Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: iamzack on February 01, 2010, 07:53:29 am
-
link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247281/Thousands-protest-Tokyo-U-S-military-presence-Japan.html)
I think the Japanese government should say something like "sure, you can have military bases in Japan--if we can have some in California."
-
They don't have a choice. They lost the war, this is what they get. Sure, it was a long time ago, but that's irrelevant.
-
They don't have a choice. They lost the war, this is what they get. Sure, it was a long time ago, but that's irrelevant.
I think it is relevant. That was a different age, a long long time ago. The land should probably be handed back.
-
Yeah, I think that Japan has outgrown its desire to forcibly take over eastern asia.
-
Yeah, I think that Japan has outgrown its desire to forcibly take over eastern asia.
I doubt our military presence is there to keep Japan in check, nor has it been for many years :P To be fair the city built itself around the base, I would wager due to the economic activity it generates and I would be curious to see how Okinawa's economy would react to the removal of US forces. I can see how a base full of foreign Leathernecks and their air units would be a pain in the ass but I wonder if they might come to regret having 47 thousand consumers removed from their market.
Though to be honest I don't think Japan's government is to gun ho to stare down DPRK or an increasingly powerful China without US forces available. Seems like they are between a rock and a hard place and it will be interesting to see what they decide.
-
Eugh, the comments on the actual news article make for some pretty depressing reading. A lot of angry, sarcastic Americans mocking the whole thing. I doubt any of them stopped for a second to consider how they'd feel if the roles were reversed.
I'd say StarSlayer has it right though. The base was probably originally there to flex a bit of muscle in Japan but - and I'm sorry Black Wolf - despite it being the result of US victory over Japan in WW2, times have sure moved on. How long can the US realistically expect to keep a base there without someone saying "Um, isn't enough enough? You aren't punishing the people who did this anymore, you're punishing their sons and daughters".
That seems to be the crucial thing here. Japan has done her time and I'm not surprised that average local civilians don't want the base there. They didn't do anything to deserve it.
-
Yeah, it's really too bad that democracies sometimes do what they want, even if it is not the best, rational decision.
As for staring down China and North Korea, Japan has the technological ability to go from their current state to "Nuke-tipped ICBMs fueled and ready" within a year, at most, if they really wanted to. They won't like doing it, probably, but if they feel that to be necessary, they can.
Also, if the US really wanted a base over there, why not formally ackknowledge Taiwan's independence and establish a base there?
-
Though to be honest I don't think Japan's government is to gun ho to stare down DPRK or an increasingly powerful China without US forces available. Seems like they are between a rock and a hard place and it will be interesting to see what they decide.
Yeah, this is the problem. A US military base is a definite military boon for Japan. It's clear that a lot of Japanese want it gone... but I think a lot of other Japanese want it to stay, or it wouldn't be such a tough decision for the local government. Certainly it's not as simple as "Japan wants us to leave, mean Americans refuse to do so."
Our interest in maintaining forces there isn't there to keep Japan in line... it's to project military power into the far east. The reason we're still in Japan has a lot more to do with North Korea (and to a lesser extent, China and Russia) than it does with Japan.
Furthermore, we're actually there to protect Japan to some degree: their own military is pretty limited, as required by Post-WW2 treaty. In recent years, they've been able to project a bit more power, but with a neighbor like the DPRK, I'm sure the Japanese government appreciates having some backup. But, as the article points out, a lot of the locals are less enthusiastic about the whole thing, making the issue more difficult...
-
Also, if the US really wanted a base over there, why not formally acknowledge Taiwan's independence and establish a base there?
Why annoy China by doing that when we already have perfectly good military bases in Japan and Korea? :p
And, as I already said, this issue is more complicated than "All of Japan wants us out and we refuse to leave." The protesters are going after their own local government, not the Americans.
-
Why annoy China by doing that when we already have perfectly good military bases in Japan and Korea? :p
And, as I already said, this issue is more complicated than "All of Japan wants us out and we refuse to leave." The protesters are going after their own local government, not the Americans.
Which, you know, is the right place. They are asking their government to act on the expressed will of the people. It's certainly a more rational approach than most other America-Out protests.
-
I know in Germany that the Germans don't WANT Americans to leave; the bases there are major parts of their economy. I imagine the same is in many Japanese areas.
