Full Version: Japan's Military Expansion
I have been of the opinion that Japan's pacifist stance towards foreign policy has been an obstacle to freedom, security etc. in east asia. Now, it seems, that is about to change.
Japan emerges from its pacifist shell
Japan reveals military might
What do you think this could mean for Asia and the rest of the world?
QUOTE(Jonathan Watts @ The Guardian, Jun 2 2003)
After half a century of waging peace, Japan will be able to start preparing for war later this month when parliament is expected to pass the nation's first law countenancing the possibility of an enemy attack...Japan has been jolted out of its pacifist reverie by the launch of a North Korean missile over its territory in 1998, Pyongyang's withdrawal from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty this year and increasing hints by US scholars that America is less willing to shoulder Japan's defensive responsibilities now that the cold war has ended.
Against this backdrop, the three contingency bills sailed through the powerful lower house of parliament last month with the support of the ruling coalition and the main opposition party. Given that defence was long the most divisive issue in Japanese politics, the overwhelming backing for the bills was understandably described by the prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, as "epoch-making."
Against this backdrop, the three contingency bills sailed through the powerful lower house of parliament last month with the support of the ruling coalition and the main opposition party. Given that defence was long the most divisive issue in Japanese politics, the overwhelming backing for the bills was understandably described by the prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, as "epoch-making."
Japan emerges from its pacifist shell
QUOTE(Brian Victioria @ The Globe and Mail, Jun 5 2003)
Today, Japan has 240,000 men and women under arms. Having spent nearly $50-billion (U.S.) a year on defence for each of the past five years, Japan has a force, at least in terms of funding, second only to the U.S...Although China is perceived as posing a long-term threat, the more immediate danger comes from a nuclear-armed North Korea. It was this threat that only last month led the Japanese parliament's lower house to pass three "war continúgency bills." They allow the Prime Minisúter to put the nation on a war footing even when there is no more than "fear that such an attack may occur." As deúfence agency chief Shigeru Ishiba made clear during the parliamentary debate on these bills, this includes the possibility that Japan may launch a "pre-emptive strike" against any nation thought to be preparing to attack.
Japan reveals military might
What do you think this could mean for Asia and the rest of the world?
This could possibly tip the balance of power towards Japan's favor or it might cause China to have a rival but it would completely change the world & the region
But i can see why they want to gear up. I would too if one of my neighbors started test-shooting rocket delivery systems over my head.
One question though: Aren't they not allowed to ever have a military anymore since WWII??
But i can see why they want to gear up. I would too if one of my neighbors started test-shooting rocket delivery systems over my head.
One question though: Aren't they not allowed to ever have a military anymore since WWII??
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jun 5 2003, 02:27 PM)
One question though: Aren't they not allowed to ever have a military anymore since WWII??
QUOTE(Brian Victoria @ The Globe and Mail, Jun 5 2003)
Article 9 of the postwar Japanese constitution stated, "The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation. . . Land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."
Despite having been imposed by the United States, Japan's postwar "Peace Constitution" resonated deeply with most Japanese people, who by the time of their nation's defeat in August, 1945, had been at war, mostly in China, since 1931, resulting in nearly three million military and civilian casualties.
However, little more than a year after the new constitution took effect, the United States began to systematically dismantle the constitution's "no war" provisions, which it had initially insisted on...From then until now, there has been a concerted effort, fostered by both the Japanese and U.S. governments, to reústore Japan to the status of a modern military power, albeit one firmly under U.S. military control and tied to its straútegic objectives.
Despite having been imposed by the United States, Japan's postwar "Peace Constitution" resonated deeply with most Japanese people, who by the time of their nation's defeat in August, 1945, had been at war, mostly in China, since 1931, resulting in nearly three million military and civilian casualties.
However, little more than a year after the new constitution took effect, the United States began to systematically dismantle the constitution's "no war" provisions, which it had initially insisted on...From then until now, there has been a concerted effort, fostered by both the Japanese and U.S. governments, to reústore Japan to the status of a modern military power, albeit one firmly under U.S. military control and tied to its straútegic objectives.
