists but I suppose, you know, build an army and you've got to use it, you can't just have it hanging around doing nothing, why build it?

So they're pacifists but better not to give the Japanese an army because the Japanese don't invent things not to use them, they're driven to use what they have, unlike, say the Irish, who could build the most fantasmic thing in the world and just be like 'eh, whatever, put it in the barn'.

EDIT: Oh, Pacific, yeah, go on then.

Who isn't, I mean really, who isn't a pacifist, I mean, do we really have war-ists, people who are just like 'fuck it, let's just have a war for no reason, I can't stand all this peace around here, let's invade some other country for the fuck of it'

I mean, really, who would be like that?

So, I guess all Japanese are pacifists but I suppose, you know, build an army and you've got to use it, you can't just have it hanging around doing nothing, why build it?

So they're pacifists but better not to give the Japanese an army because the Japanese don't invent things not to use them, they're driven to use what they have, unlike, say the Irish, who could build the most fantasmic thing in the world and just be like 'eh, whatever, put it in the barn'.

EDIT: Oh, Pacific, yeah, go on then.


Wars usually aren't fought for no reason. They are fought for a variety of reasons, such as economics, defense, greed, religion, etc.

So of course there are people who aren't pacifists.

But yeah, the Japanese do seem to be pacifists.

Who isn't, I mean really, who isn't a pacifist, I mean, do we really have war-ists, people who are just like 'fuck it, let's just have a war for no reason, I can't stand all this peace around here, let's invade some other country for the fuck of it'

I mean, really, who would be like that?

The Germans are like that. If you take away their outlet of massive industrialized war, they freak out and make bizarre TV shows in black turtlenecks and get reeeaaallly anal about everything.


So, I guess all Japanese are pacifists but I suppose, you know, build an army and you've got to use it, you can't just have it hanging around doing nothing, why build it?

You know, a Japanese Air Self Defense Force once voiced something very much like that to me.

HIM: "We have Jet fighters. We have operational efficiency superior to the Chinese and Koreans. And what does our commander have us do all day? Soccer. We play soccer. He says it improves our group tactics. I think he is wrong."

ME: "Really. Its interesting, I've never heard a Japanese person criticize their superior before."

HIM: "Well, this is English school, I can complain here."

ME: "I see."


So they're pacifists but better not to give the Japanese an army because the Japanese don't invent things not to use them, they're driven to use what they have, unlike, say the Irish, who could build the most fantasmic thing in the world and just be like 'eh, whatever, put it in the barn'.

EDIT: Oh, Pacific, yeah, go on then.

Sure'n the Irish can do more good with a Lee Enfield than a Japanese with a Mitsubishi F-2, the wee fookin' ballacks.

No, they are not. What they are, however, is still scarred from WWII. The country came damn near close to being completely destroyed and the blame for it was laid squarely at the feet of the military. They remember, still, and they aren't having it happen again. As the older generation fades though, who can say? The right-wing nuts are already baying about changing article 9 and they have started to put the machinery in place to do it.

The Germans are like that. If you take away their outlet of massive industrialized war, they freak out and make bizarre TV shows in black turtlenecks and get reeeaaallly anal about everything.

The problem with the Germans is that they're basically all alcoholics, if not alcohol then drugs, the entire Nazi high command was either shooting up or drinking themselves to death, as far as I can see, Goering's entire strategy was to get all the good wine from France, that was it.

Basically the 2nd WW was a big boys Saturday night out across Europe, grab all the beaches, alcohol and drugs they could get their hands on and that's it, they're not really into war, it's just a really selfish attitude to fun.

You know, a Japanese Air Self Defense Force once voiced something very much like that to me.

HIM: "We have Jet fighters. We have operational efficiency superior to the Chinese and Koreans. And what does our commander have us do all day? Soccer. We play soccer. He says it improves our group tactics. I think he is wrong."

ME: "Really. Its interesting, I've never heard a Japanese person criticize their superior before."

HIM: "Well, this is English school, I can complain here."

ME: "I see."

Well quite.

Sure'n the Irish can do more good with a Lee Enfield than a Japanese with a Mitsubishi F-2, the wee fookin' ballacks.

The Irish are like the Germans except they just get drunk without the rampaging, every potential revolution against the English failed because they all met in the pub first, honestly, not the greatest plan boyo's.

No, they are not. What they are, however, is still scarred from WWII. The country came damn near close to being completely destroyed and the blame for it was laid squarely at the feet of the military. They remember, still, and they aren't having it happen again. As the older generation fades though, who can say? The right-wing nuts are already baying about changing article 9 and they have started to put the machinery in place to do it.

So, you would say they aren't intrinsically against war or violence, but their most recent major conflict turned out so badly, they reject war merely to prevent another such horrific outcome? That premise certainly fits the history.

But is an aversion to war motivated by first-hand experience with the monstrosity of war not still a sort of pacifism?

In fact, I would say having gone through a terrible war is a pretty sound reason to be against war, and would make a good impetus for pacifism.

So, you mentioned, already article 9 will be amended out? I had heard, even five years ago, that this was in the plans. Are the "right-wing nuts" still a minority over there, but growing?

