Should Japan be Allowed to Rearm?

Should Japan be allowed to rearm for offensive capabilities? I believe that they should be allowed to because it ihas been a long time since World War II and Japan is now our second strongest ally. Also, with the tensions and build-ups in eastern Asia as they are right now, the situation is becoming increasingly unstable and will probably soon become hot. In this case, an offensive capable Japan would be of great aid and possibly our only lifeline to Asia after a month or two. (I am from the USA)

japan should be allowed to rearm i mean what they ait gona go on some revenge streak and go agaisnt the allies from ww2
japan should be allowed to do as it pleases within certain rules of course

The problem is mostly with Japan's people; from being brainwashed after WWII, most are against the buildup of their military and it is even stil in their constitution that the military should be built for d efensive purposes only.

they are rearming as we speak with US/NATO weapons

I'm not speaking to myself right now, but if you enjoy talking to yourself when you are alone and posting on ATS then that is OK with me. It is a little weird, but OK with me...

Japan has the third largest military spending in the world behind the US and Russia so I guess they are. They spend almost as much as Russia, somewhere around 50 billion I think.

what! what do they spend it on?
they must have shizen loads of medikits

Yeh I reckon they should.

It�s every countries right to have an huge army and a s**t load of weapons, as long as your on our side and buy them from us that is.

Besides its been about 60 years since the war and it�s probably the most peaceful country in the world today. You cant expect a nation to rely on its allies for protection for ever, especially when your allies with the West.

they spend it on plays. just before they entered Iraq i saw something on the news about Japanese soldiers performing in theaters and stuff. I'm guessing they spend it on all the special effects.

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by Orias]

Some military budgets from arround 1998:
FACT SHEET
Prepared by the Center for Defense Information
Ph: (202) 332-0600/Fax: (202) 462-4559




Last of the Big Time Spenders:
U.S. Military Budget Still the World's Largest, and Growing
Selected Countries Military Budget
United States $288.8 Billion
Russia* $55.0
Japan $41.1
China* $37.5
United Kingdom $34.6
France $29.5
Germany $24.7
Saudi Arabia $18.4
Italy $16.2
South Korea $11.6
Taiwan $10.7
India $10.7
Brazil $10.3
Turkey $8.9
Australia $7.2
Netherlands $7.0
Israel $6.7
Canada $6.7
Spain $6.0
Iran $5.7
Greece $3.8
Poland $3.2
Norway $3.2
Kuwait $3.0
Syria $2.9
Pakistan $2.7
Denmark $2.6
Belgium $2.5
Egypt $2.2
Portugal $1.6
Iraq $1.4
Libya $1.3
North Korea $1.3
Yugoslavia $1.3
Czech Republic $1.2
Vietnam $0.9
Cuba* $0.8
Hungary $0.7
Sudan $0.4

Figures are for latest year available, usually 1999. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending.
* 1998 Funding

Man, we spend 288B and have trouble w/ a 1.4B Iraq?? Somethings not going right in the tactital sense. I mean, even accounting for being kind to civilians and all, just wow...

Oh, and BTW- You can be assured that China is ahead of Japan in defense spending, but they "blacklist" a lot of it as other government, non-military projects. So, Japan is probably #4? With its economy it could be up with the USA..

As in, Japan is obviously powerful, but it could be a superpower if it wanted.... stupid Japanese schoolgirls!

[Edited on 5/24/04 by RedDragon]

Japan does not pose a threat to anyone, they want to rearm for defense mostly because of the crazy North Koreans. The decision is Japan's and noone elses. Japan is one of the few countries that have really changed from most of their old views and have realized that changes go hand in hand with the times we live in.

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by Muaddib]

That would mean that they could pose a threat to the DPRK (North Korea) , and possibly China.

