Is Japan NOT allowed to build it's army?

Ok so in short, Japan let it's right to build a mighty military to be written away, because they kicked so much ass in WW2, to an extent that they became savages. So in turn they look at themselves and say " look at the animal we have unleashed " it must never be uneashed again. And so they write in their constitution preventing themselves from ever building a military again.

OR

Is it because they declared surrender, and as punishment Americans such as the one mentioned above write that they basicly can't do anything forever. This sounds very wrong that someone from the winning country has the right to re write their constitution to their liking just because they surrendered.



Oh and I'm sorry Gravykraken, I was pretty mad at the time I wrote that. I didn't mean to sound like that. I apologize.

reply to post by Redneck from Hell


Seems like you have a one tracked-mind.

2nd.

reply to post by Redneck from Hell


Last time I checked it was the US that was attacked by the Japanese empire. We were just trying to mind our own business.

The nukes might have saved a million American lives and probably more Japanese.
Payback's a bitch.

Originally posted by Redneck from Hell
Is it because they declared surrender, and as punishment Americans such as the one mentioned above write that they basicly can't do anything forever. This sounds very wrong that someone from the winning country has the right to re write their constitution to their liking just because they surrendered.

That's the one.

Was it right or wrong?

Both, frankly. In return for the occupation and all of it's negative aspects, Japan was able to rebuild into an economic and technological powerhouse. For every con to the situation, there's a pro. Was re-writing the constitution the best way to go? Possibly not - as the designers have caused some inadvertent social problems here through the wording of the document.

A case in point - the textbook/historical revisionism thing that comes up every year or so. People always demand to know why the J-gov't allows such things: the bottom line is that under the law, they are explicitly forbidden from deciding what cannot be taught in the classroom. Makes Japan look like closet warmongers abroad, and strains relations in the region. But there's nothing that can be done, because it's the law - and no one wants to give the gov't the power to change it, because of what happened last time. I'm sure no one saw that coming in 1946.

Originally posted by Atlantican

The Japanese have enough nuclear material in storage to MATCH the nuclear arsenal of the USA or Russia in an extremely short time, even delivery systems. Think two years or less, given their strength as an industrial powerhouse, let's VOW to never excite their need for rewriting their self limiting constitution. They are a very different people that history shows, they would die for a heck of a lot less than the rest of us would.

They are extraordinary in so many ways and are, especially, extraordinary at PEACE, now, instead of war. If they became militarily ambitious, they would be a superpower in the blink of an eye. What a fantastic ally they are and we should commend them daily on their resolve for peace. Their military ambition or lack thereof is oppositely proportional to our need to ensure they have NO NEED to militarize.

I respect your words and see you to be a Man that understands cultures around us.

Well put,

E

But why do the Japanese now reject militarism? They are sitting ducks and quite frankly vulnerable should SHTF, with Russia, North Korea, Israel, Iran.
They will be hit with something if the US wages war against a country that can fight back with a military.

Do the citizens believe that they are protected without a military. THATs what I can't understand. A country without a military is vulnerable. How do they feel that they can't protect themselves with the might of an Army, Navy like in WW2. THATS WHAT I CANNOT UNDERSTAND. Please ATS help me out.

Thank you so much guys.

reply to post by Redneck from Hell


The simle answer they have a defense pact with the United States by treaty if Japan is attacked the United States will defend her.Sort of like having a huge older brother not to many kids are going to pick on you. Anything minor they have there self defense force which can hold out untill big brother gets there.

Originally posted by Redneck from Hell
Do the citizens believe that they are protected without a military. THATs what I can't understand. A country without a military is vulnerable. How do they feel that they can't protect themselves with the might of an Army, Navy like in WW2. THATS WHAT I CANNOT UNDERSTAND. Please ATS help me out.

Thank you so much guys.

Japan has a military, although technically speaking it's an extension of the national police force and the coast guard. But it is, to all intents and purposes, a military. A very modern, well trained, and above all well equipped one. The Japan Self Defense Force. JSDF.

It's just not allowed to be used offensively, as per the constitution. Thus there is a lack of certain things like aircraft carriers and long range subs and so on.

reply to post by vox2442


I was about to say the same thing. The Japanese SDF are nothing to be sniffed at, they just can't operate in an offensive capacity outside of Japanese borders, yet this is subject to fierce debate at the moment within Japan.

If anyone thinks that Japan is defenceless, then they might be in for a shock.

As to the poster that says Japans defence budget is tiny compared to the US, well, everyones' budget is tiny compared to them!

