Reinstate the Japanese Military?

[ProfessorWashu]

I don't know which section this belongs under, so I picked as closely as I could. Sorry if it's in the wrong place, Mods.

According to a measure given to the Japanese as part of their surrender in 1945, the nation was to be pacifist and defended by the US military. Afterward, the measure loosened a bit and Japan was allowed to possess a small self-defense force that was very limited in its activities. The US would maintain presence in the Japanese archipelago.

Several nations are concerned with this issue, and whenever the suggestion of a reinstating of the Japanese military in full comes around, China and Korea prick up their ears and listen closely. The US is involved because we are the ones who maintain military presence in the archipelago.

As I have observed, throughout the decades following WWII the Japanese nation has demonstrated its complete cooperation with international law and has improved its attitude toward the international community exponentially. There have been no major issues springing up to lead the US to believe that the Japanese nation may be planning to disobey international ordinances or to re-attack nations they formerly occupied. In fact, the nation has been very vocal about its ultimate goal of establishing a more peaceful world.

For this reason, it is my belief that the Japanese should be allowed to reinstate their military. The Japanese nation has demonstrated itself as a trustworthy ally to the US and the international community as a whole. There are still bitter rivalries in Asia, I'll admit. But that's no reason to deny a nation its right to independent self-defense. Besides, there is little reason to believe that those rivalries would explode into out-and-out war simply because the Japanese have their own military again.

Since the US needs to pool its resources and concentrate on defending itself in Iraq and the other fronts in the war on terror and securing the borders, it would serve to benefit the nation by withdrawing forces from the archipelago and replacing them with Japanese forces. Then we'd have more manpower concentrated where we need it, rather than wasting men and money enforcing an outdated and no longer necessary mandate. So it's not just the Japanese who would benefit.

Besides, reinstating the Japanese military would create a mass of jobs for Japanese. The construction of military equipment and facilities would need to be dealt with, and would thus give a nice boost to their economy. Everyone wins!

Let's have a nice dialogue, folks!

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

A rose by any other name...

Go look up just how "small" the Japan Self-Defense Forces are.

Most importantly:

"Japan's USD $44.3 billion/year budget makes it the fifth largest military spender in the world, after the United States, Germany, United Kingdom and France."

[isolatedotaku]

The real question is, Do the Japanese want the military reinstated?

From my experiences, the answer is no. While in Gifu City, Japan last summer the conversation came up at a conference. From the response of the audience, it was clear that the Japanese enjoy having a peace-before-war society. Japan is a pretty pacifistic place (ignore the Nationalists, whom are the exception and not the norm), and they like the idea of only having a "Self-Defense" force.

[Akimichi Choji]

A rose by any other name...

Go look up just how "small" the Japan Self-Defense Forces are.

Most importantly:

"Japan's USD $44.3 billion/year budget makes it the fifth largest military spender in the world, after the United States, Germany, United Kingdom and France."

It's not surprising I completely agree with Kuzu here. The JSDF already have an army, navy, and air force. Not only that, but they are already involved in international peace keeping situations. So "reinstating" the army is a changing on names. The only thing I can think of, was it might actually screw Japan. As big as the JSDF is, we have about 35,000 troops and 6,000 people over there. Taking away those forces because Japan has a "military" again might make it a pretty nice target.

[Neo-Hunter]

I really don't see that happining i mostly think its due to the fact that they want to get rid of the marines and navy stationed their due to all of the crap they do on shore leave which the japanese hate us for also on a related note recently their stocks or GDP Hasn't looked good due to what happend here with the housing and credit crisis and that a lot of japanese banks and business had to pull out a lot of investments.

[ProfessorWashu]

The real question is, Do the Japanese want the military reinstated?

From my experiences, the answer is no. While in Gifu City, Japan last summer the conversation came up at a conference. From the response of the audience, it was clear that the Japanese enjoy having a peace-before-war society. Japan is a pretty pacifistic place (ignore the Nationalists, whom are the exception and not the norm), and they like the idea of only having a "Self-Defense" force.

Yes, and that is the question I did not have the answer to. (Ironically, it was also the most important one.) Apparently I've given the Nationalists more clout than they actually have. If the Japanese don't even WANT a military force that is completely independent, then let's just keep things as they are.