What sort of beliefs to Japanese 'right wing nuts' hold? What do they believe that is nutty?

Who isn't, I mean really, who isn't a pacifist, I mean, do we really have war-ists, people who are just like 'fuck it, let's just have a war for no reason, I can't stand all this peace around here, let's invade some other country for the fuck of it'


Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.


Anyway, about the Constitution of Japan (wikisource)

Article 9
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.



It's not very different from the Constitution of the Italian Republic:


Art. 11
Italy rejects war as an instrument of aggression against the freedoms of others peoples and as a means for settling international controversies; it agrees, on conditions of equality with other states, to the limitations of sovereignty necessary for an order that ensures peace and justice among Nations; it promotes and encourages international organizations having such ends in view.


Or from the Fundamental Law of the German Federal Republic


Article 24 (Entry into a collective security system).
(1) The Federation may, by legislation, transfer sovereign powers to international institutions.
(2) For the maintenance of peace, the Federation may join a system of mutual collective security; in doing so it will consent to such limitations upon its sovereign powers as will bring about and secure a peaceful and lasting order in Europe and among the nations of the world.
(3) For the settlement of disputes between nations, the Federation will accede to agreements concerning a general, comprehensive and obligatory system of international arbitration.

Article 26 (Ban on preparing a war of aggression).
(1) Activities tending and undertaken with the intent to disturb peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional. They shall be made a punishable offense.



Go figure why. ;)

closer to passive aggressive

closer to passive aggressive

Heh, especially the women...

Heh, especially the women...

try Korean women. Start out all nice and princessy and passive then marry one. turn into a a yelling screaming bitch.

What sort of beliefs to Japanese 'right wing nuts' hold?

Beliefs they probably hold not, but the stability of the entire airframe depends on the proper functioning of bot the right and left wing nuts!

So, you would say they aren't intrinsically against war or violence, but their most recent major conflict turned out so badly, they reject war merely to prevent another such horrific outcome? That premise certainly fits the history.

But is an aversion to war motivated by first-hand experience with the monstrosity of war not still a sort of pacifism?

In fact, I would say having gone through a terrible war is a pretty sound reason to be against war, and would make a good impetus for pacifism.
Possibly, but the question then becomes at what point would the Japanese go to war again? Right now the Japanese public is very much against any military action. The stationing of the USS George Washington in Yokosuka has caused a massive outburst here, the recent Iraq mission was highly controversial and even the proposed anti-pirate operation by the MSDF off Somalia has attracted a lot of arguing, but times and people do change. Like I said, the generation that directly experienced the ravages of WWII is quickly fading away. Their children, those who were raised by them directly, are too growing old. What happens when they are gone and that experience is no longer there? If it truly has turned the Japanese to pacifism, it shouldn't matter, but if not...

So, you mentioned, already article 9 will be amended out? I had heard, even five years ago, that this was in the plans. Are the "right-wing nuts" still a minority over there, but growing?
The nationalists got a bill passed that provided a framework for actually amending the constitution through Prime Minister Abe. However, the move was very unpopular and Abe's support plummeted due to it and other problems. Right now the LDP's stated idea is to amend Article 9 to allow Japan to have a full army, navy, and air force and allow Japan to participate in collective self-defense, but not start a war. So it wouldn't be a full repeal of Article 9, but it would gut it a bit.

What sort of beliefs to Japanese 'right wing nuts' hold? What do they believe that is nutty?
Oh let me count the ways:
The US tricked Japan into attacking and starting WWII
WWII was not a war of aggression on Japan's part
There never were any comfort women
There never was any slave labor
The Rape of Nanking never happened, it's all a Chinese communist plot
Japan liberated Asian countries from White colonialism during WWII and those countries were grateful to Japan for doing so
Tojo was a hero
The Tokyo Tribunals were a sham of victor's justice and hanged innocent men
The Emperor needs to visit Yasukuni Shrine
The Prime Minister needs to visit Yasukuni Shrine
Japanese need to be taught real history and to not learn about what happened in WWII because it just makes them hate themselves
Japan has a right to all territories that it claimed during WWII
And so on and so forth.

Oh, and they state these opinions through very loud sound trucks that deafen anyone near by and spend the rest of their time mailing bullets to newspapers that they dislike for publishing any sort of article that goes against the above stated points.

These guys aren't just conservative, they are divorced from reality.

Possibly, but the question then becomes at what point would the Japanese go to war again? Right now the Japanese public is very much against any military action.

That's part of why I believe that the current Japanese are pacifists, but it could certainly change.


The stationing of the USS George Washington in Yokosuka has caused a massive outburst here, the recent Iraq mission was highly controversial and even the proposed anti-pirate operation by the MSDF off Somalia has attracted a lot of arguing, but times and people do change. Like I said, the generation that directly experienced the ravages of WWII is quickly fading away. Their children, those who were raised by them directly, are too growing old.

I kind of feel that those generations are currently the ones largely guiding Japanese society. Could we at least call those generations pacifist?


What happens when they are gone and that experience is no longer there? If it truly has turned the Japanese to pacifism, it shouldn't matter, but if not...

