Scaly, Ambassador Kennedy is working with Okinawa on lessening the US presence on the Island, which holds the vast majority of the US military Presence in the Japanese Islands. The Okinawans have stopped the work on the new US military base there. I'm not sure how much more control you need evidence of. The location of a US. base so close hasn't been all that bad defensively speaking for Japan with the threat of so many hostile players in SE. Asia having the US. military as your proverbial "big brother" isn't the worst thing for a small island nation.

No he's not. He's moving the base to a better strategic position for the USgov.

Japan are immensely rich. If they had their own army they wouldn't need the US to protect them and most likely don't need them now. The only people benefitting from the US being in Japan are the US.

You use the same tactics as widow does when discussing an issue, you slip to the side and turn it into Scaly's issues. Which happen to be personal since you have grandparents living on Okinawa

You can't be serious if you think That the Japanese could amass in any reasonable length of time an arsenal equal to the US. even just equal to what we have in the south Pacific.

This post was edited by Valhalls_Sun on Jul 14 2015 12:54pm

1. They have insane amounts of cash that they have been saving with their minimal defense spending, and the US would likely love to unload some toys for them. Look at the planes we sell to Israel. Hell they could buy some of the gear already in the base and we wouldnt even have to charge shipping!

2. they dont need to be as large as the US in the south pacific, because even if the naval base in japan is vacated the US troops will likely still maintain a presence in the South Pacific at another base somewhere else. They would still have the immediate backing of the US troops even if they weren't occupied by them. Even Hawaii isn't an awful ally for Japan as far as proximity goes.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 14 2015 01:17pm

the japanese have 130 million people living in such a tiny area im sure they could rally 20 million soldiers in no time, they are considered to be nuclear capable the treaty only allows them to use it for peaceful purposes such as reactors, but im sure they could make 1 nuke very fast aswell. and in any nuclear war all each side has to do is pull the trigger once and its all over.you are right they would be nowhere close to the united states in weapon firepower but should not be under estimated non the less, they are good with technology and in alot of aspects ahead of us over there. all it would take is a change in legislature and they can make weapons instead of video games and shit lol.

I'd like to read the new proposed constitution changes first, but when PM Abe says "Japan's humiliating loss to the allies" , I'm reminded of southern states who refer to the Civil war as "Northern aggression" thereby completely negating the purpose of the war and playing the victim card only shows he cares more about the loss and the disgrace it brought to Japan then acknowledging their deserved beatdown for committing such aggressions in the first place.

If the new constitutional changes are inclusive of their admitted aggression, and not just merely representational of the dishonor and shame the Allies made them feel, then these changes might be a good thing, however I'm not too hopefully that Japan wants to remember their mistakes.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jul 14 2015 01:29pm

Again Japan has a military, which they themselves choose to keep at the constitutional level which is defined as equal to Great Britain's. If the Japanese choose to increase their military it's up to them. The majority of the population don't want to have a military state, which is what they fear. They prefer a constitutional form of government which is what they are and have been for 70ish years. I'ts the shift that Abe and his group want, which is from a constitutional government that follows a Pacifist/peaceful doctrine to a military type government more of a sovereignty style.

The military decisions except for (nuclear weapons) are their own to make

what are you upset about specifically?

are you upset that the govt is moving towards a more military type, or that its not based on the majority consensus of their population, or both, or something else?

do you not think that Japan needs more military strength? would you prefer to just have the US occupy indefinitely?

You are an idiot that doesn't understand why Japan chooses to let an ally have troops on its soil, stop spewing nonsense no one is occupied.

They have the best military in the world as their go-to power. The United States is legally bound to protect Japan and act as it's self-defense which has been a mutually beneficial arrangement thus far.

From what I understand the people in Japan who want to rearm are a very vocal minority and this push isn't a very popular one right now, since most Japanese don't have much thirst for invading their neighbors (at the moment).