I'm sure that these people are probably not the majority of the entire country. Still, sounds like they are on Okinawa.
-
From the reporting, it sounds like they're the ones immediately around the base - but I could be wrong about that.
The article also mentions them being unhappy with the crime rate etc. in the area, but without knowing all the facts, is that really linked to the military base? If the answer is "yes" then I can sympathise.
-
Yes, its probably linked. A lot of soldiers are young males, and young males do commit a fair amount of crimes, especially after being cooped up in a contained and restrictive environment like a military base. I'm not surprised there's an elevated crime rate in Okinawa thanks to the presence of the base as our soldiers are probably blowing off steam.
-
From the reporting, it sounds like they're the ones immediately around the base - but I could be wrong about that.
The article also mentions them being unhappy with the crime rate etc. in the area, but without knowing all the facts, is that really linked to the military base? If the answer is "yes" then I can sympathise.
One of the major issues are the overflights of Marine Air units. The city is built pretty much around the base and having helicopters and jets rumbling over residential and school areas is PITA. The military attempts to schedule operations to be the least inconvenient but what they want and what happens isn't exactly the same thing. Additionally there are reports of occasional ugly incidents between base personnel and the locals. I don't know if its an abnormally high amount of crime or whether its just highlighted because its foreigners though.
-
I was on Okinawa five or six years ago, and the US bases take up about a third of the island. It’s true that they contribute strongly to the local economy, but on the other hand they’re noisy, pollute a lot, and contribute to crime. (In particular, I know that there have been some problems with sexual harassment and assault. My exchange program orientation specifically mentioned problems with American soldiers as a potential risk for female students, right up there with getting groped on the subway.)
Okinawa was also hit much harder by the war than the rest of Japan, and as a consequence there’s a strong pacifistic streak to the local culture. I was there for six weeks, and must have visited about five or six different peace museums during that time. One of them was right across the street from an air base, and had exhibits pointing out the effects of noise and air pollution from the jets on the local community. It doesn’t surprise me at all to hear that they’re finally getting sick of it, though I’ll note that Tokyo is nowhere near Okinawa and this protest is probably more than just Okinawans.
-
Why annoy China by doing that when we already have perfectly good military bases in Japan and Korea? :p
And, as I already said, this issue is more complicated than "All of Japan wants us out and we refuse to leave." The protesters are going after their own local government, not the Americans.
Which, you know, is the right place. They are asking their government to act on the expressed will of the people. It's certainly a more rational approach than most other America-Out protests.
Acknowledging Taiwan and then putting a military base there is... Umm, kinda silly. :P
May as well organize a preemptive strike on China while we're at it, eh?
-
Good idea. After that, world will go M.A.D.
-
US is spread to thin... this "world police" objective that they have assigned to their troops is impossible to achieve... and I don't think it's a good idea either.
I'm not even an US citizen, but I do know and believe truly that Japan people have the rights to do whatever they want on their own territory, and if that means booting the US bases then US should listen to their requests.
-
This is a double-edged argument to be sure, though I have to side with the citizens of the region first and foremost.
...In a way, this subject is nothing new to me. I recall our 200-level teacher for AFROTC telling us a story in which he did a rather... interesting report on the subject as an undergraduate (before becoming an officer). Foreign occupation, voluntary or unvoluntary, will always have repurcussions.
-
I don't really understand the argument about the bases being good for the economy. Maybe the occupation is good for corporations, but I'd think the average citizen with some amount of patriotism would want the US military out of their homeland. Who's to say a Japanese military base wouldn't be good for the economy of a random city in California? But I don't think anyone would stand for it here.
-
If I recall, they were protesting the base mostly because of noise pollution, and cause drunk marines cause trouble. But yeah, I think if the base suddenly goes *poof* Okinawa will be having trouble compensate for the lack of income from that avenue.
-
Guy's, I'm going to point out that this was an article from the Daily Mail.
Who's to say a Japanese military base wouldn't be good for the economy of a random city in California? But I don't think anyone would stand for it here.
Japan isn't really allowed to have bases overseas, IIRC. But in any case what good would a military base in America do for them? What would they gain?