Good point, I hadn't really accounted for whether this was a pacifism with a truly persistent, abiding hold on the Japanese, or merely ingrained in the post war generations.

The ones I met had a tremendous respect for their elders, but at the same time, culture changes, much as the shift towards pacifism after the war was a departure from the prior militancy.

Could it be argued that the experience of WWII was a punctuating period of pacifism, that will likely erode over time?


The nationalists got a bill passed that provided a framework for actually amending the constitution through Prime Minister Abe. However, the move was very unpopular and Abe's support plummeted due to it and other problems. Right now the LDP's stated idea is to amend Article 9 to allow Japan to have a full army, navy, and air force and allow Japan to participate in collective self-defense, but not start a war. So it wouldn't be a full repeal of Article 9, but it would gut it a bit.

Its definitely a move away from pacifism. As you said, the machinery is now there. While it sounds like a total amendment didn't really gain much broad support, for it to have the backing to even emerge as a real possibility indicates a fissure that could grow.

Why is it I've experienced so few pieces of hopeful information that begin with the phrase "The Nationalists got a bill passed"...

I mean, from Asia to South America to Europe, to Africa, that seems to not often portend well...

*snip of wild ideas*
These guys aren't just conservative, they are divorced from reality.

Holy shit, and it sounds like a messy divorce...

Sure. Why would the Japanese ever need to engage in military conflict? They get out all their psychopathy in their gameshows :p

Yes, I consider Japan a pacifist country, by some reasonable definition. I rather like their adoption of neutrality. Japan will not enter a conflict nor lend it's military to anyone for any cause unless the country itself is being threatened. Many a nation should do the same.

I kind of feel that those generations are currently the ones largely guiding Japanese society. Could we at least call those generations pacifist?
The other problem is that the Japanese will engage in violence, just not war. So pacifism seems to be the wrong word to put on it. Anti-war, very strongly anti-war and anti-military yes, but anti-violence period...? Not so much.

Good point, I hadn't really accounted for whether this was a pacifism with a truly persistent, abiding hold on the Japanese, or merely ingrained in the post war generations.

The ones I met had a tremendous respect for their elders, but at the same time, culture changes, much as the shift towards pacifism after the war was a departure from the prior militancy.
That's a question that the Japanese themselves are struggling with and the war generation feels that the younger ones just don't understand what happened. Of course, I hear the same complaints from WWII vets back at home as well, that the younger generation doesn't understand what happened because for them (me) it was 60+ years ago and the scars have all healed. Japan now is a prosperous, peaceful nation. The fact the kids at the end of the war were being encouraged to catch frog and crickets to eat is academic at best.

Could it be argued that the experience of WWII was a punctuating period of pacifism, that will likely erode over time?
I hope not, but we shall see.

Its definitely a move away from pacifism. As you said, the machinery is now there. While it sounds like a total amendment didn't really gain much broad support, for it to have the backing to even emerge as a real possibility indicates a fissure that could grow.
It's worrying, yes. It doesn't help that the US has been pushing for this change heavily as well.

Why is it I've experienced so few pieces of hopeful information that begin with the phrase "The Nationalists got a bill passed"...

I mean, from Asia to South America to Europe, to Africa, that seems to not often portend well...
The question kinda answers itself, don't it? :wink:

Holy shit, and it sounds like a messy divorce...
Off on their own cloud nine... the problem is that there are members of the Diet and other major politicians who listen to them.

Yes, I consider Japan a pacifist country, by some reasonable definition. I rather like their adoption of neutrality. Japan will not enter a conflict nor lend it's military to anyone for any cause unless the country itself is being threatened. Many a nation should do the same.

I kind of like that approach myself.

On a separate note, five of us have gotten together and decided to kidnap you. Please tg me your location, then duct tape your ankles and handcuff yourself. Probably pee first.

The other problem is that the Japanese will engage in violence, just not war. So pacifism seems to be the wrong word to put on it. Anti-war, very strongly anti-war and anti-military yes, but anti-violence period...? Not so much.

When I was there, the only violence I saw much of was in a sporting context, which I'm not sure counts. I could be wrong.

And the Kyokushin guys definitely seemed like the type that wouldn't be too hampered in applying "sport" violence to other situations...


That's a question that the Japanese themselves are struggling with and the war generation feels that the younger ones just don't understand what happened. Of course, I hear the same complaints from WWII vets back at home as well, that the younger generation doesn't understand what happened because for them (me) it was 60+ years ago and the scars have all healed. Japan now is a prosperous, peaceful nation. The fact the kids at the end of the war were being encouraged to catch frog and crickets to eat is academic at best.

I hope not, but we shall see.

It's worrying, yes. It doesn't help that the US has been pushing for this change heavily as well.

The question kinda answers itself, don't it? :wink:

Off on their own cloud nine... the problem is that there are members of the Diet and other major politicians who listen to them.

What's got them freaked, North Korea and China?

Or is it the Hmong? Nobody trusts the Hmong.

I kind of like that approach myself.

It's a wise approach, imo.

On a separate note, five of us have gotten together and decided to kidnap you. Please tg me your location, then duct tape your ankles and handcuff yourself. Probably pee first.

