Would you give Japan its military back? - Page 4

tokusatsufan · (#31 (**permalink**))

Well war films are terrible so for a selfish reason I don't want them to have a military.

It is going to be nice not living in a militaristic country.

Jaydelart · (#32 (**permalink**))

Yes.

Japan is a new nation, with new people. I wouldn't oppose giving them their military back... unless there were indications that malicious plans were in place -- which I'm not aware there are, at this moment. It could also be a military established under certain precautionary conditions.

tazzy · (#33 (**permalink**))

No, they have economic problems enough as it is without their military spending growing.

Guza · (#34 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBraden

But they have!

omg!!!! now if it only wernt a statue lol

Sangetsu · (#35 (**permalink**))

Japan renounced war after their unconditional surrender at the end of WW2. Though Japan is an independent country nowadays, some conditions of the surrender remain in place to this day. These conditions are the main reasons that Japan has no standing military, and why American forces remain on Japan to this day.

This may sound extreme, but you have to remember that WW2 began less than a generation after WW1, which was falsely called "The war to end all wars". Germany quickly recovered from their defeat, and the reluctance of Britain and other countries to enforce the conditions of their Germany's previous surrender by force merely invited a far greater conflict which resulted in the deaths od countless people. America and the allies were not going to make this same mistake twice. Japan's surrender was "unconditional", meaning that they gave up everything; their military, all weapons of all discriptions, ownership of lands and businesses, their very sovereignty, to America.

America instituted great changes to the culture. The tenant-farming system was abolished, the land was taken from the landowners and given to the farmers. The ownership of the great industries was also changed. Douglas MacArthur more or less wrote the Japanese constitution himself, and made it less amenable to change than the American constitution. There were changes and revisions in the earlier years, but these were done by MacArthur and Washington, not Japan.

Some years later Japan regained their sovereignty, but it was conditional. And these conditions still apply to this day.

Those who remember the war (and there are still many such people in Japan) remember the hardships of that time, and the shame of defeat, and these are the people who are most opposed to Japan having their own military. To this day, service in the Self Defence Force is not necessarily seen as a good thing, and SDF soldiers are treated well, but are not especially respected. American soldiers receive more respect, particularly among old Japanese.

The time may come when America amends the treaties, and Japan will become fully independent, with their own military, but probably not in our time. It is in America's interest to maintain a large military presence in Asia, and the treaties with Japan provide a good excuse for doing so.

In military matters, China is not a signficant threat to America. China's economy is large, but it's margin is narrow, and the country's wealth remains superficial. Beginning last year, America deployed it's Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines to Asia. One of these submarines carries enough weaponry to destroy China's manufacturing infrastructure, and no less than three have been kept in rotation. These are in addition to the US carrier groups which are also deployed in the area.

Japan needs no military, and for the most part, it doesn't want one.

JohnBraden · (#36 (**permalink**))

I must add that Japan would have to increase its defense budget if they were to regain its military. I'm sure they wouldn't want any more of their GDP to go to defense than is already allocated. That's one reason they want U.S. presence in their country.