-
Japan isn't really allowed to have bases overseas, IIRC. But in any case what good would a military base in America do for them? What would they gain?
Good lulz.
-
Yes, America is acting as a sort of world police. However, if we don't, who will, the United Nations? They're weak, ineffective, and treat totalitarian nations such as Cuba and Libya the same way they treat democratic nations like Italy and Germany. I like the idea of it, but its executed poorly. As a world government its a failure.
-
Why do we need to police Japan or Germany? They'd get exactly the same out of having a base here as we do having a base there.
-
I don't know. Our bases are there because of inertia probably. Our bases in Germany were built when a hostile East Germany was just across the border, and our base in Okinawa was built to keep an eye on a potentially hostile Japan after WWII. I suppose our Germany base could be of value if Russia suddenly becomes a threat to Western Europe again, and Okinawa is probably a decent place to stash Marines in case of a resumption of the Korean War, which technically never ended.
-
and treat totalitarian nations such as Cuba and Libya the same way they treat democratic nations like Italy and Germany.
We're also guilty of this. After all, we're selling M1A1 tanks to Saudi Arabia, a country infamous for its extreme backwardness and human rights problems.
I like the idea of it, but its executed poorly. As a world government its a failure.
I do agree with this assessment, but it is really because its member countries aren't willing to give up absolute control over themselves to form a super federalist world state. Until that happens we wont have effective world government, no matter who the world policeman is. Inevitably it will happen.
Why do we need to police Japan or Germany?
We don't need to police Germany, but Japan is something else. They are surrounded by countries that don't really like it, and there are strong nationalistic elements. That's a recipe for trouble.
-
So is the US.
-
and treat totalitarian nations such as Cuba and Libya the same way they treat democratic nations like Italy and Germany.
We're also guilty of this. After all, we're selling M1A1 tanks to Saudi Arabia, a country infamous for its extreme backwardness and human rights problems.
And do you think I like that either?
-
So the US is essentially policing the world out of convenience (for other nations who aren't on the US's bad list to allow this to happen), power (the US's) and because there's no comparable power that could do the job.
No doubt having bases in locations such as Okinawa also make excellent local strike locations to the Middle East etc. - It's a lot harder for the US to police the world if they have a hard time reaching all of it effectively.
As has been said though, the US is spread too thin and - unfortunately - nobody elected them to do it either. We (other nations) trust them to do the right thing because we have no other choice... there's sure as hell no way some pitiful country like Britain would stand up and say "No, America, you stop that right now!". They'd laugh at us and we'd fall from grace. Since we refuse to properly commit to the EU as well - we'd be making things doubly hard for ourselves. No doubt other countries are in a similar position.
So American keeps its bases because it needs them for whatever reasons (originally to keep Japan in check, now so that they can more easily keep other countries in the area in check). The locals may not want them but having some pissed off locals may come second on the Japanese governments list of priorities to keeping good relations with the US / other countries.
-
The US will fall from power eventually. Too bad no one will really be much on our side by then. :P
-
The US will fall from power eventually. Too bad no one will really be much on our side by then. :P
and we'll have a **** ton of nukes yippee! We can be like modern day vikings, only instead of paying us not to loot your monasteries and steal your womenfolk we can demand tribute to not radiate the planet. Isn't that cheery?
All joking aside I am sort of curious about that, whether or not a nation can actually become a negligible power on the world stage when they are sitting on enough ordinance to frak the planet multiple times. Its one thing in a conventional world for a super power to get fat, dumb and overstretched like the Romans that they become easy pickings but in the nuclear age? I suppose it would require either a civil war that breaks the nation's weapons stockpiles into more manageable portions or some magic technology that negates the weapons themselves.
-
One argument that was made to me convincingly is that yes the US operates as a sort of world police but that in many regions that title is all that is needed at the moment. Reason being that US forces can have a base or a presence and it can have a stabilizing effect because nations involved in any sort of dispute know ultimately that the US has never had any stated interest in territory or land and this is often what these disputes are about. So you can place a military force somewhere (based originally on historic events) and the local concern isn't of invasion.
The Okinawan's aren't worried about invasion either and strategically the US base has a lot of presence but maybe it is time to go. I hear they are building up a presence on Guam with the idea that they will eventually leave Okinawa.
