I saw this yesterday on The captions below are all that was provided.
Mr T
Senior Member
I could be wrong, but it don't believe it will become "law" as such. It will be an interpretation by the executive, albeit one accepted by the LDP and New Komeito.
It's a little smoke and mirrors. But basically:
1. The Japanese Constitution does not allow for air/naval/sea forces which are the potential for war to be maintained;
2. The SDF is classed as a "defence" force, which are not potential for war;
3. International law recognises the SDF as in effect being a military force.
It's not the best situation, but that's where we are.
Unfortunately there is no consensus in Japan on how to deal with Article 9. Some people are isolationists who would prefer that Japan never have the SDF leave Japan's shores, for any reason, even humanitarian operations. Some want it abolished and others want it reformed. Any referendum would probably result in the vast majority of people being dissatisfied. Currently there is no consensus to hold a referendum, largely because the populace isn't sure what the question(s) put to them should be. A fair number of people don't want a referendum at all because they feel so conflicted over the subject.
Imperfect as it is, the interpretation actually serves to buy Japan time to try to gain consensus for future reform. It allows the SDF to be more flexible but doesn't change its orientation from being a primarily defensive force.
Blame the Americans (no offence Jeff/Popeye) for foisting such a stupid constitution on Japan without thinking about the long-term consequences. The problem re constitutional interpretation started when the SDF was created.
However, it's true that constitutions can always be interpreted/reinterpreted. It's up to the courts to review the procedure, although it's more difficult to do so re foreign policy.
Last edited:
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Yeah Mr.T I hear you, but I do not believe blaming the Americans is a solution and after all it is a domestic problem that can only be solved by us citizens of Japan.
From where I stand I believe the government had copped out in explaining the situation to the populous takinng the easy way out making the situation from bad to worse leavinng a very bad example that could be exploited by future governments. Japan had already gone that road and should already understand the consequences going down that slippery path.It's going to take time to gain a consensus but as the saying goes , If you are in a hurry take the difficult path and get it right the first time or as westerners says it, haste makes waste.
Blane the US for what, exactly, Mr. T?Mr. T said:
A unbelievably prosperous, but non-threatening Japan, who is yet more than capable of defending itself all of these years?
Because that is precisely what has resulted from the US policy at the end of World War II.
The constitution was not "foisted" on Japan. It was stronger than that. It was out and out imposed by the victor on a nation that had waged all out war against the US, and was the consequence of their unconditional surrender...which was the only condition acceptable to the US at the time.
The consequences were well thought out. The US was not going to allow any chance or opportunity for any form of aggressive Bushido type mentality to have anything to do with Japan after that war. And that has worked out. That entire Japanese generation has now passed on...as has the US one that imposed it...and we second generation are getting aged now too.
Japan's self defense forces, which came into being several years later with US approval, were established to help the US deal with the Soviet threat at the time. That force has grown to be one of the most respected militaries in the world, and to do so with little concern about any offensive worries all of these years.
So, the result has been a very prosperous, and peaceful Japan, but with an extremely capable self defense force. All of that has worked out about as good as it could have been hoped for. I'd say the long term consequences as regards the last 65+ years has been a good thing.
Now...these decades later, there is a desire, and a willingness on Japan's and the US side to adjust things. I believe the Japanese will figure it out and make it work. Samurai's comments here, if they are at all representative of the Japanese public, is, IMHO, proof of that.
...and OBTW, Mr. T, no offense whatsoever meant in my reply to you. Just sharing my view of it.
Last edited:
Mr T
Senior Member
I have to disagree. If the US had really thought things through, they would have made explicit allowance for Japan to maintain defensive forces. And did the US really envisage a situation where its supposed ally couldn't help the US out, because it was restricted by its constitution?
No. What happened was that the US (and to an extent the UK) shaped Japan's constitution on the assumption that it could predict what a future Asia would be like. Had it known how things would be today, I promise you Japan's constitution would be far more tolerant of Japan explicitly maintaining armed forces, even if there was something in there about a commitment to peace. Perhaps at the time it made sense, but in retrospect Article 9 was unnecessarily restrictive.
Japanese people probably will figure it out eventually, but at the moment Article 9 is a problem for US security in Asia.
So...we disagree.
I believe the last 65+ years punctuates the points I have made.
- Japan has been remarkably prosperous.
- Japan has not been a threat to its neighbors.
- Japan has a very capable self defense force.
All of those things have occurred under its constitution, with Article Nine. I do not think anyone could have put in place a plan after the war that could have worked much better. So, while it is definitely the "fault" of the US (principally) that things happened the way they did after the war...the results over the last 65+ years (while not perfect...nothing mankind implements ever is) has gone far better than many expected.
Now there is a desire to potentially change and update things...after over 65 years of success. I personally believe the Japanese are capable of doing so.
Last edited:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
JMSDF strength is it's ASW and had the same job as UK that was to make sure no Soviet submarines broke out from their waters out into the open ocean where they could be a deadly threat this was during the Cold War
JMSDF is a formidable naval power only getting better just look at the tonnage of warships they have and they also have the important aspect of "critical mass"
JMSDF is a very very professional and very well trained force
JMSDF is a formidable naval power only getting better just look at the tonnage of warships they have and they also have the important aspect of "critical mass"
JMSDF is a very very professional and very well trained force
SamuraiBlue
Captain
At the end of the day responsibility falls on the laps of the Japanese since we Japanese are the only one that can amend the present constitution. It's easy to make comments in hind sight but as I have said before it really does not solve any of the present problem.
One of the reason why I am passionate concerning this problem is of a personal matter in which a friend of my is a JGSDF enlisted man. He is a 20 years veteran and probably one of the first to be called upon if and when a military conflict is to happen.
He say he had already come to term with the situation and is ready to make the ultimate sacrifice to serve his nation but once in awhile during drinks he mutters out if he and his commrades will be greeted at Yasukuni when their time comes. He also talks about what if they are taken prisoners,will they recieve treatment as prisoners of war or will they be trial at a civilian courtof law?
In the murky fog of war, anything is possible but my personal belief is that we owe them to atleast relieve any doubts before they are sent to the frontlines.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Abe's running out of time and must push with great gusto to get his landmark constitution changes through the National Diet. Polls in Japan don't favor re-militarization (34% for security changes, 50% against) as a majority polled were against the motion. But Japan needs to be a "normal" country, so I hope Abe has enough Legislature support to get an unpopular bill through the Assembly. In any case, Abe's short on time, so he better get it done quickly. Move it, Abe! Action! Action! Action!
>>>>>>>>>> MODERATOR INSTRUCTIONS <<<<<<<<<<
This thread is about Japanese Military News...NOT about Japanese politics or especially about comparisons of the current Japanese military to Impeiral Japan, or about deriding, putting down, or negatively characterizing the current Japanese military.
Most American military personnel who have had anything to do with the Japaneses Self Defense forces have been impressed by their professionalism, dedication, and capabilities. Our own career US military members of this forum have continually stressed this fact.
I have removed several such off-topic posts, that could easily be offensive to any of our Japanese members, particularly those who have served their country.
So...NO MORE attacks, scoffs, insults, etc, or opines regarding the same. Take that kind of stuff to another forum.
Back on topic to Japanese Military News.
>>>>>>>> END MODERATOR INSTRUCTIONS <<<<<<<<
Last edited: