[Stormkeeper]

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.

[Kosh]

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?

[Stormkeeper]

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.

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[iamzack]

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.

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[Kosh]

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.

[iamzack]

So is the US.

[SpardaSon21]

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?

[Fineus]

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.

[iamzack]

The US will fall from power eventually. Too bad no one will really be much on our side by then.

[StarSlayer]

The US will fall from power eventually. Too bad no one will really be much on our side by then.

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.

[IceFire]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[mxlm]

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.

[Galemp]

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.

[karajorma]

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.  

[SpardaSon21]

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?

[Mongoose]

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).  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.

[Bobboau]

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.