Support NeoGAF

[King Gilga]

Why? What do you think they will do?

Have you seen anime?

But really I guess it's more I don't trust Abe than japan in general.

 

[drtomoe123]

No draft, and the LDP has gone on record saying that they wouldn't have one. I can actually imagine a lot of SDF members wanting to leave the service, because this is clearly not what they originally signed up for.

I agree. When I was listening to the NPR report of this, it mentioned that, because of the pacifist stance, there had been no direct casualties in the SDF since the war. Must be pretty scary realizing that could change.

On one hand, Japan has one of the biggest defense budgets in the world, so I can understand why this could be seen as a good thing. On the other, it's pretty clear that most of the people want continued peace.

I think that Vice is really sloppy with their investigative work, but I thought this documentary on Japanese right-wing groups was pretty interesting.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

I kinda don't see the issue here

China is still by far the biggest aggressor overthere and Japan as a "1st World nation" has its citizens, assets and interest all across the globe. Being able to send troops beyond her borders should be an option that's available.

 

[Valkerionseven]

Wonder what South Korea's response is to this.

They already hated Abe's whole cabinet, daily Korean news has a feature on Japan being a dick in some fashion when they have not done anything new that week its about their sex slave system.... but that's a whole different thread/argument to get plenty of gaffers banned for haha.

In general though soon as this was proposed one of the first questions raised was of course, "what if the Korean conflict heats up again, USA gets involved, wouldn't this allow Japan to engage as well?" S.K.'s response was quite frank in saying absofuckinglutely not. Korea is quite adamant about letting the whole damn peninsula fall to the north than having Japanese troops anywhere near them ever again.

 

[Principate]

I kinda don't see the issue here

China is still by far the biggest aggressor overthere and Japan as a "1st World nation" has its citizens, assets and interest all across the globe. Being able to send troops beyond her borders should be an option that's available.

The fact this is basically ego stroking for a right wing government that's population greatly opposes.

 

[Tesseract]

the world is starting to spin backwards

 

[John Kowalski]

It's almost like Patlabor 2 was right or something.

 

[PSqueak]

I don't oppose this in the sense that i don't see why, morally, shouldn't japan be allowed to have a traditional army.

But, can some one more informed clue me in, doesn't this violates the terms agreed with the USA/Allies when they surrendered in WW2? Also, did i read that right? was this kinda encuoraged by the USA? That's the part im not getting.

I am not a clever man.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

They already hated Abe's whole cabinet, daily Korean news has a feature on Japan being a dick in some fashion when they have not done anything new that week its about their sex slave system.... but that's a whole different thread/argument to get plenty of gaffers banned for haha.

In general though soon as this was proposed one of the first questions raised was of course, "what if the Korean conflict heats up again, USA gets involved, wouldn't this allow Japan to engage as well?" S.K.'s response was quite frank in saying absofuckinglutely not. Korea is quite adamant about letting the whole damn peninsula fall to the north than having Japanese troops anywhere near them ever again.

I bet that stance changes the second Kim Jong-Un starts shooting off artillery.

 

[bigmit3737]

From what I've read, basically everyone is against this except Abe and his party, and they somehow forcibly passed this through.

Abe's party had actually called in an law/constitution expert to prove that the law he wants to pass isn't unconstitutional, but in a surprising turn of events he also declared it unconstitutional. All three experts that we called in all declared it unconstitutional.

I don't really the ins and outs of the jieitai freedom and exactly how much freedom this allows, i.e. does it allow the jietai to attack first now if they "sense" a threat?

Some of my friends are pissed in Japan but some of them are old-fashioned, so I really have no idea what the general consensus is.

I'm shocked that he was able to pass a pill, that almost everyone didn't want passed.

 

[Soyongdori]

Wonder what South Korea's response is to this.

They hate it, but then again, they got more important thing to worry about. Too much stuffs are happening in North Korea these days for SK to worry about Japan finally re-militarizing.

 

[Syph Medwes]

Some of these replies
Wat

 

[vas_a_morir]

Some of these replies
Wat

lol, I know! They think Japan should just let other East Asian nations continue to bully them forever. It's coming, eventually. Out of necessity, mind you. Nobody ever though Japan would be this long without a military. I read that the US has been funneling money into the parties in favor of remilitarization for a long time, actually.