Pssst. I'm behind you. *breathes down on Toomey's neck*

It's a wise approach, imo.



Pssst. I'm behind you. *breathes down on Toomey's neck*

Thrice damned super sultry Spanish ultra-ninja!

Have at you!

**strikes poorly balanced almost comically contorted distortion of martial arts pose, falls over, spilling bowl of Sugar Snaps all over self and burying head in waste basket**

(muffled) Please help.

Oh let me count the ways:
The US tricked Japan into attacking and starting WWII
WWII was not a war of aggression on Japan's part
There never were any comfort women
There never was any slave labor
The Rape of Nanking never happened, it's all a Chinese communist plot
Japan liberated Asian countries from White colonialism during WWII and those countries were grateful to Japan for doing so
Tojo was a hero
The Tokyo Tribunals were a sham of victor's justice and hanged innocent men
The Emperor needs to visit Yasukuni Shrine
The Prime Minister needs to visit Yasukuni Shrine
Japanese need to be taught real history and to not learn about what happened in WWII because it just makes them hate themselves
Japan has a right to all territories that it claimed during WWII
And so on and so forth.

.

It is always fun to put these types in the same room with Korean or Chinese college students.

Thrice damned super sultry Spanish ultra-ninja!

Have at you!

**strikes poorly balanced almost comically contorted distortion of martial arts pose, falls over, spilling bowl of Sugar Snaps all over self and burying head in waste basket**

(muffled) Please help.

You made me spit my juice!:D
I can't type straight from laughing!:D

*reaches over, bend in her pjs and helps Toomey out of waste basket*

Oh let me count the ways:
The US tricked Japan into attacking and starting WWII
WWII was not a war of aggression on Japan's part
There never were any comfort women
There never was any slave labor
The Rape of Nanking never happened, it's all a Chinese communist plot
Japan liberated Asian countries from White colonialism during WWII and those countries were grateful to Japan for doing so
Tojo was a hero
The Tokyo Tribunals were a sham of victor's justice and hanged innocent men
The Emperor needs to visit Yasukuni Shrine
The Prime Minister needs to visit Yasukuni Shrine
Japanese need to be taught real history and to not learn about what happened in WWII because it just makes them hate themselves
Japan has a right to all territories that it claimed during WWII
And so on and so forth.

Oh, and they state these opinions through very loud sound trucks that deafen anyone near by and spend the rest of their time mailing bullets to newspapers that they dislike for publishing any sort of article that goes against the above stated points.

These guys aren't just conservative, they are divorced from reality.

Those folks sound even more gone from reality than American neocons, and our own neocons are pretty out of it themselves.

You made me spit my juice!:D
I can't type straight from laughing!:D

*reaches over, bend in her pjs and helps Toomey out of waste basket*

Now spank me with your sword, like in Kill Bill!

Now spank me with your sword, like in Kill Bill!

Can I, at least, spank you once with my hand?:tongue:

I wouldn't go so far as to call Japan as a whole "Pacifist"...they have one of the best navies in the world, and you don't spend that money for no reason. I'd say they could probably beat any other regional power (including Russia and China) in a defensive campaign, provided the nukes don't fly.

That said, they are far more "laid-back" about the military than most other nations, which I consider a good thing.

Can I, at least, spank you once with my hand?:tongue:

If the ladies in Japan had been like you, I would've never left.

*strikes anime pose, background begins to whiz by*

Now, prepare to suffer the vengeance of my power, ooooOOH!

*holds hands together, swirling ball of blue energy begins to coalesce*

You are no match for my-owowowooOWOW SHITSHITSHIT OUCH!

*gets burned by own ball of blue energy, hops around room, clutching hand*

I wouldn't go so far as to call Japan as a whole "Pacifist"...they have one of the best navies in the world, and you don't spend that money for no reason. I'd say they could probably beat any other regional power (including Russia and China) in a defensive campaign, provided the nukes don't fly.

That said, they are far more "laid-back" about the military than most other nations, which I consider a good thing.

Do their commanders dress like the guy in StarBlazers? Cause that would be cool.

I have to say, if it weren't for the loss of life, seeing China lose a modern naval conflict to Japan would be awesome.

If the ladies in Japan had been like you, I would've never left.

*strikes anime pose, background begins to whiz by*

Now, prepare to suffer the vengeance of my power, ooooOOH!

*holds hands together, swirling ball of blue energy begins to coalesce*

You are no match for my-owowowooOWOW SHITSHITSHIT OUCH!

*gets burned by own ball of blue energy, hops around room, clutching hand*

*stares wide-eyed, a small sweat drop appearing by the side of her head* Eto... ano... Toomey-sama, daijobu ka?:eek2:

That's a question that the Japanese themselves are struggling with and the war generation feels that the younger ones just don't understand what happened. Of course, I hear the same complaints from WWII vets back at home as well, that the younger generation doesn't understand what happened because for them (me) it was 60+ years ago and the scars have all healed. Japan now is a prosperous, peaceful nation. The fact the kids at the end of the war were being encouraged to catch frog and crickets to eat is academic at best.

