56 réponses à ce sujet

[Fidite Nemini]

1. Yeah, Japan has a pacifist constitution. No military and in exchange they are defended by the United States(of course there is a growing sentiment among them that this should be changed). We have permanent bases there, and numerous troops. It is similar to NATO, you could say. America also has many allies in southeast asia that we would help in such a way, but that arent as dependent on us. The Philipines, Vietnam, and of course, south Korea.

 

Japan does have a military. Japan however doesn't like saying military and persists on using the term self-defense forces (JSDF with its subbranches JGSDF, JMSDF and JASDF respectively). It is set up similarily to Germany's Bundeswehr after the war in the way that it's relegated to defensive actions only (or in the reverse, forbidden to start aggressions) in Japan's constitution.

 

The ongoing debate in Japan is not about having no military or being dependant on US protection, it's (again similarily to Germany's Bundeswehr) about reinterpreting and/or changing the constitution to extend its military's mandate for peace-keeping operations, something which the JSDF is already engaged in, but technically violates the original wording of their constitution.

 

Needlessly to say (but I do it anyway), much of that debate is little more than about semantics born from the stigma of having started the massive conflict that turned out to culminate in WW2 (again, much like Germany).

[mickey111]

Meh. Any block can be got past by a simple app you can install on your browser.

 

 

that's good for now, but the media and governemnt are joining forces and they have had some minor successes in ceasing control of the internet. They'd rather burn it all down if they can't be in the drivers seat. 

[Fidite Nemini]

that's good for now, but the media and governemnt are joining forces and they have had some minor successes in ceasing control of the internet. They'd rather burn it all down if they can't be in the drivers seat. 

 

Unlikely. Burning down the internet is unprofitable. Molding it to their needs is much more tenable, but hard to do with the current generation of users being already too adapt to using the medium to not notice changes, meaning they can't just change it to their needs.

[Inquisitor Recon]

How'd we get from Chinese internet to the claim that the key to peace is everybody having nukes?

 

For all intents and purposes the JSDF is a military, these days it's probably stronger than the armed forces of many European nations due to cutbacks made over the past 25 years. They don't have much of an expeditionary capability but that really isn't a disqualification. All of the political restrictions and regulations don't change what the JSDF essentially is.

 

The naming and all of that is all politics and public relations. Same reason their anti-ship missiles are technically "anti-landing craft" missiles and why a 25,000 ton helicopter carrier with the capability to operate STOVL aircraft is technically a helicopter destroyer (DDH).

[Fidite Nemini]

I know all of this. My statement on Japan not having a military is accurate. They don't refer to their self defense forces as a military, so neither will I. And while sure, they have all the fixings of a modern army they cannot actually be deployed anywhere. Which is what a military does, goes to foreign places for national interests. Their term self defense force is accurate in what it is, a force for self defense. 

 

What you are saying is silly. Its like calling the police a military.

 

https://medium.com/w...st-1e6b63d7aee0

 

Japan is deploying abroad, the JSDF participated in UN peacekeeping in Sudan for example.

 

It IS a military in all the sense of its definition. How they call themselves is irrelevant. The defense force image is cultivated for their own people more than as an image to outsiders.

[Fidite Nemini]

It isn't a military though. Peacekeeping is not going into fighting, or war of any kind. They are a pacifist country. This is common knowledge. 
 
Not sure why your insistent on this silly point. I get it, you know all about Japans self defense forces. Cool. They are still not a military. 
 
 
 
They recently re interpreted the constitution, but they cant actually do anything until an ally gets attacked, collective self defense.

This is like saying, "the police have guns, helicopters and armored vehicles, they are a military" doesn't work that way.

 

In simplified terms:

 

Military - State governed armed forces designed to fight/protect against outside threats against a nation.

 

Police - State governed armed forces designed tofight/protect against threats from the inside against a nation.

 

Unless you wish to call the various lexica around the globe and have them rewrite their definitions until whatever you think the JSDF is no longer fits that of the military, that's what it is and will keep being.

 

And yes, I do know a fair share about Japan and its military, mostly because I study Japan and had a couple lectures about their constitution's article 9 debates. Just so you're clear about my alleged know-it-all state. And Peacekeeping can very much entail actual fighting, it's not just sitting around looking pretty. There's reasons why military units are sent there and not simply a handful of enthusiastic people with "Make love, not war" signs to patrol the streets.

And I'd return that other sentiment right back at you, I don't know why you're insistent to argue against that simple fact. A military is not defined by being in action, it is defined by the function it fulfills as is any governmental institution.

 

Which is about as much as I'm willing to talk about this. Facts are facts and wrapping it up in neat colors won't change what the JSDF is. If you want to maintain the point that Japan has no military, then you best sent them a letter and have them dismiss the entirity of the JSDF.

[nat in the hat]

As long as we have free porn I am good

[Fidite Nemini]

Doesn't change the fact that they are deploying personel abroad as you said they don't (even if it's just engineering units in non-combat zones, those units had military training and are an military outfit) and neither does it change the fact that you a have a very colored definition of what a military is when you said that being somewhere to enforce their nation's interest is what defines a military.

 

I'll say it plain as day: your idea of what defines a military is wrong. And on that basis, your entire argumentation is full of logical holes. JSDF is a military force, whether you like that definition or not.

 

It's that simple.

 

 

 

 

Its also funny you mention this, because here is a picture of Japanese peace keepers in Haiti.
 


And they arent even armed. Yeah its such a dangerous military deployment that they dont have guns.

 

Yes, because every military personel is armed at all times, even at morning roll calls. Trying to argue on basis of a random photograph.

 

 

You're either trying to troll me, or you're plain stupid. The latter of which you didn't seem like in previous interactions, but you can never know.

 

 

Either way, we're done here.

[Jstatham1227]

 

damn scary if you ask me. 

[Fidite Nemini]

 

damn scary if you ask me. 

 

HELL MARCH!!!!

 

Ngg, yeah!

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Yes, 70 years later. Furthermore Fat Man was a mere 0.023 megaton bomb that's not even in the same ball park as a Tactical Nuke in this day and age. The Cold War saw weapons( high yield, multi warhead missiles )built ranging from 10 to 50 Megatons.

 

Acknowledged.

 

But how big can Iran's hypothetical nuclear bomb be?

 

 

 

damn scary if you ask me. 

 

I like it!

 

 

Its also funny you mention this, because here is a picture of Japanese peace keepers in Haiti.
 


And they arent even armed. Yeah its such a dangerous military deployment that they dont have guns.

 

lol How they're gonna keep the peace? Breaking their bones on the invaders/terrorists?! lol
 

[mickey111]

ISP's control the flow of information in a subnet. If they target proxies, they could eventually find a way to restrict flow of information.

However, that us not practical

 

 

would it become practical if they changed the law and gave out their usual legal threats?