 

[massoluk]

I don't oppose this in the sense that i don't see why, morally, shouldn't japan be allowed to have a traditional army.

But, can some one more informed clue me in, doesn't this violates the terms agreed with the USA/Allies when they surrendered in WW2? Also, did i read that right? was this kinda encuoraged by the USA? That's the part im not getting.

I am not a clever man.

The pacifist stance has served Japan well, I don't feel the tragic deaths cited by Abe is anywhere close to justify the new policy. And it's opening a very old wound all over Asia, expeically considering this is being proposed by WWII revisionist Prime Minister like Abe.

 

[strikeselect]

Good news. Hopefully this keeps any potential Chinese aggression in check.

 

[goomba]

Depressinf news. Pacifism has worked for Japan. More countries should have followed their lead.

 

[cafemomo]

Good news. Hopefully this keeps any potential Chinese aggression in check.

exactly.

China shows off their military might all the time but when Japan suddenly does it, they start complaining.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Depressinf news. Pacifism has worked for Japan. More countries should have followed their lead.

One might argue that because they have a huge number of US troops occupying their country with many many bases, that they have never been a pacifist state. They just had the US doing their dirty work for them.

China is somewhat of a huge threat to security in the region. Their emergence as a superpower is the impetus by which Japan seeks to strengthen their military presence. You can't be pacifist when Russia and China are being belligerent with their militaries.

 

[Sesuadra]

This news makes me sad

 

[Zeus Molecules]

ahh jeez Japan with an army never ends well.

 

[AnathemicOne]

'Bout fucking time, though I hope Japan fixes their population issue before any potential conflict happens upon them. Better late than never though.

 

[Papa_Squeeze]

This is absolutely terrifying. We may soon see "increased acts of Chinese hostility" and/or an escalation of Korean conflict. I can only hope western leadership condemns this and does not side with the Japanese when the time comes.

 

[Methos#1975]

What were the conditions before this bill? I only ask because I was stationed in Iraq with a Japanese Unit that did participtate in Combat Ops. Was there a Joint Forces agreement that allowed them to deploy in operation support capacities before hand?

 

[Palette Swap]

What were the conditions before this bill? I only ask because I was stationed in Iraq with a Japanese Unit that did participtate in Combat Ops. Was there a Joint Forces agreement that allowed them to deploy in operation support capacities before hand?

Yeah, there was a first policy change for Iraq:

In 2004, the Japanese government ordered a deployment of troops to Iraq at the behest of the United States: A contingent of the Japan Self-Defense Forces was sent in order to assist the U.S.-led Reconstruction of Iraq.[39] This controversial deployment marked a significant turning point in Japan's history, as it is the first time since the end of World War II that Japan sent troops abroad except for a few minor UN peacekeeping deployments. Public opinion regarding this deployment was sharply divided, especially given that Japan's military is constitutionally structured as solely a self-defense force, and operating in Iraq seemed at best tenuously connected to that mission. The Koizumi administration, however, decided to send troops to respond to a request from the US.[13] Even though they deployed with their weapons, because of constitutional restraints, the troops were protected by Japanese Special Forces troops and Australian units. The Japanese soldiers were there purely for humanitarian and reconstruction work, and were prohibited from opening fire on Iraqi insurgents unless they were fired on first. Japanese forces withdrew from Iraq in 2006.

 

[Mecha]

lol, I know! They think Japan should just let other East Asian nations continue to bully them forever. It's coming, eventually. Out of necessity, mind you. Nobody ever though Japan would be this long without a military. I read that the US has been funneling money into the parties in favor of remilitarization for a long time, actually.

Japan has a military, this bill is so they can attack countries in a non-defensive situation. If China decided to attack Japan they would be able to defend, even without this bill.

 

[Ganzlinger]

That's sovereignty. Nothing wrong with it.

 

[Dreadnought]

Get ready for Pearl Harbor II

 

[superseohyun]

lol at people thinking this can somehow "curb" china. Most likely it will lead to the exact opposite effect.

 

[Palette Swap]

That's sovereignty. Nothing wrong with it.

Being able to send troops abroad has little to do with sovereignty.

Being able to defend your national territory is a way to enforce your sovereignty. Having the ability to invade another country isn't enforcing your sovereignty.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

lol at people thinking this can somehow "curb" china. Most likely it will lead to the exact opposite effect.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.