Experience is once again, the best teacher it seems. It leaves the deepest scars, but even those fade in time. Although I am not certain if periodic nationwide devastation every generation or three would ingrain the lessons as deeply as the first time. Present conditions in the Middle East and Central Asia seem to indicate that periodic light and medium level warfare that does not wipe out the people entirely hardens the culture to war and makes it an accepted part of life not only to endure, but to carry it on.

Experience is once again, the best teacher it seems. It leaves the deepest scars, but even those fade in time. Although I am not certain if periodic nationwide devastation every generation or three would ingrain the lessons as deeply as the first time. Present conditions in the Middle East and Central Asia seem to indicate that periodic light and medium level warfare that does not wipe out the people entirely hardens the culture to war and makes it an accepted part of life not only to endure, but to carry it on.

So in order to maintain peace we much have a world war every Generation... I like the way you think.

So in order to maintain peace we much have a world war every Generation... I like the way you think.

I see you didn't read what I wrote in its entirety. I had imagined for a while that if say, for example, America underwent widespread total devastation on its soil from unrestricted warfare, the populace would be less likely to support future wars while the destruction remains in living memory. But then I realized it wouldn't work out that way.

Cultures and attitudes aren't static. If devastation becomes a periodic staple, even one separated by a generation or two, cultures adapt to them, and become warlike themselves in order to better combat the devastation or fight others for now scarce resources.

Even if there existed a world police who slapped down everyone who started a war of aggression so hard it would take decades to rebuild, all it would do is drive the power mongers and ultra nationalists underground while they plot for a way to get what they want.

*stares wide-eyed, a small sweat drop appearing by the side of her head* Eto... ano... Toomey-sama, daijobu ka?:eek2:

*makes badly dubbed groaning noises, eyes shut, teeth clenched*

My super-blue-energy-death strike comes from the power of my heart, Nanatsu...

but...arg...how can I focus its might against the beautiful girl that saved me from the tentacle demon who falsely claimed that I dinged his car and threatened my insurance rates...

I...I would rather die than hurt you...I....I...

*dies*

Would you call the modern Japanese pacifist?

Not to their face

The Germans... get reeeaaallly anal about everything.

Nah, they do that all the time.

:tongue:

*makes badly dubbed groaning noises, eyes shut, teeth clenched*

My super-blue-energy-death strike comes from the power of my heart, Nanatsu...

but...arg...how can I focus its might against the beautiful girl that saved me from the tentacle demon who falsely claimed that I dinged his car and threatened my insurance rates...

I...I would rather die than hurt you...I....I...

*dies*

*reaches out to embrace the body of her dying stalker* Toomey? Toomey! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

*dies of heartbreak*

Tune in next week when Sgt Toomy and Nanatsu no Tsuki are mysteriously returned to life by a man with a turtle on his back and a dragon coming out of his seven balls.

So, you would say they aren't intrinsically against war or violence, but their most recent major conflict turned out so badly, they reject war merely to prevent another such horrific outcome? That premise certainly fits the history.
Well, they are, arguably, the only post-apocalyptic society on Earth.

And I say this with a good deal of seriousness.

Well, they are, arguably, the only post-apocalyptic society on Earth.

And I say this with a good deal of seriousness.

I suspect the survivors of Dresden would contest that claim.

I suspect the survivors of Dresden would contest that claim.
I wasn't really thinking of numbers killed, and the atrocity of the Dresden firebombing is enormous, but that Japan is the only place on Earth that has been attacked with a weapon capable of destroying human existence (although this is a tad anachronistic); that Japanese culture, the very society of Japan, was changed by the bomb in a way that, say, Germany wasn't by the firebombing.

I wasn't really thinking of numbers killed, and the atrocity of the Dresden firebombing is enormous, but that Japan is the only place on Earth that has been attacked with a weapon capable of destroying human existence (although this is a tad anachronistic); that Japanese culture, the very society of Japan, was changed by the bomb in a way that, say, Germany wasn't by the firebombing.

Any weapon is capable of destroying human existence, if used in sufficiently large quantities. Even nuclear weapons were not manufactured in sufficient quantity and yield to truly wipe out human existence. Utterly devastate the primary powers of the northern hemisphere, yes. Wipe out human existence, no. But I digress.

As for the society of Japan being changed by force, that's not really different from most societies and cultures that were subjugated. Regardless of whether the atomic bomb was dropped or not, the nation had been thoroughly devastated by firebombing campaigns and brought to starvation. Any other choice than capitulation would have resulted in a significant departure from the Japan of old. And even then, the Japan of just pre-WWII can hardly be considered to be the same Japan that was around before a certain Perry forced open the borders of cannon point.

Cultures sometimes undergo radical changes when it experiences a strong shock to the existing foundations of that culture. The bomb was just another shock. One with a high death toll and horror, true, but still just another shock in a string of shocks to that culture.

Any weapon is capable of destroying human existence, if used in sufficiently large quantities.
Sure, but I think nuclear weapons, to put it poorly, are on a different 'level'.

As for the society of Japan being changed by force, that's not really different from most societies and cultures that were subjugated. Regardless of whether the atomic bomb was dropped or not, the nation had been thoroughly devastated by firebombing campaigns and brought to starvation.
Again, I agree.

