Militarize Japan?

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Given the current situation regarding North Korea, what would happen if Japan changed it's constitution to allow militarization?

Given the technological prowess of Japan, what if they chose to become a nuclear power?

[rustyslacker]

Nuclear power? If that happened then George W. would send troops over to Japan.

[Nomad]

I think at this point it would be OK. We as Americans wouldn't have anything to worry about if they became a nuclear power. We may have dropped the bombs on them before, but we've done a lot to help them since then as well. If they really wanted to do damage to us anyway, they would just hold an embargo on cars and electronics.

[ultimatesaiyan605]

I say who gives a shit about Japan, we should be more focused on N.K. and the Middle East

[jetflock]

....what would we do against all those giant robots?....

[rustyslacker]

I have no idea what we would do.

*cough* VISIT MY FORUM! *cough*

[ultimatesaiyan605]

....what would we do against all those giant robots?....

whip out a BFG and fry thier systems lol

[eX_Do0mY]

Say hello to World War III. Maybe not though, if we have the right people governing over there.

We (the U.S.A.) beat Japan down to where they wouldn't become a millitary power in a long time in WWII. If Japan militarized again, it could be bad. Nuclear power would add a totally different edge to it. Japan's military would probably be unusually large, due to the fact Japan has a quite a large population, and a healthy economy. Creating that military would possibly cause a short pause in their economy, since they currently don't have a military of their own, they would have to start from the ground up.

[Yagisan]

If I may offer my perspective as someone that has been to Japan, and has a Japanese spouse.

Lets say that hypothetically North Korea concerns Japan enough to re-miltarise, nothing will happen until Japan is attacked. Any changes to the consitution will be bogged down in parliment until after the first missile strikes from North Korea. In any case, the first missile strikes will force the USA to honor treaty obligations and defend Japan from North Korea. Japan will then most likely begin purchasing military hardware from both the USA and EU. This will freak China out, and they will most likely send some ships off the coast of Japan to unnerve them, with Japan most likely to give them the diplomatic equivlent of "Screw You". Due to expected retalitation strikes on North Korea by both the US armed forces, and the Japan SDF, China will be obliged to honor treaty obligations with North Korea and defend them.

Now here is where the shit hits the fan, as the USA and Japan, as well as China and North Korea begin invoking mutual defence treaties with other countries. Both China and the USA will be crippled in the conflict - China by lack of access to raw materials, and the USA by lack of access to cheap manufactured goods. Japanese people would probally begin starving due to food shortages, considering how much is imported, and I will be most annoyed that my online purchases from Japan will be delayed because some little man in North Korea with a penis inferiority complex wants to throw a few missiles around because nobody cares about him.

[Sigma]

We (the U.S.A.) beat Japan down to where they wouldn't become a millitary power in a long time in WWII. If Japan militarized again, it could be bad. Nuclear power would add a totally different edge to it. Japan's military would probably be unusually large, due to the fact Japan has a quite a large population, and a healthy economy. Creating that military would possibly cause a short pause in their economy, since they currently don't have a military of their own, they would have to start from the ground up.

That is not true. The United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan because the nation was fighting us (America) toe-to-toe. Our strategy (island hoping) was not making significant progress in respect to the amount of resources and men we sacrificed to fight Japan. The entire war (World War II) was in some respect the fault of America (Britian and France as well), and in winning the war, America created more problems than it solved.

@ Yagisan

What you wrote is reasonable. Though the reason North Korea is infuriated has to do more with getting screwed over by America again than with an "inferiority."

[Grimlock[EOD]]

How do you figure it was our fault? We were criticized by Europe for being lazy playboys because we would not enter the war. We entered when Japan bombed pearl harbor.

The number of lives lost by Americans in a direct landing assault of Japan would have been huge. It was a simple case of our lives or their lives. How many countries do you know drop flyers telling you when and were they are going to bomb? They were given a chance to surrender. They refused. We dropped a bomb.

We then said, ok now that you see we are not screwing around here, we're going to ask you again. They said no.

We dropped another bomb.

Then they surrendered.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Here's the problem I see. We tollerate India and Pakistan as Nuclear powers. Japan is now a close Ally. We already have nukes in the region protecting them. Our nukes. If China attacked them we would have to respond, just as if NK attacked them. In fact we just sent yet another Aegis Destroyer over there if I'm not mistaken. So in essence Japan is already militerized, just using our military and our dollars. What would actually change if it was their military and their dollars? Why would we not tollerate a Nuclear Japan ally when we tollerate a Nuclear Great Brittain, ally, and lesser, Indian and Pakistan ally's? Pakistan is by far less stable and it's already embroiled in a conflict with India who has tested the bomb.

If we're already protecting Japan with Nukes and conventional forces, and swap those out for their own, is this going to affect China? Japan isn't going to first strike anyone unless it feels it is under imminent threat, and I think it's feeling that way with North Korea. I don't think China is worried about Japan attacking it as there have been no hostile military overtures such as with Taiwan.

Note to Rusty: We already have troops in Japan

It's a very gray area. I like the idea of us not having to foot their own bill and I can see benefits in the area of another regional power there to offset NK and to a lesser effect China.

The question however is would it actually destabilise the region? Would NK fear a nuclear Japan? Right now Kim Il Jong is going off every 5 min about how the US wants to attack it and thus it will launch anhiliation strikes if it does. I do believe it's thretened Japan if we attack it. (There's logic... if you attack me I'll bomb this other country). So if we are no longer the dettering force in the region, i.e. we pull out our troops and defenses from a self fortified Japan, have we now taken the wind out of NK's argument of us building up to attack it?

Note to Rusty: We already have troops stationed in Japan

[FATAL]

']How many countries do you know drop flyers telling you when and were they are going to bomb?
How many countries have dropped the bomb?

Japan is in a really stable condition right now. If there's one country that should be demilitarized and stripped out of nukes, it's USA. Also, as far as I know, no countries are allowed to become nuclear powers. USA is the main fighter when it comes to nukes (of course not their own), and I doubt that a country such as Japan would create such things in secret against international laws. I say there's nothing to worry about.

North Korea is worth worrying, though.

[Sigma]

World War II was a product of World War I.

I invite you to research the Communist rebellion in China that America did nothing about and Hitler's true motivation for re-militarizing (or alternatively, what justified World War II in the eyes of the German people).

Europe? You mean Britian I assume? Britian was not concerned with Japan. They were concerned with Germany. As a matter of fact, even China was not concerned with Japan. The single nation that really cared about Japan was America, and Japan is still paying for Pearl Harbor in terms that only the nation of America could possibly justify.

Regardless, research the Treaty of Versailles. Most of the answers are within that. ;)

The method in which America, Britian and France dealt with the USSR became the catalyst for the current political and military environment. Vietnam, China, the Middle East, North Korea, Cuba, et cetera are the products of American-British policy on different ideologies.

[Aliotroph?]

I'm quite sure China would have cared about Japan if they had had a stable government able to do something about it. Japan was happy to invade China in the 30's.

I doubt Japan wants to be a nuclear power now. I think a lot of them are just looking for the ability to blow up Korean missile bases they think pose a threat. Like you guys said, that would piss off China... :/

[Grimlock[EOD]]

(Note I'm about to just go on a rant about a lot of things which aren't a reply to any one individual :) )
I'm also wondering how many countries rebuild the defeated after the war is over. We went to war with Germany and then rebuilt it, and now it's a close ally and power. We went to war with Japan who is now a close ally and economic power. We went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq and are trying to rebuild those.

People have such short memories. They think WW2 was over, and that was that. There were "insurgent" attacks for YEARS following the war. Everyone compares Iraq to Vietnam and forgets about every other conflict where more soldiers were lost in a day then the entire Iraq conflict.

We are the only country that dropped the bomb because once used the world learned that it should never be used again and we have never had a conflict on that scale since. Had we not dropped the bomb, WW2 would have gone on and the overall death toll would have been higher from regular casualties than those caused by the bomb.

North Korea made an agreement with Carter that we provide assistance they stop developing nukes. Clinton did the same thing. Unfortunately Clinton never listened to Reagan's "Trust but Verify". NK lied and continued to develop nuclear technology. Now of course we blame Bush. Likewise we blame Bush for 9/11 while the attacks were planned during the Clinton administration. You know the great peace maker, the one they always talk about how we had this long running stretch of peace... oh wait... bombings in US embassies, Mogadishu, the USS cole, the first attack on the trade center with the garage bomb... none of which we really responded to other than launching cruise missiles into Iraq and other countries on occasion. People need to start looking at stuff in a context of more than 2-4 years.

Iran is doing the exact same thing.. trust us.. it's just for power... Oh by the way we are going to wipe Israel off the map... *using that verbage* Well how does one do that other than with nukes? I don't think Iran is sending in ground troops. And they don't give a rats ass about fallout hitting the palestinians. Nobody in the middle easy gives a damn about the palestinians other than using them as leverage against Israel. That's why so many countries there threw them out.

Iraq is similar in that they said we have no weapons but you can't come look. And if you attack us there will be severe consequences! They threw inspectors out and postured as if they had things to hide. We even found bunkers with environmental suits to withstand chemical attacks. They were playing a bluff and got called on it. It was a good bluff as a lot of people believed it.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

China has more than enough of a stable government right now to care or not care.

You are not going something like what Japan did in the 30's happen again. It would be like us trying to invade mexico and keep it. Then again they are invading us with millions of unarmed troops every year. Maybe that's the secret. Send people in without guns..

I don't think you can really draw a comparison between Japan today and the huge anti war sentiments it has and Japan of the 30's. Look at the outrage over the premiere visiting the war memorial. It's a totally different mindset now, and the generation that made the decisions of the 30's is dead now.

[Yagisan]

@ Yagisan

What you wrote is reasonable. Though the reason North Korea is infuriated has to do more with getting screwed over by America again than with an "inferiority." Yes, I did over exagrate the reason for North Korea acting childish, however it is undeniable that their "Dear Kim" has mental health issues which worsens the situation.

]If we're already protecting Japan with Nukes and conventional forces, and swap those out for their own, is this going to affect China? Japan isn't going to first strike anyone unless it feels it is under imminent threat, and I think it's feeling that way with North Korea. I don't think China is worried about Japan attacking it as there have been no hostile military overtures such as with Taiwan. China and Japan have a long history, with both nations often butting heads in armed conflict. China (and many countries in Asia) have yet to realise that the warmongers of japan are dead, and that Japan has paid the price for WW2. They are still occupied by American troops (and I do use the word occupied for a reason), and those troops continute to treat the Japanese like shit. China and other nations are up in arms whenever the prime minister of Japan visits a shrine to honor the countries war dead. Now, if these nations can't even tolerate a vist to a cemetary, how do they react when Japan decides it wants nom new tanks, ships, and aircraft, and troops to go with it. They won't take it very well. China in particular is worrying, they are invading Tibet, threatning to invade Taiwan, have North Korea as a pet, and see Japan as their biggest rival in the region.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

"The entire war (World War II) was in some respect the fault of America (Britian and France as well), and in winning the war, America created more problems than it solved."

Presidential address: "My fellow Americans... yes we were attacked and engaged the enemy, but it is my decision that we should take a dive and throw the war on the off chance that we may create more problems than we solve." :D

Who goes into a war and says... we really shouldn't win this, it would be a bad idea.

I mean besides the Democratic National Party of the US? *wacky*

[Aliotroph?]

Who invades a country and says "this'll solve more problems than it causes?" The GOP. :D I'm all for toppling guys like Saddam Hussein but I don't think they thought that one through enough.

As for WWII, I'd say the main causes, were the US, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, the USSR, Italy, etc, etc. There was so much stupidity leading up to that thing. :/

[Grimlock[EOD]]

The single nation that really cared about Japan was America, and Japan is still paying for Pearl Harbor in terms that only the nation of America could possibly justify.


Well a pre-emptive attack on your main naval base that destroys most of your ships and kills lots of your sailors tends to perk your level of "caring" of the country responsible for said attack.

[FATAL]

As for WWII, I'd say the main causes, were the US, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, the USSR, Italy, etc, etc. There was so much stupidity leading up to that thing. :/

I'd drop everything except USSR and Germany. The only major attack Japan made against the US was the Pearl Harbor one, and after the surprise they were quickly demolished by the superior US navy. The reason why they then later used the nukes were because the Japanese were stubborn fighters and would never give up even on a desperate situation. The incredible amount of islands made the area difficult to attack to, and so USA decided to go the easy, safe way.

I don't know for sure due to the lack of interest I have towards the subject, but I think that the Japanese were merely helping the Germans in their battle, and they didn't intend to have such a major war with USA.

Now in Europe, you can't really blame others than the Soviet union and Germany. Both had nutcase leaders, a deal to split Europe in half, and shitloads of recources. After their agreement was fulfilled, (except that Soviet union didn't get Finland! Gotcher!!), Hitler merely decided that half Europe wasn't enough for him. Had Hitler not attacked Soviet Union, the allies most likely wouldn't have been able to invade Germany properly.


One thing has always amused me in World War 2, and that's USA and its companions allying with the Soviet union. I guess that they used the classic "the enemy of your enemy" classicfication for Soviet union then.

[Sigma]

At least Japan had enough respect for the US to attack a naval base. America bombed two civilian cities into oblivion.

The USSR was hated from its conception. This hatred only helped to fuel the nation. (Necessity is the mother of invention.) Germany hated everyone for stripping the proud nation of everything it had. Many Germans did not even acknowledge the fact that they lost the first World War. Hitler may very well have avoided conflict with western Europe altogether had France not been "enforcing" the Treaty of Versailles.

As for "creating more problems than they solve," I think the nation (America) realized this half-way into most of its recent war efforts. Vietnam? North Korea? Iraq?

No one goes into a war thinking it is a bad idea. On the other hand, we have this incredible device called "retrospect." Al-Qaida was financed for many years by the CIA and with this I justify my statements. In respect to World War II, Roosevelt and Churchill refused Stalin's demands (because "the USSR was hated from its conception"). This set the stage for the Cold War. The Cold War set the stage for the current North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Middle East, Cuba and Iran conflicts.

Yes, I did over exagrate the reason for North Korea acting childish, however it is undeniable that their "Dear Kim" has mental health issues which worsens the situation.

I agree. President Bush certainly isn't helping the situation either with his "destroy now, ask questions later" attitude.

Had we not dropped the bomb, WW2 would have gone on and the overall death toll would have been higher from regular casualties than those caused by the bomb.

This also "changed the world over-night." Now the power of nuclear capable nations is well known, and the possibility for the destruction of everything mankind has worked toward for thousands of years can (hypothetically) disappear over-night. Great.

Everyone compares Iraq to Vietnam and forgets about every other conflict where more soldiers were lost in a day then the entire Iraq conflict.

People compare these two wars because both are equally pointless. That is, of course, until you figure business interests into the situation. Same with Germany. Same with Japan.

We are the only country that dropped the bomb because once used the world learned that it should never be used again and we have never had a conflict on that scale since.

If that were true, why did America continue to stock-pile nuclear weapons? Develop weapons a hundred times more powerful than Fatman and Little Boy even? To counter the USSR in the event of nuclear war. So much for the ideology such a weapon should never be used again. America intended on using nuclear weapons but did not want see the world disappear-- the same for the USSR can be stated.

Likewise we blame Bush for 9/11 while the attacks were planned during the Clinton administration.

It has been confirmed several times now that Bush was aware of a possible attack. Nothing Clinton's intelligence told him would have been voided when Bush entered office. It was Bush Sr. who created most of the hatred for America among the Middle East. Now that America has erased Iraq, his famous quote comes into play; "You break it, you buy it."

I'm quite sure China would have cared about Japan if they had had a stable government able to do something about it. Japan was happy to invade China in the 30's.

I agree. I am glad you caught that reference. The point though, is that they didn't, and now because America did not listen to the Chinese government at the time, we have the contemporary monster of China to deal with, rather than a bunch of militant, "Communist," Mao renegades.

---

I do not even care to continue to be honest. Considering 95% of the "terrorist" attacks are directed toward America and its allies, I am quite sure America has done something to enrage other nations. Apparently, this is not rhetorical, as demonstrated in various responses.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

No one goes into a war thinking it is a bad idea. On the other hand, we have this incredible device called "retrospect." Al-Qaida was financed for many years by the CIA and with this I justify my statements. In respect to World War II, Roosevelt and Churchill refused Stalin's demands (because "the USSR was hated from its conception"). This set the stage for the Cold War. The Cold War set the stage for the current North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Middle East, Cuba and Iran conflicts.

I hope you aren't implying that Stalin was a good guy that everyone should have listened to. I don't think that's your feeling but I'm just checking.

This also "changed the world over-night." Now the power of nuclear capable nations is well known, and the possibility for the destruction of everything mankind has worked toward for thousands of years can (hypothetically) disappear over-night. Great.

Depends on how you look at it. Suppose we had not dropped those two. And we went on to continue to develop them, as you know we would. Nobody is ever satisfied, it's always gotta be bigger, faster, better, regardless of what it was. Now we get into a full blown war, say with the Soviet Union. Now instead of launching 1 or 2 and not appreciating the effect, we send 2 dozen over...

Ok side issue... Watching tv... Top Gun is on.. not much else.. goes to commercial, where they have a guy for some stupid stunt with a target painted on his belly, and the host is throwing real darts at him and they go in and hang from him... Sheesh... and we worry about what the world is coming to with wars... Look at what we're protecting! :D

Ok back to where I was... so we unleash this huge scale nuclear war. It's just one of things. Someone said something to the effect that a terrible weapon must be used once so that it will never be used again type of deal. As for bombing cities, those wars were a different time. Cities were fair game. It was basically destroy everything until the other side quits.

The purpose of a military is to kill people and break things. If you don't want either of those 2 things to happen, then don't get them involved. You can argue that they are for defense or offense... but the statement is accurate either way.

The problem with war in the last decade is it was long distance. Done with Tomahawk missiles. It was clean, detached. It's like the original Star Trek series "A Taste of Armaggeddon" where the 2 sides have a clean war. Computers decide who dies those people walk into a disintegration chamber.

Kirk says "Death, destruction, disease, horror. That's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. You've made it neat and painless, so neat and painless you've had no reason to stop it!" (how many of you just said "OMFG you geek!" ?)

Now it's getting bloody again and people are getting upset, but relative to WW1 or 2 or Vietnam, or Korea, this is nothing. That's not an endorsement that it's a good thing, but if WW2 had to be fought now with the current level of intestinal fortitude of this nation, we'd be a colony of another country again.

[Nomad]

On a somewhat related note, I find it interesting that the school children in North Korea are literally taught to hate Americans. They're breeding an entire country of people who will likely some day do to America on a larger scale as what the Al Qaeda did here.

Can't wait. I'll go make the popcorn.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Well most of the muslim schools in the middle east teach the same thing.

It's easy when you have a high illiteracy rate and are taught that the Mullahs are the only ones that can interpret the Koran. They can then twist it to say whatever they want.

One has to ask ones self as a muslim suicide bomber... If all these virgins are waiting for me in paradise why didn't the mullah's get in front of the line to be first?

Wonder why nobody asks that question?

[Aliotroph?]

At least Japan had enough respect for the US to attack a naval base. America bombed two civilian cities into oblivion.

That looks like more a matter necessity. They got lucky and could reach Pearl Harbour but they didn't have a carrier fleet that could pull off an attack on a coastal city and they didn't want a big navy around to crush them if they even tried. They'd have been happy to blow up civilian cities, just as every other power in the war did again and again. You don't even need nukes to do it. A regular firestorm is fine. And it's perfectly legitimate if that city is building tanks and planes too.

I find it interesting that the school children in North Korea are literally taught to hate Americans.

I find it still more scary that they're taught to worship their "Dear Leader." It's all the same thing in the end. Countries teach students not to think for themselves and to love the state or the leaders. I figure we should teach pople not to implicitly love any state. :p

[Kuwabara]

']How do you figure it was our fault? We were criticized by Europe for being lazy playboys because we would not enter the war. We entered when Japan bombed pearl harbor.

The number of lives lost by Americans in a direct landing assault of Japan would have been huge. It was a simple case of our lives or their lives. How many countries do you know drop flyers telling you when and were they are going to bomb? They were given a chance to surrender. They refused. We dropped a bomb.

We then said, ok now that you see we are not screwing around here, we're going to ask you again. They said no.

We dropped another bomb.


Then they surrendered.

Droping a Atomic bomb was way too much. People are still suffering from it due to the radiation from them.America could have stoped them by there island hopping plan but they decided to drop a atomic bomb on them that killed 50,000+ and injured many more.
And then America started to celebrate when they were droped completely unaware that on the other side of the Pacific they were suffering from the heat,the radiation,the melting and weak skin and the burning houses. Also,we also saw photos of Auswitz* but we America did not do anything till it was too late,100,000 Jews were gassed. Overall,i do not support anything wartime America has and are doing.


*misspelled..maybe.

[Sigma]

That looks like more a matter necessity. They got lucky and could reach Pearl Harbour but they didn't have a carrier fleet that could pull off an attack on a coastal city and they didn't want a big navy around to crush them if they even tried. They'd have been happy to blow up civilian cities, just as every other power in the war did again and again. You don't even need nukes to do it. A regular firestorm is fine. And it's perfectly legitimate if that city is building tanks and planes too.

Not necessity, but rather deterrence. America was very involved in the war without proclaiming so previous to Pearl Harbor. Nor was it a matter of being "lucky." There are two general theories surrounding Pearl Harbor.

One; America delibrately withheld intelligence because it wanted to be attacked to justify war in the eyes of the American people and two; America had no idea the attack was coming. The worst possible place for naval ships to be upon attack is at port, so I tend to believe the second theory. Either way, there was no luck involved.

The American navy was severely devastated after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan could have likely attacked a costal city if it had wished to, but that wasn't the point of the attack thus the reason it did not happen.

I find it interesting that the school children in North Korea are literally taught to hate Americans.

America does the same thing. Xenophobia is rampant in the US. Being an American, I can testify to this statement.

I find it still more scary that they're taught to worship their "Dear Leader." It's all the same thing in the end. Countries teach students not to think for themselves and to love the state or the leaders. I figure we should teach pople not to implicitly love any state.

I agree. To quote myself from the other thread:

I seem to be one of the few people who understands the fact that national boundaries are imaginary. The fallout from nuclear bombs does not care-- therefore, why would I?

I hope you aren't implying that Stalin was a good guy that everyone should have listened to.

Good guy? Like in a cartoon? Where the bad guys want to destroy the entire universe for no reason whatsoever? ;)

No, Stalin did the USSR a great injustice. He was a meglomaniacal dictator. However, he was dedicated to his nation and form of Communism. I hate what he did with the nation, but I can understand his ambitions somewhat. Furthermore, having dozens of trade-embargos placed on a nation is grounds for pursuing such ambitions as he did. The statement I made was further overture that America is at least half responsible for the current political climate.

Tepid.

No offense is meant, but you have one of the most disturbing conceptions of nuclear war I have ever read. Reducing such things to the likeness of "Star Trek" or proclaiming "it's just one of things" is maddening. I think America had the idea of what a nuclear bomb is capable of far before dropping it on Japan. The Soviets (current Ukraine) learned their lesson with Chernobyl.

As far the rest of your post, I do not know where to begin. There are so many incoherences at hand, I'd rather not bother, but I respect you, so here are some thoughts on what has been stated:

Look at what we're protecting!

I thought you were justifying American policy? :)

As for bombing cities, those wars were a different time. Cities were fair game.

A different time? America has bombed cities to oblivion recently. As far as nuclear weapons, I cannot see a nation firing one with the target being the middle of the desert. In the hypothetical event such a weapon were used again, it will be on a city. I guarantee it.

Now we get into a full blown war, say with the Soviet Union. Now instead of launching 1 or 2 and not appreciating the effect, we send 2 dozen over...

And the Soviet Union would do the same thing. There would be no one left to claim victory to such a war. Firing two-dozen nuclear missles at the USSR would have been an unjustified risk and would never had happened.

America felt free to attack Japan with the two atomic bombs because we knew they did not possess such a weapon, and the battle was contained to a landmass we (America) did not really care about. Furthermore, Japan only surrendered because they did not know how many bombs we had (fortunately for us, because we only had three; one for testing and the two intended for Japan).

The problem with war in the last decade is it was long distance. Done with Tomahawk missiles. It was clean, detached. It's like the original Star Trek series "A Taste of Armaggeddon" where the 2 sides have a clean war. Computers decide who dies those people walk into a disintegration chamber.

Kirk says "Death, destruction, disease, horror. That's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. You've made it neat and painless, so neat and painless you've had no reason to stop it!" (how many of you just said "OMFG you geek!" ?)

That, coupled with the American government censoring everything it doesn't want the American public to see or hear about is half of the reason that many of the wars manifesting themselves as of the last few years are even prolonged as long as they are. War has not become "clean," "neat" or "painless" but I sense this was an argument supporting what I had said more than not so I won't bother with it.