The US defence budget is bigger than the next ten countries combined! But, in real terms, the Japanese budget of around $50 billion places them a healthy 4th in the world, just behind France and ahead of Germany.

Originally posted by Bushido Kanji
They currently have a $44 Billion military budget, which is nothing compared to our $651 Billion, which is first in the world.

Just feel like challengind that. $44 Billion is almost 10% of the US budget, so I wouldn't call it nothing - most nations in the world couldn't afford to spend 1% of what the US does.

Getting back on topic
Only the US, China, the UK, and France spend more on military forces than Japan, so the claim that the US or UN do not allow them to build an army is wrong (regardless of what anyone says, 240,000 armed man is an army).

Japan, I believe, is the only nation in the world that self-impossed a ban on nuclear weapons. The recent nuclear tests performed by NK promted discussion as to whether the ban should be removed or not. The US and UN played a neutral role in those discussions.

You see this is why I love ATS. I came in with anger, and left well informed and my anger diminished. Thank you all for every post.


Just want to mention something. Do you guys think that it's healthy for the US to basicly declare themselves the side " protectors " of Japan, should a large scale attack happens upon the Japanese? Given the events that happened for that to become, this is an oath that if broken would seriously damage US image around the world badly, and would fuel Japanese hunger for rewriting their constitution and building great weapons.
Now that I think about it, does the US have a pact with any other country like that? Oh and one more think I might have missed, why is it that the US chooses to protect Japan, is it because of unconditional surrender?

Originally posted by Redneck from Hell
Now that I think about it, does the US have a pact with any other country like that? Oh and one more think I might have missed, why is it that the US chooses to protect Japan, is it because of unconditional surrender?

On the first point - yes, the USA has *similar* agreements with a number of countries. The NATO alliance, for example, stipulates that an attack on one country is an attack on all. To see how this has been applied, take a look at the NATO movements into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

The USA's special involvement in Japan post-WW2 has a little more to it than just being the terms of surrender. Japan is strategic - they used to call Japan the largest aircraft carrier in the world. US bases in Japan have shifted the regional balance for 60 years and counting - and made possible both the Korean War and Viet Nam, in addition to propping up the USA's man (and later regime) in Taiwan.

So it's not just about keeping a thumb on Japan, although it could be said that it started that way. It's more of keeping a thumb on Asia.

There's a very definite give and take at play here. Japan is limited in it's offensive abilities, but has received protection (from an attack that will probably never come), as well as significant economic benefits (especially in the 15 years post war) from having such a large number of troops stationed here. America "protects" Japan, but receives a base that has enabled them to become the global power that they are.

There's a lot to it - but think of it like this. The USA is using Japan for their own gains, and Japan is using the USA for it's own. Everyone meets in the middle and calls it a military agreement on mutual protection and assistance and so forth, but both parties are using each other for their own gains. Okinawa would be a lot worse off today - economically speaking - if not for US bases.

It's a give and take. Not everyone is happy about it here - I've seen more than a few Yankee go home type signs in the countryside near bases and ranges, and I've had to explain to more than a few doormen and hotel operators that I'm not an American (let alone a Marine). But overall, it has been good for Japan.

It's ending, though. Bases are gradually moving to Guam. Once the clean up is finished, I think Okinawa is going to be seriously hurting for jobs for a few generations...

Thank you for the explanation.

I did some digging and found this article:

www.inteldaily.com...

In it it says that there are about 50,000 troops stationed in Japan, 22,000 of them in Okinawa. And that with the agreement about 8,000 of the Okinawa troops will be moving to Guam by 2014.

So, can we really say that it's ending? The reason for the movement is to ease tension with so many troops there, by relocating a bunch of them correct? There will still be 14,000 troops there though.

Doesn't look like it's ending, after all there will still be a great number of troops there. What do you guys think? Am I correct here?

Also, what would change should the Us troops COMPLETELY leave Japan aside from Okinawa's economic growth? Would the protection deal be any less?

Japan is losing its value in the economic world sphere as the production and labor pools switch form Japan/Korea to China and India. The economics will follow suit as will the resources.

The folks who , after WW2 invested in Japan are pulling out their support and moneys and re investing them in China and India. These two nations will be the new Japans/Koreas...the new investment areas.