I think we should let germany rebuild itz military!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, most Japanese DO NOT want to re-arm. Send the peace troops to Iraq caused a BIG uproar over here. The govt was pushed by the US to send troops, the US hinted at helping more with N Korea if they sent troops. North Korea has abducted over 400 Japanese during the 70`s and 80`s. They finally admitted to abducting 15 or so. They only returned 5 and said the others dies. But, reports are that they are alive.. This is a huge and personal issue for Japanese, so they sent troops to Iraq. They even had to amend the constitution for this. Now, Most Japanese like the defensive onyl position that is in the constitution. Reasoning... Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is horrific what happened to the people there and they do not want to see it happen again. So, Japan has tried to stay away from tht issue. Would it be ok for Japan to re-arm...yes, they willnot attack anyone offensively. Will they re-arm..... No, they really have no desire to. Washington is forcing their hand a bit though.....

Japan is already 'armed'. They have an impressive and modern 'defense' force. As noted by RedDragons post about spending. Otherwise, it's just a matter of policy.

Their navy was even present in Vietnam helping the US, much like they have people in Iraq now (non-offensive stuff)

Side NOTE about N Korea..... North Korea returned the 5 people that admitted abducting and were still alive. They returned, but their families were not returned. N Korea only let the kids go back to their parents when Koizumi visited their and offered about 500 tons of food. Japan is bending over backwards to peacefully settle this issue. Last year North Korea shot a missle over Japan as a show of how they can reach Japan if they want to. North Korea sends spy ships into Japan coastal waters all the time. Last year, one was sunk pretending to be a fishing vessel. The crew killed themselves rather than be caputred. When Japan raised the ship, it had tons of Hi-Tech gear. Who is a danger to who?



[Edited on 24-5-2004 by JCMinJapan]

Maybe they are both a danger to each other.

Naa, Germany is one of the few countries that haven't learnt from the past. In recent years they have demonstrated that they prefer to side with other countries like France and accept the profits from genocides and helping out dictatorships rather than being trully humanitarian.

"THE LANGUAGE of human rights flows smoothly from the lips of the leaders of France and Germany. But continuing Franco-German hegemony in Europe is bad news for human rights, especially for victims whose oppressors are European Union partners. Take, for example, the victims of the Sudanese government's genocidal jihad. In the words of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, there is ''no greater tragedy on the face of the earth than the tragedy that is unfolding in the Sudan.''
For the past 20 years, the regime in Khartoum has bombed, starved, and enslaved black Southern Sudanese with impunity in an effort to subject them to Islamic rule. As a result, over two million black non-Muslims have perished. A further five million have been driven off their land.

Sudanese slaves -- mainly women and children -- are routinely beaten, raped, genitally mutilated, forced to convert to Islam and racially abused. The scale of this ''crime against humanity'' -- as slavery is identified in international law -- is enormous. Credible estimates of the number of Sudan's slaves range from tens of thousands to over 200,000.

..............................................

The expansion of Franco-German hegemony over an area that approximates the bounds of the Roman Empire would fulfill the ambition to counter America, the only remaining superpower.

What little hope there is for Sudan's slaves comes mainly from New World democracy, not from the failed powers of the Old Europe. A broad left-right, black-white coalition, including such polar opposites as the conservative former Senator Jesse Helms and liberal US Representative Donald Payne -- a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, has pushed the Bush administration to invest significant financial and political capital in the first credible Sudan peace initiative.

The Bush peace plan is underpinned by the tough language of the Sudan Peace Act, passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress. It identifies slavery as one of the government of Sudan's many acts of ''genocide.'' This powerful legislation also combines the threat of prosecutions for slavery and other crimes against humanity with the possibility of massive US financial support for the armed opposition to Sudan's Islamist regime."

Excerpts taken from.
www.frontpagemag.com...


You would also think that at least Germany would have learnt from their past mistakes, but it seems they haven't. They even went so far as to side with Saddam to protect their own interests (money) they had invested in that dictatorship.

I am not saying the German people are all like this, but their government has made sure to stand by profitering from genocide once more. But I don't really know why the people had let their contry be associated again with the word genocide.

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by Muaddib]

Reddragon....Japan has not threatened the world by using nuclear weapons so that everyone would meet their demands....only NK has, in this case.

You should pay more notice to what is happening in the world if you want to make such an statement....