4 ms·
Japan is not an independent country, but rather a satellite of the United States. from the article: "...ongoing debate over the mission of the Japan Self-Defe
by dropit_sphere 11y ago
Japan is not an independent country, but rather a satellite of the United States.
from the article:
"...ongoing debate over the mission of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. Is their role truly one of self-defense, pure and simple? Or does the Japanese constitution allow for preëmptive strikes outside of domestic borders, in the manner of a traditional military?"
This is kind of shocking to read when you think about it:
1) militaries, historically, are for more than self-defense, even pre-emptive self-defense. The article leaves this out, casting the choice as "in-border defense vs out-border defense."
2) In a rare moment of visible doublethink, the article also implies plainly that it is in doubt whether Japan has a military at all: Traditional militaries are the only kind, folks.
How does Japan survive as a sovereign nation without a military? Answer: it doesn't.
Strange times.
- rrego 11y agoWhy does a country need to have a military (as opposed to whatever the SDF is) to remain sovereign/independent? I don't see it as doublethink; rather, the author doesn't carry that assumption. Does Japan not govern itself?
- krapp 11y agoIt might be the case that Japan's pacifist stance was forced on them by the US ~70 years ago, but they're still officially pacifist because they choose to be. The US has wanted Japan to take a more aggressive military role for years, particularly in dealing with the other Asian countries, but why should they, when they have the world's most powerful and violent superpower sworn to throw themselves into the meat grinder on Japan's behalf?
- pjc50 11y agoJapan is not allowed to have a preemptive overseas strike capability because of what they did with it last time. (Also, there are a number of microstates with ceremonial armed forces only, and Costa Rica has none at all)