Article 9 stipulates that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.”

The Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

It could be modified so that Japan could participant in UN missions. Completely getting rid of it would be a slippery slope especially if the Japanese decide they want nuclear bombs. I would say there is a good chance South Korea would push to do so as well, which would be the start of an arms race in Asia.

I seriously doubt the Japanese people would go for the idea of developing nuclear weapons, especially considering that Japan has been the only country to be on the receiving end of such weapons and Japanese know first-hand of the devastation they can wreak.

A build up of conventional weapons could be just as bad. South Korea has every reason to be nervous given they have been invaded by both China and Japan. I do support the Japanese being able to do two things: 1) more of their own defense; and 2) participate more in UN missions. The question would be how much should they be allowed to have in terms of any offensive weapons given their history.

in the decades leading up to the Pacific War.

First of all, there is no peasant class in Japan anymore, although there is still some lingering social stigma in places with the descendants of the burakumin. Nonetheless, Japan has a mostly egalitarian society.

Second, Japan is not trying to start and expand an empire to keep from becoming part of someone else's empire.

Third, the military, which essentially controlled the country from around 1912 to 1945 (and had a large hand in its operation before that), has been kept out of Japanese politics since the end of the war.

Fourth, no one thinks of the Emperor as a god anymore. Everyone knows that he is a mortal just like everyone else, with the same afflictions as ordinary people of his age. Certainly there are few Japanese who would be willing to go to war to glorify him, and he undoubtedly would frown on such an action.

Fifth, most Japanese are proud of Article 9 which prevents them from having an aggressive military. The right-wingers who drive around in their large black trucks blaring war songs are held in low regard.

Sixth, Japan has living memory of the terrible things that can happen when a country wages war.

Seventh, Japan knows that starting an aggressive war would be condemned by the international community, and would likely result in the loss of countless friendships and business relationships that it has painstakingly cultivated around the world.

And I know there is a still a very right wing element in Japan. I don't honestly think they will totally repeal it, but even despite the changes I am still opposed to them doing it. Given that the US defends them and they have defensive weapons they are probably more safe than South Korea.

Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2013, 02:06 AM - Edit history (1)

It didn't get anywhere then, it won't get anywhere now.

And Japan did send, reluctantly, Jieitai (Self-defense) forces to Iraq during the Koizumi years, on a strictly humanitarian mission. So really, there is a precedent for sending Jieitai troops to another country for humanitarian purposes and Japan did not have to change its constitution to do it.

I definitely think Japan should be able to help in humanitarian and peace keeping missions. South Korea faces the same danger Japan does which is from that lunatic up north. China seems to be getting more aggressive with several countries.

your question suggests that Japan is still a conquered country and has to get the O.K. of the United States. The United States is the new Roman Empire. If they are truly independent, then let the Japanese people decide. They are not the only country in the World has a history of aggression. This is 2013. The War ended decades ago. Should we hold Italy, Russia, France, Britain and Spain to the Past?

If the people are proud of the part of their constitution to be non-aggressive, then there would be no reason to repeal it. Also given the fact that the US has protected them for the last 67 years would count for something in terms of playing on the team. Signing a document surrendering in war does not have an expiration date. The cease fire in Korea is going to be 60 years old in June and despite what the North Koreans say about canceling it, it is still in effect.

Welcome to nation states since the sixteenth century.

All the "subtle" dogwhistling about the Intrinsic Warlike Nature Of The Japanese Race is kind of offensive.

Also, surrender agreements that don't result in outright annexation do have expiry dates. In Japan's case that date was April 28, 1952. And there was never a surrender on the Korean peninsula by either side, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

It isn't official, but it is an open secret. Their either have nukes or can have nukes at a moments notice. They have all the science and tech they need, all the hardware and more refined fissionable material then you can shake a stick at.

They do have some of the best scientists in the world, so I would think the capability would be there.

...dosimeter-equipped for your protection!

They won't be added unless they take this step- They may not be added anytime soon in any event but my own view is that they should modify it enough to take part in UN missions. Then they should be added as a permanent member along with India and Brazil. If they UN is ever going to fulfill its mission more effectively then these important nations need to join.

Of course the right wing in this country will go crazy over this but too bad.