The bomb was just another shock. One with a high death toll and horror, true, but still just another shock in a string of shocks to that culture.
I think it's more than "just another shock".

NERVUN or Daistallia could confirm or deny this, but I believethe bomb had an impact on Japanese culture like no other. I don't want to overstate this, but it certainly pervades the society; it, and the reaction to it, is background to a huge amount (if not all) of the media, literature, etc., that has defined modern Japan.

I think it's more than "just another shock".

NERVUN or Daistallia could confirm or deny this, but I believethe bomb had an impact on Japanese culture like no other. I don't want to overstate this, but it certainly pervades the society; it, and the reaction to it, is background to a huge amount (if not all) of the media, literature, etc., that has defined modern Japan.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. The Meiji revolution for example, saw the de facto destruction of an entire political class and was a civil war for all intents and purposes, resulting in a rapid industrialization that would turn Japan into a significant power by the turn of the century. Would this have been possible if not for the shocks caused by the forced American treaties and the resulting end of the Sakoku period? It seems unlikely.

Given how much Japanese society has actually changed between 1940 and now, compared to some of the earlier restructuring, it could be argued that the bomb actually did less in terms of changing the society. It's still central in the media and literature for two reasons I suspect. One, it was done by foreigners(likely would have been the same reason as well if it was anyone else who suffered the bomb). Two, it's still in living memory.

Once it fades from living memory, and there's something new to get up in arms about, the bomb would become another small potatoes event relegated to history textbooks except when necessary to pull out for an excuse to gather grievances I believe.

In fact, given the resurgence of Nationalists, you could say that the long term societal effects of the bomb have already begun to be diluted.

<interesting snip>

Once it fades from living memory, and there's something new to get up in arms about, the bomb would become another small potatoes event relegated to history textbooks except when necessary to pull out for an excuse to gather grievances I believe.

In fact, given the resurgence of Nationalists, you could say that the long term societal effects of the bomb have already begun to be diluted.
I disagree, but it's not really something we can argue about with any meaning.

Intriguing discussion, though.

I can't remember, but do Japan have any major enemies or countries which are threats towards them? If not, then there is no reason why they wouldn't be pacifists.

I can't remember, but do Japan have any major enemies or countries which are threats towards them?
They're not enemies per se, but both Russia and China have territorial issues with Japan.

North Korea and Japan aren't too friendly. Granted, North Korea isn't really friendly with anyone, but they especially like telling Japan they've got missiles ready to hit 'em, if I recall.

The Japan-Russia thing is funny. They're technically still at war, I think.

They're not enemies per se, but both Russia and China have territorial issues with Japan.

Ok, but the problems Japan has with Russia and China aren't going to be settled with a war (Russia would pwn Japan and start WW3, vhitch roossians aren't luking forvard wery mootch; as for China, they're tied to Japan via the US market).

The only country whose military is actually giving Japan some preoccupations is North Korea.

Not really. They're pacifists in the same was the Weimar Republic was.

The Germans are like that. If you take away their outlet of massive industrialized war, they freak out and make bizarre TV shows in black turtlenecks and get reeeaaallly anal about everything.
What the hell are you talking about?
The problem with the Germans is that they're basically all alcoholics, if not alcohol then drugs, the entire Nazi high command was either shooting up or drinking themselves to death, as far as I can see, Goering's entire strategy was to get all the good wine from France, that was it.
Wow. You really have no clue whatsoever!
Basically the 2nd WW was a big boys Saturday night out across Europe, grab all the beaches, alcohol and drugs they could get their hands on and that's it, they're not really into war, it's just a really selfish attitude to fun.
So, calling all Germans alcoholics... what makes you think that wouldn't call for another round of "fun"? Third time's the charm, after all!
Not really. They're pacifists in the same was the Weimar Republic was.
Limited by the Treaty of Versailles, ravaged by post-war inflation, given the single blame for WWI? I think not!

Limited by the Treaty of Versailles, ravaged by post-war inflation, given the single blame for WWI? I think not!
I dunno, their army is limited by treaty, they are (as rightly as the Germans were) given the blame for getting the US into the Second World War and inflation has been a problem.

What the hell are you talking about?
Maybe he was refering to Uri Geller.

And the "bitching around" thing? Definitively true, it's not called "Jammern auf hohem Niveau" for nothing.^^
The rest, I guess, was not meant to be serious.

