[Mongoose]

Whoops; those TBP and BWO icons next to each other threw me off.

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[TrashMan]

All the worlds armies need to be reconfigured into Self-Defense Forces.

If no army can leave it's borders..no war!

[Pred the Penguin]

So everyone uses missiles instead?

[Black Wolf]

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.

[The E]

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?

[BengalTiger]

Pearl Harbor?

[iamzack]

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

[StarSlayer]

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.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[Bobboau]

I honestly think it has more to do with Germany actually wanting a military than anything else.

[The E]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Kosh]

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.

[Bobboau]

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?

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[Rian]

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 there were Japanese parliament members denying it had ever happened.

[SpardaSon21]

Yep.  There's also the infamous Bataan Death March.

[iamzack]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.