Our military's are likewise pulling out slowly

There was some talk and discussion in the first Gulf War in the early 1990s about Japan being part of the Alliance or Coalition and Japan being limited offensively by treaty. The talk as I remember was about changing this treaty limitation. Same with the second Gulf War. I think the Japanese may have sent a very small contingent in the Second Gulf War to man hospitals and handle supplies/materials..etc..but not combat units. They did not stay long.

One of the facets of this agreement which is not known or even made aware to Americans is that the Japaneses military expense even for defense was minimum. We pay for most of their defense. It leaves much capital for them to invest in other areas. This appears to have changed in recent years.

With the pulling out of our military's the Japanese have shouldered more and more of these military expenditures to the point where they are financially today.

Concerning their nuclear capabilities..I agree with the other poster. The Japanese are fully capable of producing nuclear weapons but do not want to do so because of their history. They also have space launch capability and the development of multiple independent re entry vehicles is easily feasible by them. (MIRV)

The Japanese are also quite capable of building submarines of quality and even the "Boomer" type if desired. They have the industry base and the know how. The problem here is costs.

The Japanese also have many commercial nuclear power plants in operation along with the facilities to process the fuel for these plants.

What is of interest to me is that there appears to have been a quick and quiet cover up in an accident in these processing plants. This accident occurred some ten or more years ago in the mixing of the compounds for the fuel. It appears that the compounds went critical and killed two or three workers in this process.
What is of interest to me and starkly telling...is that even within the closed/cloistered nuclear trade or community there is very little known or spoken about this accident. The silence is deafening to some of us....be telling of politics.

Within any specialized trade...medicine, crane operations, industry, disease control...et al...there is a pipeline of information's exchange in hopes of preventing further Catastrophes, accidents, deaths, or injuries, From this accident there is mostly silence. I find this very interesting and telling both of the Japanese political system in play and our system here in the states. Someone very high up is looking out for them and someone else is looking the other way.

I am glad to see you have calmed down here Redneck from Hell. I genuinely do not think Japan wants the economic burden on their economy which would occur if they built and maintained an offensive military. The expenditures would be to great verses their diminishing GNP. This includes not only military peoples but the hardware as well..including nuclear weapons which are very expensive to produce but also to maintain.

I am in the nuclear field and know something about how much this skill and trade costs to maintain an experienced cadre of peoples to safely and competently handle the processes. Commercial nuclear plants alone are very expensive ...adding a complex system of nuclear weapons plus the launch/delivery systems is also very very expensive.

Take a look at what England/UK is planning long range for their nuclear arsenal in the face of rising costs. It might help you further in your understanding.

Hope this helps.

Orangetom

Originally posted by Atlantican

The Japanese have enough nuclear material in storage to MATCH the nuclear arsenal of the USA or Russia in an extremely short time, even delivery systems. Think two years or less, given their strength as an industrial powerhouse, let's VOW to never excite their need for rewriting their self limiting constitution. They are a very different people that history shows, they would die for a heck of a lot less than the rest of us would.

This is absolute absurd assertion. No matter how smart you are how great your industrial capabilities. You cant match the US and Russian nuke capability overnight. Just ask the Chinese or the Indians or even the Europeans. The level of sophistication of the US nuke arsenal is something Japan even with its technical prowess cant match overnight. Besides, just because you have plenty of reactor grade nuclear material doesnt mean squat in terms of weapons . Processing them into weapons grade nuclear material requires time, even for the most technically proficient.

Furthermore, any nation no matter how smart its scientists and how capable its industry still needs to actually TEST nuclear devices to master nuclear weapon design. Even with the most powerful computers and excellent software, without basic data gathered ONLY from testing, simulations are useless. The US and Russia have tested extensively and have gathered enormous data. Their know-how on nuclear weapons is unmatched by any other nations in the world- Europe included.

Finally as to historical capability, historically America has proven to the Japanese that even when they were at the TOP of their game, we still defeated them completely and utterly starting from a disadvantage, proving to them and to the world that the United States cannot be conquered.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by IAF101]

Originally posted by IAF101Finally as to historical capability, historically America has proven to the Japanese that even when they were at the TOP of their game, we still defeated them completely and utterly starting from a disadvantage, proving to them and to the world that the United States cannot be conquered.

What are you referring too?

Does WW2 and the Atomic Bomb have any place in this? If so you've got to be kidding me.

"completely and utterly" wow..

reply to post by Redneck from Hell


Somebody should tell these guys to drop all those weapons then.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Redneck from Hell

 

Somebody should tell these guys to drop all those weapons then.

Thats the JSDF, not an Army.

You should read some of the thread before posting.