I dunno, their army is limited by treaty, they are (as rightly as the Germans were) given the blame for getting the US into the Second World War and inflation has been a problem.
Yeah, but whereas that happened after WW2 in Japan, the European WW2 was a direct result of WW1.
Maybe he was refering to Uri Geller.
Yeah, 'cause he's so German, he doesn't even speak the fucking language!
And the "bitching around" thing? Definitively true, it's not called "Jammern auf hohem Niveau" for nothing.^^
Okay, that I can see. Guilty as charged, I guess.
The rest, I guess, was not meant to be serious.
I sure hope not. *puts Stahlhelm away*

NERVUN or Daistallia could confirm or deny this, but I believethe bomb had an impact on Japanese culture like no other. I don't want to overstate this, but it certainly pervades the society; it, and the reaction to it, is background to a huge amount (if not all) of the media, literature, etc., that has defined modern Japan.
Kinda, in a way. The issue with the bombs in Japan is that they were used as the excuse for the Showa Emperor to order capitulation so there is the fascination with them as the weapon that defeated Japan. There's also the fact that their legacy keeps being passed on, we're still not too sure what is going to happen to the decedents of the survivors. Also, it allows Japan to play the victim. A lot of criticism, some of it deserved, has been leveled at Japan in that it tends to gloss over what happened before the bombings and presents the bombings in a way that makes it sound like that one day, for no particular reason, the US decided to drop these bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are treated in the way that typhoons or earthquakes are treated, a great human catastrophe that no one could have predicted or stopped. It has gotten better, the Peace Museum at Hiroshima presents a much more balanced view about what Japan was doing during the war, but...

As the defining moment for current Japanese culture... Not as such, say the war itself though with the bombing as the final symbol, just as the Civil War left some deep scars on the US and we use, say, the Gettysburg Address as a symbol of it.

As to how long it will endure... who can say? But survivors of Hiroshima complain that every year the A-Bomb Dome looks smaller.

I can't remember, but do Japan have any major enemies or countries which are threats towards them? If not, then there is no reason why they wouldn't be pacifists.
China, Russia, North and South Korea actually.

The Japan-Russia thing is funny. They're technically still at war, I think.
Yup, technically speaking, WWII is still going on as Russia and Japan have never concluded a peace treaty.

I dunno, their army is limited by treaty, they are (as rightly as the Germans were) given the blame for getting the US into the Second World War and inflation has been a problem.
Not by treaty, by their own constitution.

Yeah, 'cause he's so German, he doesn't even speak the fucking language!


I don't know who Uri Gellar is.

But I do know one thing.

Now is the time on Schprockets when we dance.

North Korea and Japan aren't too friendly. Granted, North Korea isn't really friendly with anyone, but they especially like telling Japan they've got missiles ready to hit 'em, if I recall.



They also have a habit of sending in Special Ops teams to kidnap Japanese directors and actresses.

Yeah, 'cause he's so German, he doesn't even speak the fucking language!
Neither did Daniel Küblböck, but both starred in popular and bizarre TV Shows.

China, Russia, North and South Korea actually.
How are Russia and South Korea threats to Japan? They may not like each other, but is there really a sentiment of a possible military stand-of in the future?

Yup, technically speaking, WWII is still going on as Russia and Japan have never concluded a peace treaty.
So, how is economic investment in each other's country regarded, then? Infiltration of the enemy's infrastructure?

They also have a habit of sending in Special Ops teams to kidnap Japanese directors and actresses.

We should totally do that.

"Gentlemen, you are the best representatives of the SEALS, Delta, Rangers, Force Recon, and Mega Force. We-"

"Um, Mr. President, I'm sorry, but Mega Force isn't real."

"Its not?"

"No, sir, that was a movie. It starred Barry Bostwick."

"I see. Gentlemen, you are the best special forces we have. I'd like you to make covert entry into Japan via airborne insertion, kidnap whoever makes that great tentacle hentai porn, after which you will extracted via submarine."

"Sir, these aren't the special forces. You aren't in office anymore. President Obama was sworn in. You're...you're kind of retired now, sir."

"So...I can't order the kidnapping of a Japanese film maker? Like Kim Jong Dong did?"

"No sir. These are the groundskeeping staff. That's Manny, the gardener, Paolo there takes care of the pool, Joseppe there is your chef."

"I see. I'm gonna call him Colonel Chopsalot. Heheh."

So in order to maintain peace we much have a world war every Generation... I like the way you think.

http://api.ning.com/files/eiMy17hUNiHYMATHSX3-13gn-aKxJo3SdaRr6ryJIi0_/sakura36000_20070725_181243.jpg

Pain agrees wholeheartedly. Well, he was more talking one massive WMD per generation, but same concept. He's also a complete douche. Not that that's relevant, just something I thought I'd mention.

How are Russia and South Korea threats to Japan? They may not like each other, but is there really a sentiment of a possible military stand-of in the future?
Yes, actually. Russia and Japan have been a-butting heads over the Kuril Islands, with Russia turning up the heat now and then by impounding Japanese fishing vessels and sending off diplomatic insults. Russia has also stated that it will defend the Kurils with military force if necessary.

South Korea and Japan are doing the same with the Liancourt Rocks. South Korea keeps saying that it WILL defend all South Korean territory, especially the rocks, with military force. This is aimed right at Japan.

So, how is economic investment in each other's country regarded, then? Infiltration of the enemy's infrastructure?
More along the lines of both Tokyo and Moscow wondering if they every will manage to conclude a peace treaty so that such investment isn't seen as silly.

Pain agrees wholeheartedly. Well, he was more talking one massive WMD per generation, but same concept.
Awww, crap.

More Naruto to catch up on...


<info snip>
Ta!

Most interesting.

I don't know who Uri Gellar is.
But I do know one thing.
Now is the time on Schprockets when we dance.
You didn't miss anything.