I think it's a good thing. They can defend themselves, and we can get out (as we should). It's win- win.
Edited to add: We should give S Korea a five year notice and then pull out, which would give them the initiative to build up their military too.
Edited to add: We should give S Korea a five year notice and then pull out, which would give them the initiative to build up their military too.
For the time being I think it's fine. While I don't fully agree with the tactics being used to handle the North Korea situation, it could very well benefit us bringing Japan in as a stronger military power. I say could only because it is still a precarious situation and it's uncertain whether North Korea might consider such acts to be acts of war. They have been rather shady on their definitions of such acts and as to how they might respond to them, should any occur.
Regarding long term implications, I'm wondering what impact this might have on foreign relations with China. While the move seems to have good intentions, I wouldn't want to rule out North Korea being an excuse to establish leverage against China for the future. Were that to be the case, or perhaps become the case later, I would be wary of such a move. If we successfully limit the power of our European counterparts and then effectively surround the largest Asian power, I'm not so sure it would play out well for America in the long run.
Regarding long term implications, I'm wondering what impact this might have on foreign relations with China. While the move seems to have good intentions, I wouldn't want to rule out North Korea being an excuse to establish leverage against China for the future. Were that to be the case, or perhaps become the case later, I would be wary of such a move. If we successfully limit the power of our European counterparts and then effectively surround the largest Asian power, I'm not so sure it would play out well for America in the long run.
they have all kinds of equipment, they come and train in washington state, i have been hopeing to meet some of them. there is a poster of one unit in a club i sometimes go to.
the equipment they have has standards to it, it cant be better then u.s hardware. i dont knwo if that has changed at all.
but allowing them to have there own force woudl be good in that the american forces in japan would have some help, but it is a bad sign i guess of whats going on over there.
the equipment they have has standards to it, it cant be better then u.s hardware. i dont knwo if that has changed at all.
but allowing them to have there own force woudl be good in that the american forces in japan would have some help, but it is a bad sign i guess of whats going on over there.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Jun 5 2003, 08:19 PM)
For the time being I think it's fine. While I don't fully agree with the tactics being used to handle the North Korea situation, it could very well benefit us bringing Japan in as a stronger military power. I say could only because it is still a precarious situation and it's uncertain whether North Korea might consider such acts to be acts of war. They have been rather shady on their definitions of such acts and as to how they might respond to them, should any occur.
Regarding long term implications, I'm wondering what impact this might have on foreign relations with China. While the move seems to have good intentions, I wouldn't want to rule out North Korea being an excuse to establish leverage against China for the future. Were that to be the case, or perhaps become the case later, I would be wary of such a move. If we successfully limit the power of our European counterparts and then effectively surround the largest Asian power, I'm not so sure it would play out well for America in the long run.
Regarding long term implications, I'm wondering what impact this might have on foreign relations with China. While the move seems to have good intentions, I wouldn't want to rule out North Korea being an excuse to establish leverage against China for the future. Were that to be the case, or perhaps become the case later, I would be wary of such a move. If we successfully limit the power of our European counterparts and then effectively surround the largest Asian power, I'm not so sure it would play out well for America in the long run.
i definitely agrees i think this move is an excuse to establish leverage against China(since Japan is having disputes with china over a small island that belongs to China but the japanese claims its theirs
)and japan being the US's strongest allie in Asia Japan is being used by George Bush as a second Britain but in the Asia area who will come in handy if our crazy president decides he wants to invade China too. I think Japan and our country is more likely to plunge the Asian Pacific region to war once again than N.Korea. Considering how brutal and ruthless the Japanese military is in WWII and our war raging president. Pacifism is what made Japan such a great country to live in today i think this move will alienate Japan from their neighbours and would probably make the chinese and the koreans very angry at the japanese.
The Japanese people do need to be able to defend themselves. There's no telling what North Korea is going to do, but the North Koreans are obviously announcing to the world that they are a power with which to be reckoned.
QUOTE(UH 45 @ Jul 26 2003 @ 03:04 AM)
...I think Japan and our country is more likely to plunge the Asian Pacific region to war once again than N.Korea. Considering how brutal and ruthless the Japanese military is in WWII...