Really sucks to see a lot of the things Abe is doing. Japan has so many major problems at home right now, the last thing they need to do is make it easier to go to war for America.

 

[Papa_Squeeze]

That's sovereignty. Nothing wrong with it.

Part of a series of events leading to Japan's next attacks.

 

[Ganzlinger]

Being able to send troops abroad has little to do with sovereignty.

Being able to defend your national territory is a way to enforce your sovereignty. Having the ability to invade another country isn't enforcing your sovereignty.

No. The bill exists only because of Japan's defeat during the War. Getting rid of it is a sign of sovereignty. They were imposed to sign the bill. If they decide to get rid of their entire army it would be an act of sovereignty as well but only if there is no foreign intervention.

 

[Palette Swap]

No. The bill exists only because of Japan's defeat during the War. Getting rid of it is a sign of sovereignty. They were imposed to sign the bill. If they decide to get rid of their entire army it would be an act of sovereignty as well but only if there is no foreign intervention.

By that rationale, if they reintroduced the Emperor's divinity in the constitution and made it a crime to deny it, it would also be an act of sovereignty. You can't really separate the intention and its effects.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

No. The bill exists only because of Japan's defeat during the War. Getting rid of it is a sign of sovereignty. They were imposed to sign the bill. If they decide to get rid of their entire army it would be an act of sovereignty as well but only if there is no foreign intervention.

How do you define "foreign intervention," because if you think Abe pushing for this as solely a Japanese decision, free from pressures of the United States and other nations, then I would strongly disagree.

It's also telling that the vast majority of constitutional scholars in Japan argue that this violates the constitution. Nevermind that the people simply don't support it according to the polls.

Abe's government know they would lose if they did this as a constitutional amendment that requires a vote of the people. That's why he's going about it in such a horribly devious way.

 

[Papa_Squeeze]

No. The bill exists only because of Japan's defeat during the War. Getting rid of it is a sign of sovereignty. They were imposed to sign the bill. If they decide to get rid of their entire army it would be an act of sovereignty as well but only if there is no foreign intervention.

You legitimately believe it's a purely symbolic move? Or you're actually in the camp that it's to protect against Chinese "bullying"?

 

[Ganzlinger]

By that rationale, if they reintroduced the Emperor's divinity in the constitution and made it a crime to deny it, it would also be an act of sovereignty. You can't really separate the intention and its effects.

The Japanese people won't accept that, they live in a democracy. The premise is to let them govern themselves. They don't need anyone to save them.

How do you define "foreign intervention," because if you think Abe pushing for this as solely a Japanese decision, free from pressures of the United States and other nations, then I would strongly disagree.

It's also telling that the vast majority of constitutional scholars in Japan argue that this violates the constitution. Nevermind that the people simply don't support it according to the polls.

Abe's government know they would lose if they did this as a constitutional amendment that requires a vote of the people. That's why he's going about it in such a horribly devious way.

Look, I'm not familiar with the Japanese laws, but if the majority of the population is against it and this violates the constitution, then it's not sovereignty, it's Abe's tirany.

I'm assuming a normal and democratic process here. I have no sympathy for Abe and I would be totally okay with things staying the way they are but I'm not Japanese, so they certainly know what is better for them.

 

[Valkerionseven]

It's also telling that the vast majority of constitutional scholars in Japan argue that this violates the constitution. Nevermind that the people simply don't support it according to the polls.

Abe's government know they would lose if they did this as a constitutional amendment that requires a vote of the people. That's why he's going about it in such a horribly devious way.

Nailed it, for those in the thread wondering why its such a big deal its this. the reality is Abe's administration is simply doing it despite fairly widespread opposition. It's how his group has been doing things for his entire run, mentioning they will be discussing or putting it up to a vote, then waiting til say a national holiday to pass it so it goes through under everyone's nose.

Either way, if were talking actual bullying, Russia does it more than China when we are just talking about Japan itself. Something like 400 invasions of their air space a year, most of which are Russia.

 

[Ganzlinger]

You legitimately believe it's a purely symbolic move? Or you're actually in the camp that it's to protect against Chinese "bullying"?

I just think that Japan and any sovereign country shouldn't have restrictions imposed by other countries. If they opt to not have one like Costa Rica, that's awesome.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I just think that Japan and any sovereign country shouldn't have restrictions imposed by other countries. If they opt to not have one like Costa Rica, that's awesome.

But this is really the same kind of thing when it comes to having things imposed on them by other nations.

You can argue that their current constitution and the peace article (article 9) therein was imposed on Japan by its occupiers or the United States, but this bill and the recent "new interpretation" certainly didn't come up independently from Abe and friends. It's very much a change that America wanted them to make, and America while not directly occupying Japan any longer, still has a very strong influence over the nation.

the way they are but I'm not Japanese, so they certainly know what is better for them.

Who is "they?" The Japanese? In this specific case, it's hard to argue that the government is exercising the will of the people.

 

[Papa_Squeeze]

I just think that Japan and any sovereign country shouldn't have restrictions imposed by other countries. If they opt to not have one like Costa Rica, that's awesome.

I appreciate the clarification of your statement. With a little background information (ie. not tainted by western media or US governmental bias) you might understand why some are fearful of this. With that said, that applies more to others here who are very pro-Japanese military/anti-China.

 

[cntr]

This is just like when he forced the secrets law through the house recently, even though there was a lot of public protest. Basically it gave bureaucrats the power to make anything a secret with very little oversight. Journalists who write about anything declared a secret face 10 years in prison. Of course it automatically made anything related to nuclear power a secret. Which is probably why you almost never hear anything bad about Fukushima in the news over here, even though it's just as dire as it was after the earthquake.

A secret acts, a renewed Military, it's like pre-WWII Showa period all over again...

Fun fact: the State Secrets law passed on the calender date of Pearl Harbour.

There are rumors that the secrets law was partly put into place by pressure from the US, possibly as a condition of joining the TPP.

 

[fanboi]

Why are people believing that this will lead to war soonish and ruin a generation of young adults?

 

[antonz]

At this point its beneficial to everyone in the region besides the obvious 2 that Japan take the binders off. There needs to be more regional power pushing back against China instead of trying to rely solely on US power.

This clearly isn't going to lead to some major war tomorrow or anything and modern Japan is certainly not Imperial Japan so the idea that Japan is suddenly go on the warpath is stupid.

 

[MrHoot]

Mostly sad they decided to do this in the face of the big amount of protests across the country. What a slap in the face of their people, especially since the trust in the government has been less than strong since the Fukushima incident

 

[jtb]

As someone who knows very little about the way the Japanese government works: how is this legislation possible/compatible with Article 9 of their constitution?

 

[Toxi]

The Japanese people won't accept that, they live in a democracy. The premise is to let them govern themselves. They don't need anyone to save them.

You mean the Japanese people who mostly oppose this bill?

 

[gillty]

As someone who knows very little about the way the Japanese government works: how is this legislation possible/compatible with Article 9 of their constitution?

I believe that's the issue with the public, Abe and LDP have circumvented Article 96 which sets how constitutional amendents must take place (2/3 of both houses + >50% public referendum).

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Great! Now uncensor your porn, Japan!

(I'm sorry, I just want them to really really uncensor their porn, goddammit).

Carry on...

 

[Eighty Deuce]

I'm interested in seeing what Japan develops towards military technology

 

[Triplicates]

But this is really the same kind of thing when it comes to having things imposed on them by other nations.

You can argue that their current constitution and the peace article (article 9) therein was imposed on Japan by its occupiers or the United States, but this bill and the recent "new interpretation" certainly didn't come up independently from Abe and friends. It's very much a change that America wanted them to make, and America while not directly occupying Japan any longer, still has a very strong influence over the nation.



Who is "they?" The Japanese? In this specific case, it's hard to argue that the government is exercising the will of the people.

America has wanted this change since the Korean War. I think it's generally terrible to override the public will but I'm ambivalent about this specific instance. The polls I've seen suggest that most Japanese do not want to accommodate China and would like to remain under American defense. Instruments like this, the state secrets bill, and the TPP, all of which are controversial, are necessary to keep an increasingly disinterested America committed to the region.

Additionally, I don't think it's the quantum leap many fear it of being. Even in the aftermath, there are plenty of legal restraints on the SDF and most importantly, there's a pervasive culture of pacifism. These will not go away any time soon. I'm kind of eager to see the consequences of Abe or any future administration entangling Japan to an unpopular American conflict; this might actually be enough to resurrect the grassroots populism that was stamped out during the Cold War.