quote:Originally posted by Omega: Apparently, Japan is considering building an atomic bomb as a deterrent against North Korea. Or so says the BBC, at least.
As far as I know, there's no law against developing nuclear weapons (other than international nonproliferation treaties), just government policy. The government has officially disallowed the production, importation, or use of nuclear weapons in or by Japan; however, it secretly allowed the US to store and tranship nuclear weapons in and thru Okinawa during the cold war, and US ships routinely have nuclear weapons on board. Japan uses a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about these nukes.
With threats from N Korea and China, Japan is again thinking of getting nukes. This used to be a completely taboo subject, broached only by right-wing crack pots. But the fact that the issue can even be discussed by mainstream politicos and commentators represents a pretty big change.
The Japanese military is extremely well-equipped. Although military spending is only barely above 1% of GNP, Japan has the world's second largest economy, so that's a lot of money. Although Japanese armed forces are called 'self-defense forces,' they are like other countries' militaries in most ways. The Maritime SDF operates scores of destroyers throughout the Pacific and is thinking of getting a helicopter carrier. The Air SDF is thinking of getting aerial refuelling tankers. The Daikaiju SDF is rumored to deploy a wide range of exotic weaponry to combat various alien and terrestrial megafauna (ok, that's not true).
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Doesn't that go against several long standing treaties, errr, surrender agreements, that limit the size and capabilities of their armed forces????
No, because Japan has not entered into any international agreements (other than the NPT) that commit it to abstaining from the development of nuclear weapons.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Japan has been debating whether to amend its constitution to become once again a "normal" country (like the US, heh) able to threaten its neighbors and make war. Japan's Constiitution has never been amended, but pressure to do so is building. Article 9 of the constitution states:
"Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
"In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. "
Of course, the Japanese use force all the time to settle domestic disputes!
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Japan has attacked the US with numerous idiotic anime series that went no whre nad cost me many hours of my life. Really, have you ever seen Blue Gender? It's a WMD of sheer pointlessness.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: I have never, EVER said that the Japanese did NOT also carry out indescribable atrocities. Do not even SUGGEST it.
I am not suggesting you said such a thing. I am merely adding more facts to this discussion for each reader to decide for himself or herself.
The Japanese were slaughtering other Asians throughout World War II, and they would have continued to do so until the war's end. For one to begin to examine and question whether the war should have ended as abruptly as it did with the atomic bombings, one must have all the facts, and while you personally may already know about the other atrocities going on in the Pacific theater, I know some reading this don't know the true desparation that was going on at the time.
The fact is that with the atomic bombings, the war ended quickly, and with that, the killing of hundreds if not thousands of other Asian civilians and POWs in addition to US and Allied troops who would be called for an invasion of Japan. The question now is whether in times of war you should place priority over all civilian lives and lose your own or your allies to the enemy or value yours first.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
??? You do realise that the Japanese invasion of China started in 1937. According to your link, Nanking happened in 1937-1938. The US didn't even enter the war till after Pearl Harbour in 1941.
I would think that the desire to save civilian lives would rate pretty damn low on the US list of priorities in that war, unless you're proposing that they were afflicted with the worst case of lag, ever.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, the US was afflicted with the worst case if congressional isolationism ever.
If you think today's US pokes it's nose into everybody else's business, look at all the lives we could have potentially saved if FDR had been allowed to bring the US into the war prior to Pearl Harbor.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
There were other massacres throughout Asia as well.
If you now are arguing that because the US may not have known of these crimes, the use of the atomic bomb was not justified, well, you may present your case (it'd probably be best to open another thread to keep this one on track), but knowing the facts so far revealed today in the 21st century, I would think the question now is, "Based on what we know now, were the bombings justified?"
ADDED: I realize many readers here would probably prefer a non-Chinese site, so with a little internet searching, I've located a Princeton site.
posted
Obviously they knew about some of the crimes, that much is not in question. But I believe that a better question than "Based on what we know now, were the bombings justified?" is "Based on what they knew then, why did they drop the bomb at that particular time?" or even "What were their intentions?"
The US entered the war because they were attacked in strength, not due to any sympathy for China. They dropped the bomb primarily to avert their own casualties, not Japanese or even Chinese casualites.
So we know now, they may have saved lives. Yay for us, but you don't give people credit for things they didn't know about, expect, or most importantly, intend.
In other words, the ends don't justify the means, especially in this case when the "ends" are tacked on by us as a rationale.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Your next-door neighbour burns down the local grocery store. You shrug and stand by idly because it doesn't affect you. Your next-door neighbour starts shooting random people at the mall, you shrug because it doesn't affect you.
Your next-door neighbour steps on your rose garden, you shoot him dead.
Should you be praised for stopping a criminal? No. You're still a murderer, your actions just happened to have positive side effects.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
There are a couple of flaws in that analogy mucus. The first being that the next door neighbour didn't so much step on a rose patch as they walked into your house and blew up your collection of antique blackadder episodes.
In which case, your response in quite justified.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, if you didint notify the police of those crimes, you'd be guilty after the fact. In the case you mentioned about doing nothing while he shot people: knowing about a crime and not doing anything would make you an accomplice and could even garner you a Murder in the Second Degree charge.
But nations arent citizens and prior to the end of WWII, there was not even a UN to complain to.
The US is currently being acused of "Imperilsm" for the war in Iraq and it's always pointed out that we dont intervene in other countries where atrocities happen every day.... Everyone wants political autonomy almost as much as they want to say "I told you so".
How can a country stand idly by while such things happen without coming across as "imperialistic"?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Not really, since the first series of Blackadder wasn't nearly as good as the following three. I could do without it.
And, if we're really trying to go with this analogy, surely the response the US did to having their video collection destroyed was to go to their neighbours house and level it to the ground?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