That says nothing of Japan today. Because early settlers were brutal in their dealings with Native Americans does not mean contemporary Americans are going to engage in similar behavior. That German soldiers followed orders in the slaughter of millions of innocent people says nothing for what German soldiers are capable of today.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 26 2003, 02:37 AM)
The Japanese people do need to be able to defend themselves. There's no telling what North Korea is going to do, but the North Koreans are obviously announcing to the world that they are a power with which to be reckoned.
That's why the Japanese have us in their harbors. we have 2 carrier battle groups in Japanese ports that can respond to threats and North Korea is one of them.
The Japanese don't need to re-create their military to curb the North Korean threat as long as we are nearby
This may just be the final straw for Japan as a pacifist nation...
Japan party reviews pacifist constitution
About time if you ask me...
QUOTE
Japan's major ruling party plans to consider revising the country's pacifist constitution, according to the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda.
Mr Fukuda said on Tuesday that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) would aim to draw up proposals by the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the party, in 2005.
Article Nine of the constitution, which was written under US post-war occupation in 1947, renounces the use of force by Japan in settling international disputes...
Mr Fukuda said on Tuesday that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) would aim to draw up proposals by the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the party, in 2005.
Article Nine of the constitution, which was written under US post-war occupation in 1947, renounces the use of force by Japan in settling international disputes...
Japan party reviews pacifist constitution
About time if you ask me...
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 26 2003, 01:12 PM)
This may just be the final straw for Japan as a pacifist nation...
Japan party reviews pacifist constitution
About time if you ask me...
QUOTE
Japan's major ruling party plans to consider revising the country's pacifist constitution, according to the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda.
Mr Fukuda said on Tuesday that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) would aim to draw up proposals by the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the party, in 2005.
Article Nine of the constitution, which was written under US post-war occupation in 1947, renounces the use of force by Japan in settling international disputes...
Mr Fukuda said on Tuesday that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) would aim to draw up proposals by the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the party, in 2005.
Article Nine of the constitution, which was written under US post-war occupation in 1947, renounces the use of force by Japan in settling international disputes...
Japan party reviews pacifist constitution
About time if you ask me...
I can understand why too.
North Korea's saber rattling has made everyone in the area pretty nervous, including the United States.
They have been thinking about a missile defense shield because of NK too:
Head of Defense Agency wants missile defense shield in Japan
QUOTE
Ishiba Shigeru, Defense Agency director-general, at an Upper House committee meeting on defense on July 15 expressed his intention to seek funds for a missile defense system (MDS) in Japan in the FY2004 budget.
Also, since 9/11, it's been hard keeping out of the geopolitical spotlight
There is an amount of nationalistic Japanese lawmakers that want to see Japan return to "glory" i.e- prior to WW2- and the makeup of thier goverment, basically a one party system- could lead them very quickly down the path to thier former imperialism. I have always been impressed with Japanese culture and intrigued by thier nearly homogeneous society, something that really doesn't exist in many "free" countries, nor even many other countries period. It makes for some very interesting strengths and weaknesses. One weakness IMO is the ability to very quickly revert to thier aggressive past. But I know that a very large part of thier society would be against that as well, so it is hard to say. I think the new Japaneses military would be on par with the Isreali or US military very quickly, because of thier devotion to excellence and duty.
They are a steadfast american ally, and thier economy is irrevocably tied to ours, so a very strong ally in that theater may be speading us too thin already. So I guess I am ambivilent about the whole deal. I have a Japanese friend that is a pilot that will be visiting soon, I will ask him about how he feels about it.
They are a steadfast american ally, and thier economy is irrevocably tied to ours, so a very strong ally in that theater may be speading us too thin already. So I guess I am ambivilent about the whole deal. I have a Japanese friend that is a pilot that will be visiting soon, I will ask him about how he feels about it.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 26 2003, 04:00 PM)
There is an amount of nationalistic Japanese lawmakers that want to see Japan return to "glory" i.e- prior to WW2- and the makeup of thier goverment, basically a one party system- could lead them very quickly down the path to thier former imperialism... One weakness IMO is the ability to very quickly revert to thier aggressive past.