-
if we want to be technical about ****, there are treaties and **** in place that means we don't have to give it back if we don't want to. that said I think we should give it back if Japan REALLY wants it back, the question is do these protesters represent the majority opinion?
A less important but still interesting question is do these protesters represent the Okinawan majority, or are these a bunch of Honshujin main-lander nationalists who are using Okanawa as a political football? not that this really makes a big difference in what our course of action should be, but it would be nice to know what the motivations are.
biggest thing to remember in this discussion is no one posting in this thread thus far is Japanese, someone get Komet, it would be interesting to hear what he has to say about the issue.
-
I think we should agree to recognize the PRC's dominion over Taiwan in exchange for multiple naval bases on the mainland. Then we won't need Japan anymore.
-
I think they should have taken out a 99 year lease on the island, then turn over sovereignty once it's over. It's worked before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanjing#Cession_of_Hong_Kong)
-
All joking aside I am sort of curious about that, whether or not a nation can actually become a negligible power on the world stage when they are sitting on enough ordinance to frak the planet multiple times.
I doubt that they can become negligible but you only need look at Russia in the mid 90s to see how far down the scale they can slide. Russia basically became a local power to all intents and purposes. This was somewhat mitigated by the sheer number of countries it borders but its influence on the world stage was greatly diminished.
-
I think we should agree to recognize the PRC's dominion over Taiwan in exchange for multiple naval bases on the mainland. Then we won't need Japan anymore.
What a wonderful idea! We abandon a fellow democratic country and trading partner in exchange for some bases in a potentially hostile nation that would be completely at the mercy of a totalitarian regime with no love for America. Why don't we make you Secretary of Defense?
-
Not that I'm surprised that this has already drifted off-topic, but this earlier point needs re-emphasizing:
Furthermore, we're actually there to protect Japan to some degree: their own military is pretty limited, as required by Post-WW2 treaty. In recent years, they've been able to project a bit more power, but with a neighbor like the DPRK, I'm sure the Japanese government appreciates having some backup. But, as the article points out, a lot of the locals are less enthusiastic about the whole thing, making the issue more difficult...
As it stands, via post-WWII treaty, Japan cannot maintain a full-fledged standing military, nor can it undertake military action outside of its own borders (which is why people made such a big stink about the Japanese unit that was stationed in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3469771.stm)). This is why Japan's military is known as the Self-Defense Force, as it's limited to domestic actions. Currently, Japan relies on the US military for external actions and practical defense, and short of said treaty being revised, this will continue to be the status quo. So long as the Glorious Psychotic Leader remains in power in North Korea (though Hugo Chavez seems to be gunning for that title himself), the Japanese government essentially needs Okinawa (unless that shift to Guam Bobboau touched on is true), and I can't see them taking any serious steps to close it, no matter what public outcry may desire.
-
Icefire is the one who mentioned Guam,
and it's more than just a few treaties, it's actually written into the Japanese constitution (article 9) that they won't have any type of armed forces at all, the self defense forces even are somewhat controversial and in many ways not a military in the traditional seance.
-
Whoops; those TBP and BWO icons next to each other threw me off. :p
And that's right, Article 9; it goes even deeper than a simple treaty. (I've seen GITS:SAC 2nd Gig several times; I should remember that phrase.) So you'd essentially need Japan to amend its own constitution and build up a sizable military in order for the US to have no standing military presence in the region, and from what I understand, this would be a next-to-impossible task, at least at the present time.
-
there is, as far as I am aware, virtually no desire from the Japanese people to build a military, in fact there is considerable opposition to it.
however there has been recently a strong move towards more independence.
I'm just not sure how they are going to resolve these two (from my perspective contradictory) attitudes.
-
All the worlds armies need to be reconfigured into Self-Defense Forces.
If no army can leave it's borders..no war!
-
So everyone uses missiles instead?
-
Yeah, I think that Japan has outgrown its desire to forcibly take over eastern asia.
This may be so, but military adventurism on the scale that the Japs undertook has consequences, even 60 years on. In this case, the consequences are constitutional restrictions on their military and a US base in Okinawa. They don't like it? Well, frankly, it's not up to them. If the yanks decide they don't need the base there any more and pull out, so be it. Truth be told, they probably don't, given the modern day capababilities regarding movement around the globe. But it's their decision to make, not that of the local people.