Now it's getting bloody again and people are getting upset, but relative to WW1 or 2 or Vietnam, or Korea, this is nothing. That's not an endorsement that it's a good thing, but if WW2 had to be fought now with the current level of intestinal fortitude of this nation, we'd be a colony of another country again.

I do not understand your point here. Are you insinuating that Vietnam or Iraq would have (or could have) conquered America?

The purpose of a military is to kill people and break things. If you don't want either of those 2 things to happen, then don't get them involved. You can argue that they are for defense or offense... but the statement is accurate either way.

I invite you to research the theories of Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels, Bismarck, Erich Ludendorff or Napolean. Using the military to kill and break things is a last resort. Adolf Hitler used the simple existence of his military to conquer nations without ever firing a shot.

One has to ask ones self as a muslim suicide bomber... If all these virgins are waiting for me in paradise why didn't the mullah's get in front of the line to be first?

For the same reason that President Bush proclaims "God is on our side" and doesn't enlist for the war effort. Yet, the general people (alluding to the school statements once again, both in America and the middle east) are more than willing to sign up.

"Let's kill some towel-heads!"

The whole situation is ridiculous.

[jetflock]

....America delibrately withheld intelligence because it wanted to be attacked to justify war in the eyes of the American people and ....
Wait, I thought the government verified this was the truth???? Really, I remember hearing this recently(within the past 5 years or so.....lemme check....)

[Johanbeyl]

I'm not good at politics, no not at all, but the one thing I hate is when they use religion as a reason for their wars.

Bear with me, but here are some lyrics from the band +LIVE+,and although it mostly refers to a Western or Christian belief system, I think it bear resemblance on most nations. The loss of human life is always tragic - the circumstances just sometimes dictate differently. I cut some of the repeating phrases and choruses etc.

"What Are We Fighting For?"

Battle flag in the bassinet
Oil and blood on the bayonet
Crowded downtown hit the floor
What are we fightin' for?

The world got smaller but the bombs got bigger
Holocaust on a hairpin trigger
Aint no game so forget the score
What are we fightin' for?

What will I tell my daughter?
What will you tell your son?
Where were all the doves?
That we were nothing but a shadow,
a faceless generation devoid of love?

The crucifix ain't no baseball bat
Tell me what kind of God is that?
Ain't nothing more godless than a war
So what are we fightin' for?

[rustyslacker]

I'm not good at politics, no not at all, but the one thing I hate is when they use religion as a reason for their wars.
Fools like me,who cross the sea
And come to foreign lands
Ask the sheep,for their beliefs
Do you kill on gods command?

Holy wa-ars!

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Ok so instead of debating the dropping of the A bomb, can we get back to the discussion of how a military Japan would change the balance of powers in the region?

[Aliotroph?]

No. This is Newdoom. Hijacking threads is required. ;)

I suppose the trick would be to teach countries like China that Japan isn't out to conquer them. Like one of you guys said, they can't even get over the Japanese PM visiting a war shrine (even though some of the guys there were pretty evil).

[Grimlock[EOD]]

That happens in just about any forum you go to :)

[Aliotroph?]

Lots of forums delete OT posts though. They're usually very silly about that. Real conversations wander over all kinds of topics too.

[Doom_Dude]

I like burgers.....

Anyhow, how do you teach countries like China that Japan isn't out to conquer them? Sounds impossible.

[Aliotroph?]

Takes years and years and years. :/ Probably need to get them to interact more with the Japanese or something like that.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Well we got over the war with England and we're allies. Japan seems to have gotten over us nuking them. Germany has gotten over losing the war to us. Asian culture is different however and things tend to linger longer. I don't think you will ever see another imperialistic Japan however.

[FATAL]

Germany lost the war to the Soviet Union, not the US. ;)

The only point in coming to Europe was to stop Soviets from conquering the whole Europe.

[Aliotroph?]

I suspect the French might have something to say about that. :p Stopping the Soviets is certainly a good motivation though.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Well naturally, if you want military advice, tactics, or what have you, the French are immediately the people that come to mind :D

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Well I guess I struck a nerve someplace because this is now becoming a topic of interest in various places.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110008650

They are discussing the options of a Nuclear Japan.