Besides, the numbers of the JSDF certainly are sufficient to defend the nation. I was more examining the Nationalist principle and agreeing. Apparently, though, the Japanese are perfectly satisfied with the current situation. As it is their nation and having US presence there causes no harm for either party (as well as keeping China and Korea calm), I say let it stay as is.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

The critical factor in this is that if the Japanese were to reinstate a formal military, it would require a CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, and that would be something very difficult to push through. It probably wouldn't just be a 50% + 1 vote.

And if you were China and Korea, wouldn't you get a little pissed off if Japan started remilitarizing formally? We've discussed the reasons that China isn't particularly happy with Japan sometimes, but one has to keep in mind that Korea was a Japanese colony from 1910 to 1945 via an illegal annexation.


For this reason, it is my belief that the Japanese should be allowed to reinstate their military. The Japanese nation has demonstrated itself as a trustworthy ally to the US and the international community as a whole.

What choice did they have?


But that's no reason to deny a nation its right to independent self-defense.


They already have that. The JSDF is not under US command.


Since the US needs to pool its resources and concentrate on defending itself in Iraq and the other fronts in the war on terror and securing the borders, it would serve to benefit the nation by withdrawing forces from the archipelago and replacing them with Japanese forces. Then we'd have more manpower concentrated where we need it, rather than wasting men and money enforcing an outdated and no longer necessary mandate.


You want to throw MORE men into that meatgrinder? Not to mention, there's also US troops in Europe, the Philippines, and the Taiwan Straits. Why Japan?

[ProfessorWashu]

The critical factor in this is that if the Japanese were to reinstate a formal military, it would require a CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, and that would be something very difficult to push through. It probably wouldn't just be a 50% + 1 vote.

And if you were China and Korea, wouldn't you get a little pissed off if Japan started remilitarizing formally? We've discussed the reasons that China isn't particularly happy with Japan sometimes, but one has to keep in mind that Korea was a Japanese colony from 1910 to 1945 via an illegal annexation.



What choice did they have?



They already have that. The JSDF is not under US command.



You want to throw MORE men into that meatgrinder? Not to mention, there's also US troops in Europe, the Philippines, and the Taiwan Straits. Why Japan?

Valid points. Were I China or Korea, I'd certainly dislike the Japanese nation a bit, I suppose. As to their obedience, I most certainly considered that point myself.

And yes, the JSDF is most certainly its own independent self-defense unit. I was thinking more along the lines of a Japan without foreign bases established on its soil. But since they don't seem to mind....

Lastly, the sending of more men to Iraq. I am completely, 100% against that war. Frankly, I don't think that the War on Terror can be won by invading nations. You can't just run around the world acting like a police officer, that is NOT how you take down a terror cell. What I meant was having more men available to circulate in a necessary war, but I suppose I was just typing without thinking, because you can achieve the same darn effect with the current base dispersal.

Why Japan? Because they were discussing the issue. It was just a selected nation.

[Akimichi Choji]

Lastly, the sending of more men to Iraq. I am completely, 100% against that war. Frankly, I don't think that the War on Terror can be won by invading nations. You can't just run around the world acting like a police officer, that is NOT how you take down a terror cell. What I meant was having more men available to circulate in a necessary war, but I suppose I was just typing without thinking, because you can achieve the same darn effect with the current base dispersal.

I hate to be a fuddy duddy, but lets stay on task here. Especially with such a heated issue.

Now as someone who truly doesn't know. Why would America or Japan even give a crap about what Korea, Vietnam, or China would think if they reinstated their military?

Japan, as previously stated, is a great allie to the U.S. Which, like it or not, is the #1 military force on the face of this Earth. So if they did reinstate the forces in Japan, what could anyone do? The U.S. would back anything Japan would do. Simply mentioning the U.S. alone would keep China out of any conflict, for fear of harming our various trades and what not. And if ol' Kim decided to throw a hissy fit, there is no doubt he would be pummelled.

So answer me this ladies and gentlemen. What would Kim Jong Il do?


WWKJID, what would Kim Jong Il do? I can hear the song now...

