Conquer Club

The lower house of Japan's parliament has approved two controversial bills that change the country's security laws, despite protests in Tokyo.

The changes would allow Japanese troops to fight overseas for the first time since World War Two.

The bills still need approval from the upper house, but many expect them to eventually be passed into law.

The changes are unpopular and thousands demonstrated outside parliament on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has pushed for the two bills, arguing it is necessary to expand the role of the military in a doctrine called collective self-defence.

But polls show more than half of Japanese citizens oppose them.

khazalid wrote:

khazalid wrote:the legislation will preclude japan from deploying combat troops, but will allow it to defend territorial sovereignty and participate in peacekeeping missions.

DoomYoshi wrote:I understand the reform to be about bringing second amendment rights to Japan. If you aren't allowed to form a militia, are you even free?

Dukasaur wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I understand the reform to be about bringing second amendment rights to Japan. If you aren't allowed to form a militia, are you even free?

Militias by definition defend their home turf. Authorizing the army to form a mercenary auxiliary to accompany a foreign power on whatever harebrained adventures it decides to define as being in your best interest is the diametric opposite of forming a militia.

notyou2 wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I understand the reform to be about bringing second amendment rights to Japan. If you aren't allowed to form a militia, are you even free?

Militias by definition defend their home turf. Authorizing the army to form a mercenary auxiliary to accompany a foreign power on whatever harebrained adventures it decides to define as being in your best interest is the diametric opposite of forming a militia.

Militia is not defined as troops to defend home turf. It is a secondary force of the nation it serves. It is defined as a "part time army" as the members have regular jobs outside of the army, but it is not defined as a force to defend home turf. It could certainly be used in that aspect, but that is not the definition. It is technically a "reserve" force.

macbone wrote:Wait, governments are enacting policies that the majority of the populace don't agree with? Hasn't nearly every country experienced that at some point?

iAmCaffeine wrote:So basically Japan are allowing their forces to do what the majority of world powers can already do?

DoomYoshi wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:So basically Japan are allowing their forces to do what the majority of world powers can already do?

Yes, they are. It's easy to phrase it in such a nonchalant way, but you have to understand what this represents.

When the Japanese outlawed offensive war in their Constitution, this was seen as a massive step forward for the ideals of non-violence. It was hoped that this would be only the first of many nations to turn its back on war and move forward into a saner world. Not only has that not happened (no other nation that I'm aware of has emulated their example) but now even that step forward is being reversed.

Patton wrote:Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.

Dukasaur wrote:When the Japanese outlawed offensive war in their Constitution, this was seen as a massive step forward for the ideals of non-violence. It was hoped that this would be only the first of many nations to turn its back on war and move forward into a saner world. Not only has that not happened (no other nation that I'm aware of has emulated their example) but now even that step forward is being reversed.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:When the Japanese outlawed offensive war in their Constitution, this was seen as a massive step forward for the ideals of non-violence. It was hoped that this would be only the first of many nations to turn its back on war and move forward into a saner world. Not only has that not happened (no other nation that I'm aware of has emulated their example) but now even that step forward is being reversed.

This is misleading, to say the last. Japan didn't even write this Constitution; it was written almost entirely by Americans at the command of General MacArthur while the Allies continued to occupy Japan after the end of the war. And, the major ideas that would be featured in the Constitution (including the renunciation of war-making ability) were part of the terms of the surrender. In other words, this Constitution was an ultimatum forced on Japan after we had detonated two nuclear bombs on their soil.

The only surprising thing here is that it took Japan this long to do anything about it.

The source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara,[6] who "wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."[7] Shidehara's perspective was that retention of arms would be "meaningless" for the Japanese in the postwar era, because any substandard postwar military would no longer gain the respect of the people, and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan.[8] Shidehara admitted to his authorship in his memoirs Gaikō Gojū-Nen (Fifty Years Diplomacy), published in 1951, where he described how the idea came to him on a train ride to Tokyo; MacArthur himself confirmed Shidehara's authorship on several occasions. However, according to some interpretations, he denied having done so,[9] and the inclusion of Article 9 was mainly brought about by the members of Government Section (民政局 Min-Sei-Kyoku?) of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ) (連合国軍最高司令官 Rengō-Koku-Gun-Saikō-Shirei-Kan?), especially Charles Kades, one of Douglas MacArthur's closest associates. The article was endorsed by the Diet of Japan on November 3, 1946. Kades rejected the proposed language that prohibited Japan's use of force "for its own security," believing that self-preservation was the right of every nation.[10]

The article's acceptance by the Japanese government may in part be explained by the desire to protect the imperial throne. Some Allied leaders saw the emperor as the primary factor in Japan's warlike behavior. His assent to the "anti-war" clause weakened their arguments for abolishing the throne or trying the emperor as a war criminal

Dukasaur wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:When the Japanese outlawed offensive war in their Constitution, this was seen as a massive step forward for the ideals of non-violence. It was hoped that this would be only the first of many nations to turn its back on war and move forward into a saner world. Not only has that not happened (no other nation that I'm aware of has emulated their example) but now even that step forward is being reversed.

This is misleading, to say the last. Japan didn't even write this Constitution; it was written almost entirely by Americans at the command of General MacArthur while the Allies continued to occupy Japan after the end of the war. And, the major ideas that would be featured in the Constitution (including the renunciation of war-making ability) were part of the terms of the surrender. In other words, this Constitution was an ultimatum forced on Japan after we had detonated two nuclear bombs on their soil.

The only surprising thing here is that it took Japan this long to do anything about it.

The horror of the war (of which the atom bombs were only one component) definitely was the driving force. While there is some dispute, most people agree that it was a Japanese delegation that asked MacArthur to put the clause in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#Historical_background

The source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara,[6] who "wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."[7] Shidehara's perspective was that retention of arms would be "meaningless" for the Japanese in the postwar era, because any substandard postwar military would no longer gain the respect of the people, and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan.[8] Shidehara admitted to his authorship in his memoirs Gaikō Gojū-Nen (Fifty Years Diplomacy), published in 1951, where he described how the idea came to him on a train ride to Tokyo; MacArthur himself confirmed Shidehara's authorship on several occasions. However, according to some interpretations, he denied having done so,[9] and the inclusion of Article 9 was mainly brought about by the members of Government Section (民政局 Min-Sei-Kyoku?) of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ) (連合国軍最高司令官 Rengō-Koku-Gun-Saikō-Shirei-Kan?), especially Charles Kades, one of Douglas MacArthur's closest associates. The article was endorsed by the Diet of Japan on November 3, 1946. Kades rejected the proposed language that prohibited Japan's use of force "for its own security," believing that self-preservation was the right of every nation.[10]

The article's acceptance by the Japanese government may in part be explained by the desire to protect the imperial throne. Some Allied leaders saw the emperor as the primary factor in Japan's warlike behavior. His assent to the "anti-war" clause weakened their arguments for abolishing the throne or trying the emperor as a war criminal

I