Thread: Should Japan Rearm?

Screw that, we don't need anymore craisans running around with weapons.

"Craisians"?

I agree Doms. I think they every country should have the sovereign right to defend itself. Well short of nukes anyway. I dont like nukes.

Either re-arm, or pay the US a sizeable fee to continue defending them.

The 3Ps in their constitution do not prevent them from re arming...they are armed to the teeth through air and sea. They are one of the largest customers of the US aerospace and defense sector. They co develop certain components of SM-3
Japan Test Fires Its First Raytheon-Built Standard Missile-3

What the Japanese constitution does prevent is offensive weapon capability and the export of the defense hardware and defense articles. The interpretation is very subjective and differs from the past Japanese controlling party to the present. They Japanese pay through the nose for us to "Defend" them...which we really don't. We aren't "defending" the German or Australians but we still have very large military installations there. Secondly, the US is supposedly, per public domain sources, utilizing echelon in Japan. Echelon is a system spread throughout the world to maintain our BMD and Intelligence Agencies running in the event our territorial infrastructure is destroyed.

The Japanese are permitting us to lease critical pieces of land for our own strategic interests...BTW, it only takes PACOM a few hours to reach the shores of the PRC due to Japan permitting us to keep our installations there.

The DPJ is expected to interpret the constitution through the lens of not allowing Japan to export or manufacture/procure offensive weapons...this will result in two likely options IMHO:

1. Japan will continue to not develop its own advance weapon systems resulting in continued procurement and reliance from US defense contractors

2. The DPJ only lasts one term and the LDP takes the reins back over...continued status quo with marginal movement towards changing constitutional interpretation.

There should be a global de-arming. Especially of nukes. What are you fighting for if you're going to lose everything in the end?

Originally Posted by t_man

there should be a global de-arming. Especially of nukes. What are you fighting for if you're going to lose everything in the end?

+1

Originally Posted by jmorrison

I agree Doms. I think they every country should have the sovereign right to defend itself. Well short of nukes anyway. I dont like nukes.

It's highly unlikely that Japan will become a nuclear power.

Originally Posted by T_man

There should be a global de-arming. Especially of nukes. What are you fighting for if you're going to lose everything in the end?

De-arming? Have you seen most of the world? It's not a nice place.

It would be nice if everyone wanted to play nice, but that's not reality.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

The 3Ps in their constitution do not prevent them from re arming...they are armed to the teeth through air and sea. They are one of the largest customers of the US aerospace and defense sector. They co develop certain components of SM-3
Japan Test Fires Its First Raytheon-Built Standard Missile-3

What the Japanese constitution does prevent is offensive weapon capability and the export of the defense hardware and defense articles. The interpretation is very subjective and differs from the past Japanese controlling party to the present. They Japanese pay through the nose for us to "Defend" them...which we really don't. We aren't "defending" the German or Australians but we still have very large military installations there. Secondly, the US is supposedly, per public domain sources, utilizing echelon in Japan. Echelon is a system spread throughout the world to maintain our BMD and Intelligence Agencies running in the event our territorial infrastructure is destroyed.

The Japanese are permitting us to lease critical pieces of land for our own strategic interests...BTW, it only takes PACOM a few hours to reach the shores of the PRC due to Japan permitting us to keep our installations there.

The DPJ is expected to interpret the constitution through the lens of not allowing Japan to export or manufacture/procure offensive weapons...this will result in two likely options IMHO:

1. Japan will continue to not develop its own advance weapon systems resulting in continued procurement and reliance from US defense contractors

2. The DPJ only lasts one term and the LDP takes the reins back over...continued status quo with marginal movement towards changing constitutional interpretation.

+1

Anyone who thinks Japan isn't already armed to the teeth doesn't really know Japan. I was stationed on Okinawa MANY moons ago and we used to go up to the mainland and fly against the Japanese Air Defense Force. Let me tell you, those guys can FIGHT.

Originally Posted by T_man

There should be a global de-arming. Especially of nukes. What are you fighting for if you're going to lose everything in the end?

Mmmmmm K, you first.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Mmmmmm K, you first.

Is this the part where I whip the only weapon I have out?

Originally Posted by DOMS

De-arming? Have you seen most of the world? It's not a nice place.

It would be nice if everyone wanted to play nice, but that's not reality.

England is a nice place

Originally Posted by T_man

England is a nice place

Not surprisingly, England isn't most of the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Not surprisingly, England isn't most of the rest of the world.

Iceland is a nice place

Originally Posted by T_man

Iceland is a nice place

Pick any country in Central American, South America, Africa, and The Middle East; or you can pick almost any country in Asia.