-
Okay, seriously? Germany committed the same amount of atrocities, and where are we now? Do we have restrictions on our right to have and deploy armed forces? And why don't we? Following your logic, we should still be barred from those things, same way Japan is.
Of course, there's a difference. During the cold war, Germany's industrial strength was too valuable to not use it on military expansion, and since the US needed a large Tank force to stop or delay a WarPac advance into western Europe, the Bundeswehr was born.
Then there was the Reunion back in '89, which directly caused us to regain full sovereignty.
What did the Japanese do that was so much worse that they still have to have restrictions on their ability to act as they please 20 years on?
-
Pearl Harbor?
-
Yeah, they hurt *us.* The US really doesn't give a **** what you do or who you kill as long as you don't touch American soil or American oil. See: The Lord's Resistance Army
-
Probably more to do with the fact that we needed a speed bump in Europe to stop the Red Army. A weak Germany wasn't going to hold up against the Soviets.
-
I'm not saying one was worse than the other (although as I understand it the US still maintains bases in Germany too). I'm saying that the establishment of the base was the result of losing a major war, and that it's not up to the Japanese how long it stays there.
-
I honestly think it has more to do with Germany actually wanting a military than anything else.
-
It comes down to a question of whether or not Japan has the necessary sovereignty over their own country to do so.
Germany could (if it wanted to) cancel the bilateral agreements that allow the stationing of US (or British) troops on our soil. Of course, that would probably mean quitting NATO membership, which is why it won't happen any time soon. We can do this, because we are a sovereign country. Can Japan do the same, and if not, why not? And if they can, what could the US do if they decided to exercise that right?
I honestly think it has more to do with Germany actually wanting a military than anything else.
This was, and still is, arguably wrong. The german leadership back in the fifties wanted to have a military for self defence against the impending russian hordes OF DOOM. It was not a very popular decision. In fact, the Bundeswehr as a whole is not the most respected institution around even today, with the media taking every chance they get to accentuate the negative.
-
compared to japan though Germany was much more welcoming of rearming.
there is also the complications from the fact that the entire ryukyu island chain was basically annexed by the US during the war and not given back until the 1970s, during that occupation was when these bases were built.
and there is also the fun complication of a ryukyu independence movement, seeing how Okinawa and the related islands were actually a nation that Japan conquered in the late 1800s and they maintained cultural differences the whole time.
-
Okay, seriously? Germany committed the same amount of atrocities, and where are we now? Do we have restrictions on our right to have and deploy armed forces? And why don't we? Following your logic, we should still be barred from those things, same way Japan is.
Of course, there's a difference. During the cold war, Germany's industrial strength was too valuable to not use it on military expansion, and since the US needed a large Tank force to stop or delay a WarPac advance into western Europe, the Bundeswehr was born.
Then there was the Reunion back in '89, which directly caused us to regain full sovereignty.
What did the Japanese do that was so much worse that they still have to have restrictions on their ability to act as they please 20 years on?
The big difference was Germany learned from its mistakes, instead of Japan which has frequently tried to hide and bury them.
-
really? Japan is both culturally and constitutionally opposed to the use of military force to the point of being unable to defend themselves, where they used to be a nation devouring military state. you don't think this shows some degree of learning?
-
Its more like Germany admitted they committed heinous crimes against humanity under the Nazi regime. Japan did some nasty stuff to captured POW's and Chinese civilians and they haven't admitted anything.
-
There are still significant issues with government agencies refusing to acknowledge Japanese crimes during the war. Take “Comfort women,” for example, hundreds of thousands of women who were forced into sexual slavery in Japanese military camps. As recently as 2007 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1996665.ece) there were Japanese parliament members denying it had ever happened.
-
Yep. There's also the infamous Bataan Death March.
-
They should be like the US. We say we're sorry, but we don't do a damn thing to fix the problems we caused, even while the specific people we hurt are still alive.
-
really? Japan is both culturally and constitutionally opposed to the use of military force to the point of being unable to defend themselves, where they used to be a nation devouring military state. you don't think this shows some degree of learning?
