|
Grand Fromage covered the rest of your post, but since it apparently got looked over the first time around:Tesseraction posted:But if that's the case why would they need to remove the pacifism clause? Sheep posted:One of the major concerns cropping up now is that Japan can't defend its allies One example that was drummed up on television a lot a few years ago was Japan evacuating Japanese citizens in North Africa, which they weren't even sure if the JSDF would be allowed to do under the existing setup, which was a big impetus for the new guidelines that were issued a while back (and ignored the whole constitutional/legal aspect). There are other big concerns, such as cooperation on humanitarian issues (we can use the evacuation of citizens issue again - can the JSDF legally evacuate allied nations' citizens outside of Japan?) and collective self defense (can Japan shoot down ballistic missiles headed for America if they're just passing over Japan?). This is a good read that covers the new guidelines which resolve a couple of these issues, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
pentyne posted:There's a lot of political chat when in reality all Abe cares about is drumming up and securing the votes and it's not like a right-wing platform would really turn away any of the 50+ year olds who make up 90% of the voting electorate. If this is about votes, it's failing miserably. Abe's approval is dropping because of these bills
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:If this is about votes, it's failing miserably. Abe's approval is dropping because of these bills what are they going to do, vote for someone other than the LDP? Abe knows he's the only game in town so why give a gently caress about something as silly as the will of the electorate
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Abe can still be voted out as leader, which could even happen this summer. Cancelling that dumb stadium provided some helpful chaff for a couple days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Sheep posted:One example that was drummed up on television a lot a few years ago was Japan evacuating Japanese citizens in North Africa, which they weren't even sure if the JSDF would be allowed to do under the existing setup, which was a big impetus for the new guidelines that were issued a while back (and ignored the whole constitutional/legal aspect). There are other big concerns, such as cooperation on humanitarian issues (we can use the evacuation of citizens issue again - can the JSDF legally evacuate allied nations' citizens outside of Japan?) and collective self defense (can Japan shoot down ballistic missiles headed for America if they're just passing over Japan?). Ahh, cheers for this. I suppose part of the problem is that by and large I wasn't aware those kind of issues were affected by this (I would have said in both cases 'of course Japan could' - but then I'm not exactly Japan's foremost constitutional expert), and figured Abe was pushing for the purposes of belligerence. ...which isn't to say that he isn't also doing it for that purpose. But there is a better defence of clarifying defence policy compared to "I want the right to shoot other countries and so help me I will."
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
In what situation and for what reason would Japan just start to shoot at countries
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Well that's what I was wanting to know - my first query was "why is Abe so obsessed with having a full-blown military unless he plans to make a first move" to which others have pointed out that elements of Article 9 place strange limits on non-belligerent situations. I wasn't saying 'Abe is planning on shooting China' so much as not knowing why Abe needed the ability to potentially shoot China some time in the future. To which I was given the reply 'Asian cold war getting warmer, needs arms race to cool head.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Well that's what I was wanting to know - my first query was "why is Abe so obsessed with having a full-blown military unless he plans to make a first move" to which others have pointed out that elements of Article 9 place strange limits on non-belligerent situations. I wasn't saying 'Abe is planning on shooting China' so much as not knowing why Abe needed the ability to potentially shoot China some time in the future. I believe the implication has always been to preemptively strike North Korea before Japan gets to find out how well US anti-missile technology works. China is being loud right now but it's pretty much the equivalent of Cold War Soviet rhetoric. North Korea is an actual credible threat in that they're not a rational actor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
I'm never sure what to make of North Korea since for all their sabre rattling I haven't actually seen them DO anything since the Korean war finished. Skirmishes sure, and that ridiculous tree incident, but I think for all their bluster they're scared to do anything because they know China is the only reason they aren't currently part of (South-run) Unified Korea, and that China won't actually help them if they strike first. That said, maybe Jong-un feels like ending the family name with a bang.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:what are they going to do, vote for someone other than the LDP? Abe knows he's the only game in town so why give a gently caress about something as silly as the will of the electorate the JCP  
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:In what situation and for what reason would Japan just start to shoot at countries The Japanese are inherently evil subhumans who will attack you with no warning, do you know? Japan very bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm never sure what to make of North Korea since for all their sabre rattling I haven't actually seen them DO anything since the Korean war finished. Skirmishes sure, and that ridiculous tree incident, but I think for all their bluster they're scared to do anything because they know China is the only reason they aren't currently part of (South-run) Unified Korea, and that China won't actually help them if they strike first. NK does launch ballistic missiles over Japan which, considering how safety obsessed Japan is, isn't nothing. Not taking them seriously is maybe the reasonable choice, but this is something that you don't need to be a nationalist to think is a big deal. (Changing the constitution is probably for the nationalists though.) ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
It's not hard to make arguments for changing it. Japan is the only country in the world (I think) not allowed to have a military or engage in warfare because of laws created by an occupying nation, to punish them for things their ancestors did decades ago. Honestly it's a bizarre situation to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:NK does launch ballistic missiles over Japan Wait. What? I think I'm learning a lot more about what's going on over there from the past two pages of this thread then any of the news I've been reading. And here I thought all the drama was just in their cartoons...
