The problem is not so much whether Japan needs an army or not, but who wants to make that become a reality. And their ideological background is... problematic at best and extremely controversial at worst.

The problem is that the political groups in Japan are mainly in two camps: either you get a "real military" out of ambition and not care about the repercussions, or you avoid the repercussions by leaving Article 9 intact. There does not seem to be yet enough of a political force wanting to restore the military in a conciliatory manner, like Germany, to show that you can be trusted not to be too agressive with it.

I don't agree with the notion of calling cooperation with US temporary, which seems to imply ad hoc instead of long term - look at NATO. It's not a bad thing to continue an amicable, stable partnership.

There are other examples of another country providing defenses; it's the concept of associated states. And it's not like Japan has been relying completely on US the entire time - that stopped being the case when the JSDF was created. What would possibly change with this is what Japan does with it.

edited 25th Oct '17 8:11:27 AM by Trivialis

Koike started a press conference and apologized for the party's bad ratings in the snap elections.

NATO is actually a very good example since Japan (and Australia) are NATO Associate members. Geographically we're ineligible for full membership (neither Japan nor Australia have shores or borders anywhere near the North Atlantic) but are pretty much tied in to NATO networks fairly tightly.

I came to my peace with Japan having its own military after talking with some British folks about their nuclear arsenal. I am a Corbyn fan so I was like "why not get rid of all your nukes? You have us to destroy anybody who tries to fuck with you." And they pointed out they really don't want their entire existence to depend upon the US being honest and true.

I can totally sympathize with that.

In light of North Korea and Trump, Japan is right to want to protect itself and not leave its fate in the hands of one madman to protect them from another madman.

It's probably not going to end with Imperial Japan returning like some kind of horrible zombie, especially since a good number of Japanese people don't actually want to remilitarize...but the people pushing for it are too authoritarian for my liking.

At current, the suggested change does simply seem to be putting the existence of JSDF as the nations military into the Constitution. JSDF personnel are not counted as soldiers under law, but as "Special Civil Servants" along with being legally ambiguous in the first place.

edited 25th Oct '17 11:52:20 PM by TerminusEst

Well, that's the kind of thing I can be okay with. Frankly, I'm not even sure why people would be against it.

It's because there is doubt that Abe will stop there. If the ultra rightwing nationalists of Japan have their way, this will only be the beginning.

Imagine if the alt-right had an army.

Different reasons. To some it's seen as unnecessary, some call it "re-militarization", some see the JSDF as illegal in the first place etc.

Only difference being that these guys have been around for a looong time. They did have an army. They were called the Armed Forces of the Empire of Japan. Okay that is hyperbolic, but the sons and daughters of war time politicians are the ones running the show, along with State Shinto groups.

A shift inside the LDP would be required, but as long as Abe is in charge that won't happen.

edited 26th Oct '17 6:14:12 AM by TerminusEst

@Nikkolas: Here's the thing. The origin of Article 9 was that instead of bringing justice to the gunman for his actions, the US just took the gun away and moved on. If the gunman wants to earn the right to use the gun again, he should at least admit what went wrong the last time he had one. You can't just return the gun simply because the gunman is ambitious. Many people don't trust the LDP to not put its members' ambitions over actually protecting the populace of Japan. They don't want Japan to become a war hawk like the US was particularly during the Bush presidency.

Japan can already protect itself; that's the purpose of JSDF. Designating it as the proper military won't change the fact that the US aids its defense. It would, however, potentially open up the opportunity for the ultranationalists to further their own goals.

I am honestly baffled why you asked that question to British people. The UK isn't a complete dependent on the US either. It's just a partner. The UK is the effective leader of the Commonwealth of Nations, and it was one of the major leaders of the EU too until it decided to Brexit. And why would you ask the UK to dismantle its nukes while the US keeps its own to cover for the UK? Having read about Corbyn, he would probably disagree with much of what you said on these very topics.

@M84: I agree that it probably won't outright bring back fascist Japan, especially since the US won't allow it. When US defeated Japan the former basically domesticated the latter in Nanoha-style and created a cooperation under the condition that it doesn't regress. If it does, the US may overthrow any undemocratic military takeovers.

I'm curious what the people seeing JSDF as illegal want as an alternative. Do they want an associated state agreement where the US handles the entirety of defense? Someone needs to be in charge of defending Japan.

edited 26th Oct '17 6:24:22 PM by Trivialis

The JCP for example resists all forms of military forces in Japan, and wants no military whatsoever to be present on Japanese soil. They have a literal interpretation of Article 9: Japan has given up its sovereign right to conduct war, even defensively.

Or at least they used to have that, they are still conservatives and a party's stance changes with its chief in Japan.

edited 26th Oct '17 8:37:37 AM by TerminusEst

There was some paper floating around the net that the JSDF would be replaced by a militia-type system that the Swiss has. Otherwise, the JCP did want any forms of military units to be abolished.