Then again, seems like I need to catch up on some SNL.
Neither did Daniel Küblböck, but both starred in popular and bizarre TV Shows.
Kübelblök is a disgrace, and he's from the South, too - so what would you expect? That said, there's stuff I watch, and other stuff I would never watch. Shows that have crazy people like them in'em are in the latter category.

Awww, crap.

More Naruto to catch up on...

I don't know how far back you are but my God, I don't think Kishimoto's ever made a villain that managed to have a incredibly traumatic backstory and yet still be unquestionably evil. I mean the number of personal grudges with the protagonist that he's created in the last 100 chapters alone...

I don't know how far back you are...
I stopped watching after Naruto learnt his new move.

I can't be assed with poorly-animated filler.

I stopped watching after Naruto learnt his new move.

I can't be assed with poorly-animated filler.

I haven't watched the anime to the end of that arc either. I'm talking about the manga here.

I haven't watched the anime to the end of that arc either. I'm talking about the manga here.
Ahhh, I sees.

I don't read the manga, though my flatmates do. They run off and have secret conversations about things I won't see for a year...

http://api.ning.com/files/eiMy17hUNiHYMATHSX3-13gn-aKxJo3SdaRr6ryJIi0_/sakura36000_20070725_181243.jpg

Pain agrees wholeheartedly. Well, he was more talking one massive WMD per generation, but same concept. He's also a complete douche. Not that that's relevant, just something I thought I'd mention.

someone caught my reference.

Ahhh, I sees.

I don't read the manga, though my flatmates do. They run off and have secret conversations about things I won't see for a year...

Well just so you know, Pain's a jerk... A complete kneebiter.

Considering they have a purely self-defence based military and haven't attacked anyone outside of their country (with the exception of peace keeping troops?), I'd say they qualify as pacifists, as much as Canadians and New Zealanders.

Um...Japan fought in Iraq, correct? the Iraq War?...So, no not pacifists by any definition, lol...

Um...Japan fought in Iraq, correct? the Iraq War?...So, no not pacifists by any definition, lol...

they were being peace keepers.

they were being peace keepers.

Did they carry guns with lethal ammunition? were they keeping the peace in an active war-zone?

I dont remember Ghandi doing such things...

Did they carry guns with lethal ammunition? were they keeping the peace in an active war-zone?

I dont remember Ghandi doing such things...
Uh... while the Japanese troops did have their arms and amo, they were not allowed to fire them. They were probably the only military that had to have a military guard from another nation in case they were attacked.

There were, however, carrying, and using, soccer balls.

Yes, actually. Russia and Japan have been a-butting heads over the Kuril Islands, with Russia turning up the heat now and then by impounding Japanese fishing vessels and sending off diplomatic insults. Russia has also stated that it will defend the Kurils with military force if necessary.

South Korea and Japan are doing the same with the Liancourt Rocks. South Korea keeps saying that it WILL defend all South Korean territory, especially the rocks, with military force. This is aimed right at Japan.
So does Japan fear that those two countries might expand their territory further at the cost of Japanese soil, or is there an underlying ambition that Japan could one day reclaim those regions back when the political and economical odds are different than today, like some revisionist whackos in Germany have, concerning the former Eastern Prussian teritorries? Also, are those regions of any geo-economic value or is it more like a "sacred home soil" thing?

Uh... while the Japanese troops did have their arms and amo, they were not allowed to fire them
Not even in the case of an enemy ambush? When Iraqi insurgents shoot at Japanese soldiers they are not allowed to shoot back?

They must feel really lame when they compare themselves to their Samurai ancestors.

So does Japan fear that those two countries might expand their territory further at the cost of Japanese soil, or is there an underlying ambition that Japan could one day reclaim those regions back when the political and economical odds are different than today, like some revisionist whackos in Germany have, concerning the former Eastern Prussian teritorries? Also, are those regions of any geo-economic value or is it more like a "sacred home soil" thing?
It's a bit mixed. South Korea and Russia are more concerned with the fact that Japan has laid claim to both of the territories under dispute, and in the past, controlled them. Pretty much South Korea's response now if more as a chance to redo what happened during the early 1900's when Japan took Korea as a colony. Russia, however, is more about keeping what it took during WWII, but, even then, both sides had a history of claiming and fighting over the Kuril Islands. Part of it is that those Kuril were spoils in the Russo-Japanese War and by keeping them, Russia is revenging itself for losing that war.

Japan's claims on them are historical, but confused on which islands are being talked about and the like. What can be said is, excepting the wing-nuts, no one in Japan is talking any sort of military action to reclaim them. The threat of military action is on South Korea and Russia's side only.

But, yes, both territories are in the middle of very rich fishing grounds and possible natural gas beds, another reason why it's a hot topic.

Not even in the case of an enemy ambush? When Iraqi insurgents shoot at Japanese soldiers they are not allowed to shoot back?
Nope. If I understood their rules of engagement, they were only allowed to fire if their base was under direct attack, as in an actual army was going at them. If, for example, their guards took sniper fire, the GSDF could not help them or return fire.

They must feel really lame when they compare themselves to their Samurai ancestors.
Given how useless the samurai were after the Edo Period was around for a bit...