That constitutes most of the world.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Picks any country in Central American, South America, Africa, and The Middle East; or you can pick almost any country in Asia.

That constitutes most of the world.

The Seychelles is a nice place

Botswana is a nice place

Originally Posted by T_man

The Seychelles is a nice place

With a population of under 90,000 people, it qualifies as a country in name only. My home city of Burbank, California has a population of 108,000.

Originally Posted by T_man

Botswana is a nice place

Live expectancy of 40 years and rampant HIV.

Originally Posted by DOMS

With a population of under 90,000 people, it qualifies as a country in name only. My home city of Burbank, California has a population of 108,000.




Live expectancy of 40 years and rampant HIV.

The vatican city is a nice place

Botswana is very rich in resources and finance per head I think. They pay for their students who come to study abroad and give them £1000, or $1500, a month to live on (which, after tax, is pretty damn close to a large amount of people working full time in England). And they don't even have to pay it back. I'm going to come out with debts of around £12-15k. Fuck.

Originally Posted by T_man

The vatican city is a nice place

Botswana is very rich in resources and finance per head I think. They pay for their students who come to study abroad and give them £1000, or $1500, a month to live on (which, after tax, is pretty damn close to a large amount of people working full time in England). And they don't even have to pay it back. I'm going to come out with debts of around £12-15k. Fuck.

be happy with that...you don't even want to know what the average debt is for bachelors degree here. After my masters I'm sitting with $85k in debt.

"England is a nice place"--are you trying to allude that the UK doesn't possess WMDs? They procure Trident II from LMT. MRVs (Trident) are about the most lethal WMD known to man...extremely difficult to intercept. Only two countries have the chance at neutralizing an MRV with a EKV (or like) defensive capability. The US and Russia.

Originally Posted by T_man

Is this the part where I whip the only weapon I have out?

You have a weapon? You're not supposed to. You disarmed, remember?

Originally Posted by T_man

The vatican city is a nice place

Not a real country. Geez, it only has a population of 821. The high school I went to has almost (just over 800) that many people.

Originally Posted by T_man

Botswana is very rich in resources and finance per head I think. They pay for their students who come to study abroad and give them £1000, or $1500, a month to live on (which, after tax, is pretty damn close to a large amount of people working full time in England). And they don't even have to pay it back. I'm going to come out with debts of around £12-15k. Fuck.

None of that matters much if you're going to die at age 40. One third of the UK population is over 50. I'm willing to bet that the over 40 group accounts for half of more of the population.

Okay, aside from stuff like, "Everyone should love each other and should spending time frolicking in meadows of gumdrop trees under a rainbow sky", does anyone have a real reason why Japan should not rearm?

If there is one, I haven't heard it yet.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Okay, aside from stuff like, "Everyone should love each other and should spending time frolicking in meadows of gumdrop trees under a rainbow sky", does anyone have a real reason why Japan should not rearm?

If there is one, I haven't heard it yet.

Because of the treaty they signed after WWII. Not saying that's a GOOD reason, just pointing it out.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Because of the treaty they signed after WWII. Not saying that's a GOOD reason, just pointing it out.

A treaty with the US, who also wants Japan to rearm.

Originally Posted by DOMS

I ran across a couple of videos from August last year about Japan and the growing movement there to rearm Japan.

I think they should rearm. WW2 ended 65 years ago and times have changed. The have the imperialistic China, nut ball North Korea, and most of the kooky world that is South-East Asia right next to them. That's like me moving to Compton and just leaving my doors open. It's not logical.

If crazy ass places like Iran have weapons, then why not Japan?

You note Iran. Do you mean nuclear? Or, rearming regular Army & Navy etc.

IMO, South East Asia is not kooky at all, but stable, actually.

North Korea is a odd but not a threat to neighbors.

China, yes belligerant, but in economic ways.

As for Japan re-arming. I have no opinion. I think those in favor in the West, just might be looking at arms sales as part of the reason.

Originally Posted by DOMS

A treaty with the US, who also wants Japan to rearm.

Yeah, seems kind of dumb, doesn't it. Oops, I almost forgot, we're talking about the gubmint.

Ponder this: If we removed the arms restrictions from them, how much $$$ could we generate by selling them the very arms they'd then be allowed to have? Am I missing something?

Originally Posted by doms

okay, aside from stuff like, "everyone should love each other and should spending time frolicking in meadows of gumdrop trees under a rainbow sky", does anyone have a real reason why japan should not rearm?

If there is one, i haven't heard it yet.

Remember Pearl Harbor!!!!!