[ilurk]

I feel saddened by this this. But at the same time I see Japan in a very complicated situation with China expanding its maritime influence in the region.

If it doesn't flex its military muscle (needing the secracy for it) it may find itself in a vulnerable situation against China. Although on the other hand it really doesn't stand a chance against China's nuclear arsenal.

If China used a nuclear warhead would the US riposte in the same manner?

What I don't get is the "Japan to battle in the middle east". Is this a "you scratch my back and I scratch yours"? Or just a cover for not saying "we're preparing for an eventual conflict with China"?

[mahranch]

> Although on the other hand it really doesn't stand a chance against China's nuclear arsenal.

I beg to differ; According to the U.S government, Japan maintains a latent nuclear program. According to their assessment, Japan can go from "Hey, let's build a nuclear weapon stockpile" to actually having that stockpile in as little as a few months. (Source: http://zidbits.com/2012/02/which-country-is-closest-to-build...)

Germany comes in second place and could have nuclear weapons nearly as quick.

> Or just a cover for not saying "we're preparing for an eventual conflict with China"?

Right now, if North Korea launched a missile at California, Japan would have to watch as it sailed over Tokyo. They legally cannot shoot it down in protection of their ally. Japan wants to change that. They want to be able to protect and assist their allies in more than just a minor supporting role. Japan was there in Iraq and Afghanistan, they just weren't in combat roles. They were there providing medical aid and resupplies.

People (incorrectly) think that Japan is trying to become 1935 imperial Japan again. That's not it - they just want to be like everyone else. Right now, they have less freedom (militaristicaly) than everyone else. Significantly less than Germany too.

[avar]

    > Right now, if North Korea launched a missile
    > at California, Japan would have to watch as
    > it sailed over Tokyo.

This doesn't detract from your general point, but I was curious to see if this particular thing was true.

If you use the "measure distance" tool on Google Maps you can see that even if North Korea launched an ICBM from the southernmost part of their eastern coast to the southernmost part of California it would only intersect Japanese territory by a few miles, at the point of Rebun Island northwest of Hokkaido, something they could trivially avoid. They'd have a much bigger practical problem with having to fly it over Russia than Japan.

In order for its course to go anywhere near Tokyo they'd have to be aiming said ICBM somewhere midway around Argentina, around a thousand miles south of Buenos Aires or so.

Don't let the Mercator projection interfere with your sense of reality.

[Cyberdog]

It doesn't look good that the leadership must constantly "reinterpret" Article 9 to do this, though. Though I don't necessarily disagree that Japan should be beefing up its defense right about now, the whole situation would smell better - and probably have a better result - if the government just rewrote Article 9 out of the Constitution entirely and allowed itself to provision armed forces on the same level as other nations without having to justify everything. (And, for God's sake, just leave the press alone already.)

Maybe the Overton Window just isn't there yet, though.

[crusso]

You bring up a good point, but Japan could beef up its military defenses without also shutting down the press. You'd think that the USA of all countries could be clear about that distinction and urge our ally to maintain a free press while also endorsing their participation in military operations.

[krapp]

Given their mutual histories, I suspect both China and South Korea expect that Japan is preparing for conflict with them, so attempting to provide "cover" in that regard would only make Japan look duplicitous, regardless of Japan's actual intentions.

[xlm1717]

What makes it even harder to understand is that it was basically the US that forced Japan to demilitarize after WW2. Now we want to ask them to fight our wars?

The possible cover for not saying "we're preparing for an eventual conflict with China" is even more troubling. It was previously the case that the US would handle Japan's defense and the Self Defense Forces would, of course, provide self-defense. Are they planning for a conflict that is not defensive?

It is indeed a very complicated situation.

[mahranch]

> the US that forced Japan to demilitarize after WW2. Now we want to ask them to fight our wars?

To be fair, the U.S has literally been asking Japan to change its constitution since 1968. They've been trying to get them to be actual military allies for 50 years now. Understandably, Japan has been perfectly fine with the status quo. And who can blame them? They had Uncle Sam footing their defense bill -- at least, until recently. Now Japan has to pay the U.S for that protection in a cost sharing agreement. The U.S wanted to close up shop and leave. They also wanted to leave South Korea as well, believe it or not. Both countries now pay the U.S to be there.

[krapp]

> What makes it even harder to understand is that it was basically the US that forced Japan to demilitarize after WW2. Now we want to ask them to fight our wars?

That was 70 years ago - the world has changed a lot in that time.