Bomb by Bomb, Japan Sheds Military Restraints

[Maikeru-sama]

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam — To take part in its annual exercises with the United States Air Force here last month, Japan practiced dropping 500-pound live bombs on Farallon de Medinilla, a tiny island in the western Pacific’s turquoise waters more than 150 miles north of here.

The pilots described dropping a live bomb for the first time — shouting “shack!” to signal a direct hit — and seeing the fireball from aloft.

“The level of tension was just different,” said Capt. Tetsuya Nagata, 35, stepping down from his cockpit onto the sunbaked tarmac.

The exercise would have been unremarkable for almost any other military, but it was highly significant for Japan, a country still restrained by a Constitution that renounces war and allows forces only for its defense. Dropping live bombs on land had long been considered too offensive, so much so that Japan does not have a single live-bombing range.

Flying directly from Japan and practicing live-bombing runs on distant foreign soil would have been regarded as unacceptably provocative because the implicit message was clear: these fighter jets could perhaps fly to North Korea and take out some targets before returning home safely.

CONT'D
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/wo...nted=1&_r=1&hp

[Ageha]

Didn't you say you weren't going to just randomly post articles anymore? It's not that it isn't interesting, but it would help jump start a conversation if you shared why in particular you chose the article and what your views/reaction on it/to it are. I know you've said previously that "not everyone likes to hear themselves talk"...but that's kind of the point of a message board.

[m_fugue]

Trolling doesn't have a point beside trolling.

[giko]

Originally Posted by mickgreen58

Why am I required to write a response to an article that I find interesting and decide to share it with everyone on this forum?
Not everyone likes to hear themselves talk. Some people actually like to see what others have to say on a given issue.
- Mike G.

Originally Posted by mickgreen58

I didn't know I was viewed as a troll for posting articles and not offering an opinion one way or the other.
I think a PM would have been more sufficient but as of today, I will not do it anymore.
- Mike G.

http://animenation.net/forums/showthread.php?t=205879

By NORIMITSU ONISHI

Ah, Norimitsu Onishi again.
He claims Ichiro Suzuki is a racist who hates Korean. How stupid.

[Maikeru-sama]

Yes, I know I said I wasn't going to post articles in the future. When I find articles that are interesting and somewhat relevant to a particular message board, I tend to want to share it.

I found the article interesting as it looks like Japan is gradually taking steps to re-visit and possibly modify its pacifist constitution, which is an idea I am totally in favor of.

[Soluzar]

Originally Posted by mickgreen58

I found the article interesting as it looks like Japan is gradually taking steps to re-visit and possibly modify its pacifist constitution, which is an idea I am totally in favor of.

I was under the impression that Japan is still bound by the terms of their surrender, as outlined in the Potsdam Declaration. In other words, that they cannot modify their pacifist constitution.

[Raziel_MGS]

I think they can vote to change it, and I imagine that seeing as the US was the country that helped them write it, if its ok with us, then they can do it, but I dont know

[Soluzar]

Originally Posted by Raziel_MGS

I think they can vote to change it, and I imagine that seeing as the US was the country that helped them write it, if its ok with us, then they can do it, but I dont know

Why would you imagine that the US would be fine with that? In any case, the terms of surrender were drafted by all the allies, not just the United States. I've always believed that Japan would face considerable opposition to any change in their stance of non-agression from all of the former allied powers.

[Maikeru-sama]

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Why would you imagine that the US would be fine with that? In any case, the terms of surrender were drafted by all the allies, not just the United States. I've always believed that Japan would face considerable opposition to any change in their stance of non-agression from all of the former allied powers.

I think the United States would welcome the Japanese at least re-evaluating their constitution because of the China Factor. I think the US would like to see other democratic countries in that part of the world stand as a counter to the rise of China.

Later, I will try and find the article that I believe was in the BBC, where spokesman for the US Government thought it may be a positive and also, in the same article a spokesman for the Chinese Government released a statement basically being opposed to the idea and Japan should continue to to abide by their pacifist constitution.



- Mike G.

[giko]

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I was under the impression that Japan is still bound by the terms of their surrender, as outlined in the Potsdam Declaration. In other words, that they cannot modify their pacifist constitution.

Nah, in truth, Japanese did not want to be invlolved in America's war like in Vietnam and in Afganistan.
No Japanese wanted to send troops to foreign countries like Vietnam and Afganistan where Japan has no national interests, and the constitution is a perfect excuse to avoid the death of Japanese soldiers, because the constitution is made in America. That is the basic of Yoshida doctrine.
The Yoshida doctrine has worked very well until the end of the 20th century, and yes, that is a bond of Yoshida doctrine. The Prime Minister Yoshida and his group are realists. They are not stupid imaginary facifists.
But I don't know the doctrine will work in the 21st century world.

[Maikeru-sama]

Originally Posted by giko

Ah, Norimitsu Onishi again.
He claims Ichiro Suzuki is a racist who hates Korean. How stupid.

I must have missed this. What exactly does this quote mean or rather, what exactly are you trying to say?

[Bernard_Monsha]

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Why would you imagine that the US would be fine with that? In any case, the terms of surrender were drafted by all the allies, not just the United States. I've always believed that Japan would face considerable opposition to any change in their stance of non-agression from all of the former allied powers.

I would be fine with it, it would be a counterweight to China and would let us redeploy our carrier groups elsewere.

[m_fugue]

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I was under the impression that Japan is still bound by the terms of their surrender, as outlined in the Potsdam Declaration. In other words, that they cannot modify their pacifist constitution.

The Allied Occupation of Japan ended with the conclusion of San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1952: "(a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23. (b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters." If a nation can't revise its constitution without the consent of some other nation, it's not "sovereign."

[Soluzar]

Originally Posted by m_fugue

The Allied Occupation of Japan ended with the conclusion of San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1952: "(a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23. (b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters." If a nation can't revise its constitution without the consent of some other nation, it's not "sovereign."

I see. It was merely a misconception on my part, then.

[giko]

To mickgreen58
So, you finally decided to join the discussion in this forum.
You are wellcome!

Originally Posted by mickgreen58

I must have missed this. What exactly does this quote mean or rather, what exactly are you trying to say?

Oh, I was talking about the writer of the article, Norimitsu Onishi. Onishi blamed Ichiro Suzuki who is the center fielder of Seattle Mariners, for his "hate speach" at WBC games on Mar 2006.

I don't think Ichiro is a racist. I believe Onishi is just a "Yellow uncle Tom".
I respect Ichiro, but I really dislike Onishi-type Asian American.