If you actually had some concept of how Japan culturally views WW2, you would realize it doesn't. It's not that they learned anything; it's that they hate the military for losing, and for surrendering. It's still actually dangerous to openly admit you're a veteran in Japan.
-
...it's that they hate the military for losing, and for surrendering.(emphasis added)
It's the Emperor that decided to surrender, not the military, and they had a very convincing reason for doing so.
-
It's the Emperor that decided to surrender, not the military, and they had a very convincing reason for doing so.
While this is true, and to the point that the Emperor had to force it down the Army's throat with a direct imperial decree and the implied threat the head of the Army would be an unperson if he failed to obey, the cultural system ensured that the military took the blame. In the Imperial Throne was, and to be honest still is, invested with the spirit of Japanese society, the very claim to be Japanese. It simply wasn't and isn't possible to place blame on the Emperor for anything without blaming all Japan. And they were not and are not prepared to do this.
-
really? Japan is both culturally and constitutionally opposed to the use of military force to the point of being unable to defend themselves, where they used to be a nation devouring military state. you don't think this shows some degree of learning?
They are constitutionally opposed to the use of military force only because their constitution was written by the American occupation force. Nightm1r answered the other point about culture.
While this is true, and to the point that the Emperor had to force it down the Army's throat with a direct imperial decree and the implied threat the head of the Army would be an unperson if he failed to obey, the cultural system ensured that the military took the blame. In the Imperial Throne was, and to be honest still is, invested with the spirit of Japanese society, the very claim to be Japanese. It simply wasn't and isn't possible to place blame on the Emperor for anything without blaming all Japan. And they were not and are not prepared to do this.
don't you just love feudalism?
-
If you actually had some concept of how Japan culturally views WW2, you would realize it doesn't. It's not that they learned anything; it's that they hate the military for losing, and for surrendering. It's still actually dangerous to openly admit you're a veteran in Japan.
Isn't that because many Japanese people consider surrender the height of dishonour or something like that? :nervous:
Also, I read this about the Japanese military (well, its airforce mainly) this morning. True, it's from 1984 and is in a book about aircraft, but it's still interesting and part of this issue; here's an excerpt:
In contrast with its neighbours, Japan has some of the most effective combat aircraft available, yet is acutely embarrassed at the thought of being so well equipped. A strong pacifist reaction to the defeat in World War 2 expresses itself in fervent anti-militarism, so much so that for cosmetic reasons the air force, army and navy are officially titled Air, Ground and Maritime Self-Defense Forces. Any attempts to provide these forces with equipment of an overtly offensive nature or to bestow the ability to operate outside Japanese territory have been firmly resisted as being provocative.
This has been the cause of some political disagreement with the USA in recent years, the USA's efforts to convice Japan that it should spend more on defending its vital sea lanes (out to 1,000 miles/1600 km) having fallen on seemingly deaf ears. Such is the desire to limit military expenditure that defence budgets have been restricted to under one per cent of the gross national product in recent years, placing Japan in the same league as some of the world's poorest and least-industrialized countries in defence-expenditure terms.
-
What a wonderful idea! We abandon a fellow democratic country and trading partner in exchange for some bases in a potentially hostile nation that would be completely at the mercy of a totalitarian regime with no love for America. Why don't we make you Secretary of Defense?
Because you couldn't afford me.
-
Because you couldn't afford me.
I'm sure you're right. Pointless wars are expensive. :p
-
No one should be too inclined to believe this article fully. First thing is that the photo's of the protesters are the same crowd of people from slightly different positioning and angle. Secondly the photos are all close ups of the crowd. I am less likely to believe just from this article that it was a protest of 6000 people, but more like a protest of 50. Which leads to the deducing that this problem in japan may not be as big as it's made out to be. This article needs more information than some ****ing close up pictures and government "he said she said". Trying to pass off a beaver dam as the hoover dam they are.
I'm not saying that this protest didn't happen, but that the amount of protesters looks to be exaggerated.
With articles like this (http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-xbox-predator-020110,0,5819922.story) popping up more often. Articles that don't cite sources, don't have actual fact comparison, no one interviewed, and have not enough or improperly presented details; high reason for doubt and reason to watch out where you get your news from, especially from the internet. Journalists can and will put together sham stories for creating media sensations.