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

Simply mentioning the U.S. alone would keep China out of any conflict, for fear of harming our various trades and what not.

How about the other way around? Think of what a Chinese trade embargo would do to the US economy, or at least, to Wal-Mart. <.<

[Shadowmage]

So answer me this ladies and gentlemen. What would Kim Jong Il do?
He'll threaten to launch his cruise missiles... As usual.

How about the other way around? Think of what a Chinese trade embargo would do to the US economy, or at least, to Wal-Mart. <.<
It's certainly a double-edged sword. America would suffer so would China. Theoretically, America will be able to find other trading partners and China will find new buyers, but the fact is, America is the biggest global consumer and China has the infrastructure.

[laborpilot86]

The bigger question in Japan right now is whether to add nukes and an organic aircraft carrier force for the Maritime Self-Defence Force. The Japanese have several reactors that could be used to make weapons-grade material, but the society as a whole is very leery of it (see Hiroshima, Nagasaki). On the 'fleet air arm' side, the helicopter carrier Osumi has been remarked on as looking 'unfininshed'...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/images/osumi01_h.jpg

they classify these puppies as Landing ship tanks, but the specs are in the aircraft carrier range. There was a huge debate about the Osumi class and the pacifist articles in the 1947 Constitution, hence the 3 ships being classified as LST instead of carriers.

[isolatedotaku]

Japan is strictly non-nuclear in terms of weapons. They are the world leaders in the call for nuclear disarmerment and it would take the death of every single person who knows of Hiroshima's effects on Japan to change that (which would mean, no more Japanese). That might sound a little hyperbolic, but a nuclear-armed Japanese anything will never exist in our lifetime.

[laborpilot86]

That might sound a little hyperbolic, but a nuclear-armed Japanese anything will never exist in our lifetime.

It has been mulled, mostly in light of North Korea's sheningians, but your right in the short-term at least.

[f1rst children]

I really don't see that happining i mostly think its due to the fact that they want to get rid of the marines and navy stationed their due to all of the crap they do on shore leave which the japanese hate us for also on a related note recently their stocks or GDP Hasn't looked good due to what happend here with the housing and credit crisis and that a lot of japanese banks and business had to pull out a lot of investments.

Not to be glib, but TS for the Japanese on that. Unless they want to build a new HQ for the US 7th Fleet, which covers both North Korea and the Taiwan Strait, the Americans ain't going anywhere.

If Japan wants to re-militarize so they can actually play a meaningful role in global peacekeeping, fine. If they're doing as some nationalist "expel the barbarians from Yokosuka" campaign, they're tilting at windmills.

And the vast majority of the "killing" of Japanese by US servicemen is unintentional - mostly auto accidents. It's just not as high-profile as stuff like this (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/03/us.sailor.japan/index.html).


How about the other way around? Think of what a Chinese trade embargo would do to the US economy, or at least, to Wal-Mart. <.<

The US has a mutual defense treaty with Japan, which carries all the legal weight of the Constitution. It has no such treaty with China.

[laborpilot86]

"expel the barbarians from Yokosuka" campaign, they're tilting at windmills.

That won't stop the 'Nippon Banzai' crowd from constantly harping on rare cases like the taxi driver in Yokusuka.

[ProfessorWashu]

A nuclear-armed Japan would never happen in anyone's lifetime. It wouldn't shock me a bit if they spend the most money out of anyone else on the planet on anti-nuclear proliferation statements/movement (advertisement, organizational funding, etc. etc.) That's because to date they are the only nation to have actually suffered a nuclear attack, and thus know exactly what such warfare can do.

I misread the desires of the Japanese people when I made the statement that the Japanese should possess a fully reinstated military. It was my understanding that the Nationalists were a bigger movement, and more reflective of the whole of Japan. In other words, it was a misunderstanding. If the Japanese HAD been wanting their own military and all the responsibilities that come with it, it was my belief that they should be given their way.

However, as one considers the difficulty (and inherent danger to the Japanese) of reinstating the Japanese military in full (constitutional modification, Chinese/Korean opposition, etc.) one finds that my original suggestion was kind of ridiculous. Especially considering it's not even something the general Japanese desire to begin with. This has been an enlightening discussion, and I am grateful for everyone's input thus far. I'd like to delve deeper, because this is turning over a lot of discussions no one will have here where I live. At least not in this much depth.