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's not hard to make arguments for changing it. Japan is the only country in the world (I think) not allowed to have a military or engage in warfare because of laws created by an occupying nation, to punish them for things their ancestors did decades ago. Honestly it's a bizarre situation to begin with. Probably, but then again Costa Rica decided to abolish its military anyway because "eh, we don't need it" - but then again they're in a mildly more secure part of the world. Grand Fromage posted:The Japanese are inherently evil subhumans who will attack you with no warning, do you know? Japan very bad. Naw, not Japanese people, just followers of Shin
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Wait. What? I think I'm learning a lot more about what's going on over there from the past two pages of this thread then any of the news I've been reading. And here I thought all the drama was just in their cartoons... He is wrong, they have not done that. They have fired missiles into the Sea of Japan. None have crossed another country's land. Tesseraction posted:Probably, but then again Costa Rica decided to abolish its military anyway because "eh, we don't need it" - but then again they're in a mildly more secure part of the world. And that's by choice and could be reversed whenever they want. Japan didn't choose to disarm. It's understandable given the circumstances at the time but things have changed. It's definitely a thing for nationalists but I don't think you have to be a crazy right winger to see the reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Right, those were just 'tests' though, right - partially to show off but mostly for tests?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's not hard to make arguments for changing it. Japan is the only country in the world (I think) not allowed to have a military or engage in warfare because of laws created by an occupying nation, to punish them for things their ancestors did decades ago. Honestly it's a bizarre situation to begin with. Not allowed to have a military* *has one of the best equipped militaries in the world. But the issue is that they really only have defensive equipment. Nothing long range except for some multirole fighters that could theoretically re-fuel in the middle of the Japan sea using one of Japan's few mid-air refuellers, in order to get just barely enough legs to make it to a NK missile launch site. That's what I identify as the real problem. If someone just sits far away and starts launching missiles at Japan there is literally almost nothing they could do. They'd be entirely dependent on the US to stop something. Tesseraction posted:Wait. What? I think I'm learning a lot more about what's going on over there from the past two pages of this thread then any of the news I've been reading. And here I thought all the drama was just in their cartoons... NK shoots missles, Russia sends bombers into Japanese airspace, China does all kinds of poo poo to everyone in the region and is currently making a man-made island in the middle of the sea to extend their operational range for aircraft and probably their anti-missle envelope. Japan has a lot of credible threats from areas that aren't necessarily going to be rational actors and have a history of brinksmanship. And all the meanwhile their military is completely incapable of doing anything serious in the case someone starts some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:He is wrong, they have not done that. They have fired missiles into the Sea of Japan. None have crossed another country's land. http://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/sep/01/northkorea http://archive.wusa9.com/news/article/83910/0/North-Korea-Launches-Missile-Over-Japan http://japandailypress.com/north-korean-missile-fired-passes-over-okinawa-before-crashing-near-philippines-1219711/ These are three seperate launches over Japan. Not sure how this is news to anyone playing enough attention to bother being in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Well that's weird. I searched since I didn't remember that and the only missile tests that came up were Sea of Japan ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
I've only started paying attention to Japan's politics recently over the whole WW2 faux pas and the desire to abolish Article 9. Most of my knowledge of Japanese politics comes from when the British press go "isn't Japan kooky, their PM was reading some comics on the train!" I figure that I spend enough time putting my greasy dorito-stained fingers on their music and television that knowing nothing about their political happenings is odd for a political junkie. I was going to make a joke about not knowing what party Abe was in here but frankly it would just look like ignorance not irony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:But the issue is that they really only have defensive equipment. Nothing long range except for some multirole fighters that could theoretically re-fuel in the middle of the Japan sea using one of Japan's few mid-air refuellers, in order to get just barely enough legs to make it to a NK missile launch site. The F-15J (of which Japan has 157) has a ferry range of 5,000km, so even if that is halved under combat load, I imagine they'd have plenty to engage in combat missions all the way up to the Korean border with China (which is only 1000km from Tsuiki airbase). Even the others at Naha and Chitose could probably get in on the action. That is all assuming that you'd need more than like five planes to lock down the entire peninsula anyways. NK's aging fleet of 50 year old MiGs and pilots who have barely an hour of flight time a year are going to do exactly jack and poo poo anyways so really the question is "how high can Japan's F-2s drop bombs from?". Tesseraction posted:British press There's your problem. Sheep fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Abe belongs to the only party that matters. Grand Fromage posted:Well that's weird. I searched since I didn't remember that and the only missile tests that came up were Sea of Japan ones. The first time I was in Japan was after the first one. I went from "oh those kooky North Koreans" to "oh yeah, I guess that would be an existensial threat" pretty fast when I noticed how upset people were about it. I completely understand why some in Japan want to dump Article 9. What I don't understand is why China doesn't bring NK to heel, because they are going to force Japan to rearm, and that cannot be in their interest. I suspect they cannot, or they are really sniffing their own farts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:I completely understand why some in Japan want to dump Article 9. What I don't understand is why China doesn't bring NK to heel, because they are going to force Japan to rearm, and that cannot be in their interest. I suspect they cannot, or they are really sniffing their own farts. Not that they need to (domestically), but China can justify increased armament by using the "look at Japan rearming!!!" argument. If there's one thing China craves it's international recognition/prestige/face, and this is one way to build up your military without sacrificing any of those. Sheep fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
I think China is just fine justifying rearmament with its massive persecution complex and using western and Japanese imperialism as a blank check to do whatever they want
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Sheep posted:The F-15J (of which Japan has 157) has a ferry range of 5,000km, so even if that is halved under combat load, I imagine they'd have plenty to engage in combat missions all the way up to the Korean border with China (which is only 1000km from Tsuiki airbase). Even the others at Naha and Chitose could probably get in on the action. Wikipedia notes this: 性能 最大速度: M2.5[69] 巡航速度: M0.9[69] フェリー飛行時航続距離: 3,450km 航続距離: 4,630km (増槽) 実用上昇限度: 19,000m[69] 戦闘行動半径：1,900km[69] For the F-15J the ferry range is only 3,450km supposedly, with a cruising range of 4,630km with drop tanks. Combat radius is 1,900km so yeah F-15J's could make the trip, but they supposedly can only take Mk82s which are 500lb dumb-bombs. If you want JDAMs or other guided ordinance then you need the F-2, and: 性能 最大速度: マッハ2.0 フェリー飛行時航続距離: 4,000km 戦闘行動半径: 450海里 ,830km（ASM-2×4, AAM-3×2, 600gl増槽×2） Combat radius of 830km, which puts it out of range of, for example, the Musudan-ri launch site for the Taepodongs. I've seen the same numbers from other sources; maybe they're not completely accurate, etc. but from what I can see Japan has very limited strike capability against Korea. As you say they wouldn't likely need many, but there's still a decent question as to whether or not planes can reliably get there. A few long range missiles would go a long way to help this problem. Sheep posted:Not that they need to (domestically), but China can justify increased armament by using the "look at Japan rearming!!!" argument. If there's one thing China craves it's international recognition/prestige/face, and this is one way to build up your military without sacrificing any of those. China is already massively building up. Who are they going to argue to? They're pushing around all their other neighbors too, so local parties (save Korea, at least for political purposes) won't give a poo poo about Japan re-arming, and the UN is toothless anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:
uh I'm pretty sure that the japanese electorate overwhelmingly supports the pacifism clauses of their constitution. It's one of the biggest disconnects between voters and politicians in japan
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Also China has nuclear weapons so thinking Japan is going to try for a first strike is almost impossibly dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