Do you see that kind of sentiment behind this current move to amend Article 9?
I talk to my Japanese pilot about once a year, and alot of changes have happened in the last year. There is regular, very popular books published by Japanese nationalists. There is a rather large population of poeple that make no apologies for WW2 or the Japanese atrocities and win elections regularly, but if it is more than just a vocal minority, I don't know.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 26 2003, 07:46 PM)
I talk to my Japanese pilot about once a year, and alot of changes have happened in the last year. There is regular, very popular books published by Japanese nationalists. There is a rather large population of poeple that make no apologies for WW2 or the Japanese atrocities and win elections regularly, but if it is more than just a vocal minority, I don't know.
Well they're definitely a minority...
QUOTE
Article Nine of the constitution, which was written under US post-war occupation in 1947, renounces the use of force by Japan in settling international disputes.
There are growing fears in Japan that neighbouring North Korea is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, and that Japan could be at risk of attack. However, a recent poll showed that only 42% of people favoured a revision of Article Nine, according to Reuters news agency.
There are growing fears in Japan that neighbouring North Korea is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, and that Japan could be at risk of attack. However, a recent poll showed that only 42% of people favoured a revision of Article Nine, according to Reuters news agency.
Japan party reviews pacifist constitution
However, I'm not convinced it is nationalism that drives this effort. Enabling the country to use military force if needed seems only logical. That does not mean a return to WW2 Japan...
It would with no doubt be a vocal minority.
When Miyazawa denied outright that we had ever attacked China (he was particularly keen on denying the Rape of Nanking), there were tens of millions of people who sent him angered letters and photofiles of Japanese atrocities. There were also the thirty thousand or so who commended him.
However, I do not approve of the increases in the military Koizumi proposes. I feel it could easily throw us into war... and I'm not too keen on war with nuclear-armed states.
(As a minor sidenote, I've noticed that people often condemn Japanese and German and Italian atrocities in WWII... but it's very rare that I see people who will note the US, British and Russian atrocities... Maybe I just spend too much time in US-run Conserative forums, though.)
When Miyazawa denied outright that we had ever attacked China (he was particularly keen on denying the Rape of Nanking), there were tens of millions of people who sent him angered letters and photofiles of Japanese atrocities. There were also the thirty thousand or so who commended him.
However, I do not approve of the increases in the military Koizumi proposes. I feel it could easily throw us into war... and I'm not too keen on war with nuclear-armed states.
(As a minor sidenote, I've noticed that people often condemn Japanese and German and Italian atrocities in WWII... but it's very rare that I see people who will note the US, British and Russian atrocities... Maybe I just spend too much time in US-run Conserative forums, though.)
QUOTE(Rising_Sun @ Aug 29 2003, 04:28 PM)
However, I do not approve of the increases in the military Koizumi proposes. I feel it could easily throw us into war... and I'm not too keen on war with nuclear-armed states.
Although I share your concern about a war between DPRK and Japan. I think recent events show that Japan is not likely to be the country that triggers one.
Under these (or any) circumstances I believe it is only reasonable that Japan develop the capability to defend itself.
As for the vocal minority, from your unique perspective do you feel that the drive to amend Japan's constitution is supported largely by the nationalists?
And, of course, welcome to the forum!
I have confidence that Japan will make the right decision by it's self concerning military growth.
I don't see how we could be threatened by this because since WWII ended, we have been good allies.
I don't see how we could be threatened by this because since WWII ended, we have been good allies.
Koizumi is no nationalist.
I don't think his supporters, mostly, are either.
However, his remilitarization could only be viewed by a person like myself, as reckless. Maybe I've spent too long hoping for world unity, and a lack of militia/WMD, and for a socialist reform (SOCIALIST, not COMMUNIST). Eh.
I don't think his supporters, mostly, are either.
However, his remilitarization could only be viewed by a person like myself, as reckless. Maybe I've spent too long hoping for world unity, and a lack of militia/WMD, and for a socialist reform (SOCIALIST, not COMMUNIST). Eh.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.