[f1rst children]

That won't stop the 'Nippon Banzai' crowd from constantly harping on rare cases like the taxi driver in Yokusuka.

Oh, I'm sure some Japanese will keep complaining about it. I'm saying that despite all their complaining, the US won't be doing anything about it.

US bases in Japan/Okinawa are the main rapid-deployable forces in East Asia. They'll be the ones responding to any action by North Korea. The USS Kitty Hawk, the US 7th Fleet's carrier, is based out of Tokyo Bay.

The troops in the Korean DMZ are basically cannon fodder. They're not going to stop a million-man North Korean army, they're there to try and slow down the attack long enough for the South and the US to mount an effective counterstrike. Air bases in South Korea are mostly stocked with fighter/interceptors. B2s fly out of Okinawa and Guam (one just crashed about a month ago), and Okinawa is also the base for the C-130s which would be doing food/medicine refugee drops in any large-scale conflict.

These strategic resources are simply too vital to give up over some Japanese complaining. Certainly not at a time when Kim Jong Il definitely isn't getting any less crazy, and China may start cracking down on autonomous-minded regions. If Tibet, why not Taiwan?

[laborpilot86]

It was my understanding that the Nationalists were a bigger movement

what they lack in numbers they make up for with sheer volume.

[ProfessorWashu]

what they lack in numbers they make up for with sheer volume.

I have no idea what that means. Does it mean that they have few members, but a lot of members in very key places to get a movement started? (Like a high ranking politician or a powerful conglomerate's C.E.O.?)

And the Yokosuka incident is a pretty interesting one. On the one hand, we've an American military member killing civilian Japanese. On the other, we have that the military personnel who committed the offense was a deserter (basically a traitor) and captured by the US. I can see how the Japanese would be upset, but this guy was obviously no representative of the United States.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

I think what he means is that radicals talk 20 times more than moderates.

[laborpilot86]

I think what he means is that radicals talk 20 times more than moderates.

nope. I'm talking giant loudspeakers and S.S style uniforms (I'd link to the Japan Times Online, but thier URLs aren't persistant)

[ProfessorWashu]

AH! I see what you mean! They lack numbers, so they try to make a huge spectacle out of themselves so they'll make news and have their cause heard! Kind of like the Westborough Baptist Church does.

S.S. style uniforms, eh? That really WOULD make a spectacle.

[Akimichi Choji]

S.S style uniforms

Oh yes because THAT will certainly warrant our full support in the recovery of Japan's "military" forces.

what they lack in numbers they make up for with sheer volume.


Flamboyancy and idiocy can hardly be considered "volume." Loudspeakers or not, a mentally impaired person with one is just that, a mentally impaired person with a loudspeaker. Does that mean more people will rally to their cause? No, it just means more people will have to hear about it.

[laborpilot86]

Flamboyancy and idiocy can hardly be considered "volume."

If no one challenges you, or worse, caves in to your demands, yes that can be considered 'volume'.

[ProfessorWashu]

But the Nationalists WERE challenged. And, in fact, they were defeated. Otherwise this thread would've been almost meaningless, as the Japanese military would have been reinstated.

I follow that if a grassroot movement to make a major change shouts itself loudly and annoyingly enough, people will listen and debate the issue they want to talk about. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the group has volume (unless you mean the physical property of sound waves, specifically loudness). Volume in the other sense (i.e. depth, power, etc.) is just not present in the Nationalist movement, as they were so ardently opposed that they never stood a chance in hell of getting their way.

[laborpilot86]

But the Nationalists WERE challenged.

not as often as they should be. They have successfully hijacked the N. Korean kidnappings issue (during the 1970s, some Japanese schoolkids were kidnapped by the NK secret service for service as spys. most didn't survive) to thier own ends, despite some muted objections from the victims' families. The nationalists have also succeeded in intimateding the Teacher's Union (a frequent oppanent) into making teachers stand to attention for the Kimigayo (national anthem) under threat of being sacked.