I don't know how the system works in Japan but could they pass a bill basically saying "BTW, the JSDF is allowed to do those things," or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:uh I'm pretty sure that the japanese electorate overwhelmingly supports the pacifism clauses of their constitution. It's one of the biggest disconnects between voters and politicians in japan Japanese people support the law because it is the law. If the constitution said something else, people would support than instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't know how the system works in Japan but could they pass a bill basically saying "BTW, the JSDF is allowed to do those things," or something? They just did that. It's technically unconstitutional though, and arguably the JSDF in itself is unconstitutional and has been since 1954. ReidRansom posted:Japanese people support the law because it is the law. If the constitution said something else, people would support than instead. It's interesting how the Japanese people seem to have agency when they're neonazis and are thus responsible for their beliefs but when they're pacifists they're just dumb borg drones repeating what their superiors told them
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's interesting how the Japanese people seem to have agency when they're neonazis and are thus responsible for their beliefs but when they're pacifists they're just dumb borg drones repeating what their superiors told them Inertia means a lot. Even moreso than most places, they are very resistant to societal change and support the status quo even when it is demonstrably bad. If things are a certain way then they're that way for a reason and that's the right way it should be. Marijuana is bad because it's illegal, because it wouldn't be illegal if it weren't bad. That sort of thing. e: they expand now, within 30-50 years they'd face the same resistance if they tried to re-pacify.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Sheep posted:There's your problem. Yeah, my plan is to
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Japanese people support the law because it is the law. If the constitution said something else, people would support than instead. I really think you don't nearly appreciate the lasting impact getting nuked has on japan's collective psyche, especially since it was during a war started by a militaristic regime Why do you think the older folk are more opposed to the change
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
They are going to invade south Korea and regain their supremacy as television manufacturers 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Combat radius of 830km, which puts it out of range of, for example, the Musudan-ri launch site for the Taepodongs. Good point with the drop tanks, I hadn't even considered that. Either way, it's unlikely Japan would ever need to get combat superiority over North Korea anyway, and even if they did, it'd almost certainly be a situation where they'd be able to invoke the security alliance and let America deal with long range stuff, so no big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:uh I'm pretty sure that the japanese electorate overwhelmingly supports the pacifism clauses of their constitution. It's one of the biggest disconnects between voters and politicians in japan Yes, they do. I never said they don't? It doesn't mean that having the same military capabilities as every other country is a position solely for insane people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Inertia means a lot. Even moreso than most places, they are very resistant to societal change and support the status quo even when it is demonstrably bad. If things are a certain way then they're that way for a reason and that's the right way it should be. Marijuana is bad because it's illegal, because it wouldn't be illegal if it weren't bad. That sort of thing. Yeah, I was speaking with my wife the last time Article 9 reform came up, and she was deeply passionate that other people had opinions about it. One of the more surreal conversations I have ever had. It is important to keep in mind that this is a country whose sexism, lack of children and resistance to immigration has them 30-50 years from societal collapse. And they still won't even admit there's a problem, let alone change anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yes, they do. I never said they don't? It doesn't mean that having the same military capabilities as every other country is a position solely for insane people. Do you think Abe's cabinet is right to try and put these bills through the Diet despite the opposition of the Japanese public and a near unanimous consensus among legal scholars that the bills are unconstitutional?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:25
|
|