Seeing as what Abe wants to do, he is trying to approach this from a realism-type perspective in the world of collective security and self-defense.

UPDATED: I found the book. It's "Routledge Handbook of Chinese Security". Looks like I made a mistake on who wanted a militia-type military of all people.

It came from Mishima himself...

https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/postwar-semantics-in-japans-self-defense-forces/

An interesting essay on how Japanese-only words for certain military terms are seen as too "strange" in English.

edited 26th Oct '17 8:59:58 AM by Ominae

Because I was agreeing with Corbyn initially. Getting rid of as many nukes as we can is ideal and if the reason the UK can get rid of its own is because they will have us as backup, that's a step in the right direction. That was my thinking. But, as I was educated, the US is a piece of garbage and no one should have to trust the fate of their country to it. The UK needs its nukes because it needs the ability to defend itself. Japan needs its military because it needs the ability to defend itself.

You can't rely on your allies forever because someday an orange buffoon will take them over and leave you high and dry.

It's kinda funny that the Conservatives are the ones who really want change while all the Left parties want it to stay the same.

edited 26th Oct '17 9:05:58 AM by Nikkolas

@Terminus Est: Well, if I'm reading you correctly, that's just not happening. As far as I know Article 9 does not stop the US from waging a defensive war on Japan's behalf. Doing nothing when Japan gets attacked and invaded would lead to another East Germany.

The rule of thumb is that if you don't have a defense, you allow a country you trust to provide it for you. That's how associated states work.

Edit: I will respond to more posts later.

edited 26th Oct '17 10:33:37 AM by Trivialis

The right/left dichotomy doesn't really work over there. In lack of better terms though, it's a fair assessment.

There were big riots in the 60's by left-wing student activists, who resisted even any kind of defense deal. That's the root of some anti-military positions in Japan.

edited 26th Oct '17 9:16:23 AM by TerminusEst

@Nikkolas

Thing is, it sounds like you're too focused on the topic of dependence on US, while not addressing the problems with the situation in Japan. A responsible government would be willing to cope with the consequences of an action such as redefining the JSDF and to do the right thing. But the prevailing attitude with the LDP nationalists seems to be to only care about "restoring the glory of the military" and push aside the effects. That's not about national defense. That's about ambition.

It looks like you are describing alliances as disposable rather than stable and of value. And the way you say that Donald Trump doesn't have much trust - it's like that for Shinzo Abe, too. The public is wary about some in the LDP abusing the military option.

And the way you talk about the UK, I feel that you're presupposing that the UK relied on the US in that way in the first place and the US had control over the British Armed Forces. Alliance with the US does not imply that. Key countries linked to US - Britain, France, South Korea, Japan, Israel, even Taiwan - are all rated in high tier for military strength because of their domestic defense forces, not because of US forces stationed nearby (even though they may be enhanced with US assistance and weaponry).

Then it suffices to say that I think they're wrong and their demands will be rejected. Even the most literal interpretation of the constitution would say that the Japanese, not the Americans, renounce war, and therefore nothing stops the US from retaliating against an attack on Japan. Ironically, to argue against such would be an activist, not literal, interpretation.

If you don't have anyone to defend you because you don't want a military presence and you get invaded, then you're just going to end up with the military of the invading countries occupying you. It's not like Japan made treaties with all of the relevant countries to forbid them from any direct attacks on Japanese soil. And even with that, you still need defense to enforce it. Austria claimed an independent path but didn't have the teeth to resist Anschluss in World War II. Switzerland keeps a strong defense to protect its neutrality.

As an aside regarding the "dichotomy", not only I find a single-dimension political spectrum critically flawed, I also think it's inconsistenctly applied among various countries, especially in regards to foreign policy and how a left party or a right party stances itself on it.

edited 26th Oct '17 6:33:39 PM by Trivialis

I didn't say it was a smart position. Merely that it is one.

Much of what is going to transpire will depend on Abe's ability survive as the party head.

this was going on before Trump:

edited 31st Oct '17 10:01:02 PM by TairaMai

An in-depth analysis on the recent Japanese election and the speculation about the future.

Something I've got on Japanese law. While reading up The Other Wiki's page on Shoko Nakagawa, I found that it cited a book named Shokotan Manual (しょこ☆まにゅ Shoko Manyu) that claimed her name was written hiragana because her mother wasn't allowed to use "薔".

Is there an explanation as to why it's illegal to use the character "薔"?

edited 4th Nov '17 12:05:48 AM by HallowHawk

There are only certain characters that are legally allowed to be used in given names. Try to use something outside that list the government will refuse to register the name and tell you to go back and change it.

Tokyo's on full alert since Trump (aside from Ivanka) is going to visit it soon from Hawaii.

They will probably roll out all the stops for him. Red carpet, fanfare, the works.