BF2S Forums Japan, our need for them, war etc.

Japan trades in the petro dollar. She consumes a shit load of oil. All imported all payed for with dollars. She then sells millions of cars back to America in Dollars. This totally bolsters the American economy. She also spends Billions of dollars on arms, ships and planes each year, all from the USA again bolstering the US economy. There is some 50 000 US troops stationed there. Its practically another USA satellite state IMO, providing the USA with a threat and hold over that area. I think the main reason Japan doesn't change its constitution is she is scared the US will drag her into another unjust war.

Bubbalo wrote:

Yet he didn't go to war.  YOu think maybe he was wanting peaceful regime change?  Just possibly?

Killing Serbian women and children and destroying the infrastructure of a nation isn't war? Oh wait, we painted NATO symbols on the planes, so it wasn't the United States' doing.

Got caught caught getting some head? Don't want to get caught? Simple, blame someone for ethnic cleansing (which they can't even get death estimates right on), and bomb the shit out of their country. Even though they were allies in WWII, ie; rescuing our downed airmen. That doesn't matter, it's only 3rd world european whuite people, who's gonna miss them?

Japan is not in fear of america since they are really good allies, i doubt the US stationed in japan without permission from the japanese.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Eboreus wrote:

i still fail to see, why japan should ask the US about changing their constitution. no matter who wrote it, it has been in place for more than 50 years now and has been changed in the past already.

It may not be absolutely mandatory but given the positive relations we maintain they would probably treat the constitution we applied to them with respect and have a discussion with us before making changes.

Its not mandatory, I doubt Japan gives a crap that the US imposed the constitution on them and any prime minister who said they should consult a foreign country about changing their constitution would get some seriously bad repercussions from the general public.

fine if you are that open minded, why not drop out of the discussions and let us have our fantasytalk?
let me just tell you one thing about my country: we dont give a damn about what the us government allowing us and what not. not in weapons, not in politics, not in anything else. what do you think does the bundeswehr in afghanistan, the kongo, the balkan and (soon) in the lebanon wield? wodden sticks? certainly not. and the reasons why our military is not bigger are: 1. we dont need a bigger army 2. we cut the spendings on military and 3. we are roughly as huge as montana which also poses a natural limit to the size of our military. but it's certainly not the US telling us not to produce more weapons or something like that... oeriod...

grrr.....links gimping me up...............anyone want to install DSL at my office?


since i can't get to the link I'm just going to base my comment based on what i've seen posted in other replies, Japan and Germany have long since paid their dues and have joined the civil nations of the world and should be allowed to control their armed forces autonomously and I believe it would be a historic moment not seen since the fall of the berlin wall if the final restrictions were lifted, as for China, I remember posting on here the last time I could get on halfway regular that I noticed they had been conspicously quiet since their saber rattling of the 90's, anyone got any theories on that? No standoffs at sea (apart from some fishing/whaling disputes with Russia and Japan), no more tanks in Tienenmen square, no more holding the yen artificially low against the dollar and euro. What's up with that? are they putting their aggressions/oppressions behind and concentrating on their economic boom? Or are they just quietly waiting for a chance to catch someone off guard? I remember they were at one time eyeing some oil reserves that were in Taiwan's territory, but in all actuality it seems rather ridiculous for them to return to their militant past. I for one would be all too glad to see a socio-political "westernization" (only for the lack of a better term, not really looking for the degradation of the asian cultures) of asia, and see all them operate their economies the way europe and the americas (these are the two "newest" areas of civilization and as such are built on commerce and exploration as opposed to isolationism) tend to, it seems more likely that this is the next region to do so as opposed to africa or the middle east. In short, economically and politically, it seems that Japan and Taiwan have found ways to balance tradition with evolution, what's keeping the other nations from doing so?  ............ok besides kim jong-il

I guess China realized that their saber rattling wont get them anywhere and so they've taken a more 'mature' stance. (as in not saber rattling in the public but still beating up government critics and such)

as for the yen / euro or yen / dollar problem. thats something long out of the hands of china. yesterday the yen hit the alltime low versus the euro but thats linked to a raising prime rate in europe and the us, while the BOJ probably wont do any further steps in this matter since the inflation was much lower than hoped for.

Ah Cameron making shit up again and putting words in peoples mouths.

CameronPoe wrote:

is the OP suggesting that Japan discard elements of its constitution so that it can develop WMD?

Peruse the original post then if you have confusion. Nowhere does he metion or allude to any sort of WMD proliferation.

Eboreus wrote:

let me just tell you one thing about my country: we dont give a damn about what the us government allowing us and what not. not in weapons, not in politics, not in anything else.

Yes shake your fist in defiance but your govt knows better. However youre still stuck in fantasy land. Feel free to look up Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.

Germany agreed to limit its combined armed forces to no more than 370,000 personnel, no more than 345,000 of whom were to be in the army and air force. Germany also reaffirmed its renunciation of the manufacture and possession of and control over nuclear, biological and chemical weapons

Or maybe you've read the Basic Law article 87a?

Article 87a [Establishment and powers of the Armed Forces]

(1) The Federation shall establish Armed Forces for purposes of defense. Their numerical strength and general organizational structure must be shown in the budget.

(2) Apart from defense, the Armed Forces may be employed only to the extent expressly permitted by this Basic Law.

(3) During a state of defense or a state of tension the Armed Forces shall have the power to protect civilian property and to perform traffic control functions to the extent necessary to accomplish their defense mission. Moreover, during a state of defense or a state of tension, the Armed Forces may also be authorized to support police measures for the protection of civilian property; in this event the Armed Forces shall cooperate with the competent authorities.

(4) In order to avert an imminent danger to the existence or free democratic basic order of the Federation or of a Land, the Federal Government, if the conditions referred to in paragraph (2) of Article 91 obtain and the police forces and the Federal Border Police prove inadequate, may employ the Armed Forces to support the police and the Federal Border Police in protecting civilian property and in combating organized armed insurgents. Any such employment of the Armed Forces shall be discontinued if the Bundestag or the Bundesrat so demands.

Thats is the role of the Budeswehr soo..

Eboreus wrote:

what do you think does the bundeswehr in afghanistan, the kongo, the balkan and (soon) in the lebanon wield? wodden sticks? certainly not. and the reasons why our military is not bigger are: 1. we dont need a bigger army 2. we cut the spendings on military and 3. we are roughly as huge as montana which also poses a natural limit to the size of our military. but it's certainly not the US telling us not to produce more weapons or something like that... oeriod...

Its quite simple the Bundeswehr is not anywhere alone they are simply a part of NATO and under the direction of NATO leaders they are deployed with NATO's interests at mind. Germany is NOT deployed to any of these regions on their own behest or interests. Bottom line is the reason Germany cannot expand the military aside from the fact theyve displayed an incapability to wield power without abusing it is that it would be breaking several treaties and legislations that the powers both in America and in Europe would not tolerate.

Also your logic is halarious that the landmass somehow limits your capability.. look to Israel or Taiwan? With a population of 82 million a comparison to Montana has no logic.

Erkut.hv wrote:

Killing Serbian women and children and destroying the infrastructure of a nation isn't war? Oh wait, we painted NATO symbols on the planes, so it wasn't the United States' doing.

In Serbia NATO entered an already existing conflict, they didn't start one.

Bubbalo your pathetic.
     Camerons thread was tongue in cheek. He posted a picture of the neocons ( which was hitler and a crowd of nazis ) I and responded with pictures of the tree huggers in the bath house.
    We exchanged a laugh and plenty of karma and you cried about it. Ikarti, jonismone, spearhead, cameronpoe and probably many other liberals have done the same with me.

   You remind me of a pet lizard I once kept. No matter how nice to him I was he never displayed anything but a belligerent nasty attitude. Your a hopelessly bitter person who combines generalized hostility with a lack of knowledge into a jugernaut of stupidity. You think your smart, but you've chimed in with oppossing views before completely out of context to the given thread, and I still kept feeding you karma, like crickets to that nasty lizard.
   And, humor requires a ability to look a little deeper and think a little subjectively, to perhaps have some intelligence, which is why I suppose, you don't have any.

Last edited by ATG (2006-08-31 08:30:57)

Oh little retarded angry 15 year old Canadian Bubbalo ill quickly run through your dumbass misconceptions.

Bubbalo wrote:

Maybe that terminology was harsh, but he was criticising someone for not reading the original post when he himself showed he had not read the links, and was, as such, getting his information wrong.

I read the post and i stand by what i said. I really dont care if you want to be immature and start talking shit, i can play that game. Charles Kades wrote the constitution for Japan and it was imposed because they were a defeated nation.

Bubbalo wrote:

I was referring to the link.  Or do you not read your own links either?

This actually makes no sense whatsoever. Your stament was stupid he doesnt have to be the founding father of Japan to have wrote the document. No big suprise you have no interest in factual information just shit talking from the safety of your mommies basement.

Bubbalo wrote:

They would be no more likely to do so than any other country they have strong diplomatic relations with,

More argumenative bullshit. There is NO country that has anywhere near the diplomatic ties with Japan as the US does. They would absolutly be 1000% times more likely to consult changing the legislature America imposed and wrote for them after thier defeat in ww2 with the US than any other country in the world. And if youre too stubborn or retarded to acknowledge that i dont give a shit.

Bubbalo wrote:

has Kuwait prospered any more than any other oil-rich country?

Firstly they have, only Qatar and UAE have better per capita gdp's secondly they dont even have to prosper better than every other "oil-rich" country to conter your bullshti arguement that America only rebuilds country's that are "usefull". People in Kuwait love America we granted thier freedom and they are greatfull.

Bubbalo wrote:

You remember how after World War 2 America and Russia had that little things called the Cold War?  Do you think maybe America wanted a strong Western Europe to oppose the USSR?  Just maybe?

The Cold War started with Korea in 1953 well after we rebuilt Germany Japan and Italy. We didnt rebuild ANY of those countries with the Cold War in mind the ONLY countries you can even mention that as possibility is Korea and Vietnam-pre 1975. Also post ww2 Japan Germany and Italy had absolutely NO military we forbade it and WE were thier defense so pretneding like Germany or Italy was rebuilt to defend America from the Russians is garbage.

Bubbalo wrote:

Yes, they do.  But this, not any hangover from WWII, is what will have an effect.  Further, Japan has recently been showing a slow shift away from America.

Yes make up bullshit ? One of the Last countries to pull its troops out of Iraq ? 

Drafted by the US in 1947, the constitution bans the use of force to settle international disputes. The troops in Iraq have been barred from using force except in self-defence.

Oh look BBC refrenced the American imposed ban on military action...Koizumi hanging out with Bush in Crawford? Koizumi making an ass out of himself at Graceland? Esatblishing missile defense systems in Japan ? And claim that Japan is pulling away ? It is quite the opposite we are staunch allies and best friends only second to england in support, that contention is only emo based and wishfull thinking.

Bubbalo wrote:

Uh-huh.  But it is still the constitution of Japan, meaning that the US has no control over it other than the influence they wield over Japan.  Further, Japan did not surrender to the US, nor did they surrender until the Russians joined against them.

More retarded contentions. The Japanese surrender had absolutely nothing to do with Russia's last ditch effort to participate. America fought the Pacific war on their own and won it on their own and the surrender to the allied forces was a mere formality. Hence it took place on the USS Missourri Treaty of San Francisco? theres no question who defeated Japand and it had nothing to do with Russia..

Bubbalo wrote:

And what were they like before the war?

They've doubled theirgdp

Bubbalo wrote:

And where did the weapons the Iraqi's invaded with come from?

Russia...

Oh and forgive my mistaking your constant conspriacy theory Anti-American babble for Canadian and not Austrailian.. it smells the same

So, to get this back onto the original topic.....


The nation of Japan is in a VERY strategic location for the US, both in 1945 and now. They are the closest MAJOR industrialized nation to North Korea and China, and have had a very friendly relationship with the US (Tom Clancy notwithstanding).

So, do they need an army and a navy? The argument could be made (very persuasively I believe) that their standing Self-Defense forces are indeed a military. The semantic of who instructs this body, be it the ministry of war, defense, police, etc, is somewhat moot. One major advantage of having the military under a civilian "police" control is the ability of said military to respond to national disasters in a more decisive manner than is currently allowed in, say, the United States.

One always sees video of the National Guard responding to national disasters in the US, but the point that is rarely discussed is that these troops have no law-enforcement powers unless a state of Martial Law is declared by a party who has that power. Generally, it (the power) is reserved to the chief of state for an affected area. Examples might be president, governor, mayor, ect.

So, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, for a current example, the mayor of New Orleans declared a state of Public Health Emergency (Louisiana has no precedent for Martial Law, as its legal system is French, as opposed to English-based). He gave the troops on the ground law enforcement powers to evacuate people against their will and stop looters, but not to prosecute or arrest criminals. But I digress.

So, one advantage of the police status of Japan's Self-Defense forces would be the ability to protect the public safety in a time of national disaster, say a typhoon or tsunami.

That being said, no one can ignore Japan's place as a major player on the international stage. Her economic might, coupled with her strategic location, gives her the ability to project power to many of the world's current "trouble spots." Were she to have an actual army, she might be able to take a more pro-active stance in projecting said power.

The problem with changing her constitution is that some of her neighbors have long memories, and a degree of institutional paranoia that make western conspiracy theorists look like kittens, for lack of a better analogy. The PRC and North Korea are two countries that immediately come to mind, as does Russia. Admittedly, all three of these countries have a vested interest in seeing Japan remain a disarmed country. Remember, the presence of US nuclear weapons on the island has long been a sticking point, and was indeed cited as one of the reasons for the Cuban missile crisis of the 60's.

So, where do we stand? In 2005, Japan spent about $43 billion on defense-related expenses. Right now, she has an "army" of 145,000 full-time volunteer troops, a "navy" of 155 major combatant ships and ~225 aircraft, and an "air force" of 400 planes. These troops and equipment are sufficient (according to the Japanese government) to protect her assets and people from a hostile aggressor.

That being said, she knows that she can depend on the US for mutual aid, should she ever request it. Additionally, there is almost always a US carrier battle group in the general, and a smaller destroyer battle group is either visiting port there, in Taiwan, or in the Sea of Japan.

So, does it make sense at this point in history for Japan to amend her Constitution to allow a "real" military force? I would argue that it does not. Should the national priorities of Japan change, and a more significant contribution to peacekeeping forces be seen as a pressing national need, then such a change should be seriously considered.

Additionally, I personally don't see any great need for Japan to consider violating the NNPT and build her own nuclear arsenal. However, there are those in the country, and abroad, who see the continued posturing of North Korea as a potential overriding interest, and that the construction of smaller, cruise-missile based nuclear missiles might be a good deterrent to the PRK's nuclear goals. As to the validity of this argument, I am somewhat skeptical, but it is indeed there.