Poll

Should the world adopt the Japanese military model?

Yes.35%35% - 18
No.54%54% - 28
Not sure.9%9% - 5
Total: 51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

Excuse me, which model received the Atomic bomb? Oh yeah i remember
Actually...  the irony of that was that the Japanese received a double nuking for their offensive tactics.  They had a very offensively oriented military during WW2.

Granted, I still agree that our offensive capabilities are important to keeping us a powerful force in the world.

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-12-17 13:04:35)

Mr.Pieeater
Member
+116|7049|Cherry Pie
MAIN PROBLEM WITH ADOPTING THAT MODEL:  Everyone hates American and not many people hate Japan.  There are no terrorists trying to blow up Tokyo Tower...   And the only reason Japan is like that is because of WWII.  And they still have the guarantee by the US that we will help defend them in the case of an attack.  Which would then mean that they have an "offensive" military.  Hence the reason there is a Military base in Japan, because they are clearly not a threat to the US.  We couldn't adopt their type of military because it wouldn't work.  Besides, I PROMISE you that we have a national defense system that is 10 times better than Japans.  Purely being defense would mean we were pussies.  Do you want to be a pussy?  I don't.  I like going to Iraq and kickin' some terrorist ass...  I have balls, it comes with the territory.
Mogura
Member
+17|6787|EUROPE

Mr.Pieeater wrote:

MAIN PROBLEM WITH ADOPTING THAT MODEL:  Everyone hates American and not many people hate Japan.  There are no terrorists trying to blow up Tokyo Tower...   And the only reason Japan is like that is because of WWII.  And they still have the guarantee by the US that we will help defend them in the case of an attack.  Which would then mean that they have an "offensive" military.  Hence the reason there is a Military base in Japan, because they are clearly not a threat to the US.  We couldn't adopt their type of military because it wouldn't work.  Besides, I PROMISE you that we have a national defense system that is 10 times better than Japans.  Purely being defense would mean we were pussies.  Do you want to be a pussy?  I don't.  I like going to Iraq and kickin' some terrorist ass...  I have balls, it comes with the territory.
well, its not clear who is kicking who in iraq. while americans never found mass destruction weapons in iraq, it means you came there without reason. america already lost a few thousands soldiers ( death, lets dont even talk about wounded) in iraq. when the war will be over and usa gone out from iraq, you will build another and much bigger wall, just near the one for vietnam and you will remember how stupid it was to attack iraq, because you have donne nothing, absolutely nothing, now its even worst than with saddam.
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7217

deeznutz1245 wrote:

You mean protection from the U.S. and then bitch about it later? Most (not all) of the world has already adopted it.
If you mean protection against the US, I'd agree.
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6954|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

Excuse me, which model received the Atomic bomb? Oh yeah i remember
Did you even read the OP???

He is talking about the post World War 2 Japan military force, not the Imperialist WW2 force.
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|7078|pimelteror.de

Mr.Pieeater wrote:

I like going to Iraq and kickin' some terrorist ass...  I have balls, it comes with the territory.
so enlist to the troops. go as a volunteer. what are you still doing at home? your country needs YOU right NOW!

send us postcards from baghdad or stfu...


######################################################################

back to topic. the japanese spend more on military, than the chinese ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … penditures )

and you can´t differ between a defense or an attack force easily. they both have the same guns. difference is, if they are able to be quickly deployed abroad or not. but it doen´t mean, that defense forces can´t attack. remember, the israeli army is called israel defense force - and they can kick ass...

even the former german (nazi) "wehrmacht" was a defense force  by its name. "wehr" is from "wehren" - "to defend" and "macht" means "force"... so don´t make conclusions out of just a name.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7191|Cambridge (UK)

Turquoise wrote:

Having a purely defensive military is like saying, "Hey, if you're an ally of ours and you're getting fucked, we can't help you."
Not neccesarily - the way I see it working is something like this - all countries that adopt a purely defensive force would have the right to call on the forces of other purely-defensive military countries to help defend themselves against aggressors.

If the UK, US, Australia and the main NATO countries were to all sign up to this, IMO, the rest of the world would quickly follow.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard