The US wants to deploy a previously banned missile system to Japan for military drills, Nikkei Asia reported Thursday. The Typhon missile launcher is a ground-based system that can fire nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles, which have a range of more than 1,000 miles. Ground-based missiles with a range between 310 and…
The US demilitarized Japan after they were defeated in WWII, with the Japanese preferentially surrendering to the US to hope for a better deal. The US then established a bunch of bases there. The point of this was to (1) prevent Japan from remilitarizing as its own imperial power and (2) use it as a forward base against the USSR and China.
The US is still using Japan to do this and important segments of the Japanese ruling class are trying to remilitarize Japan itself, both coordinating against China.
Finally, Japan has questionable sovereignty. Japan’s economic downtown in the 90s was “synthetic” in the sense that it was created by US-led fiscal policy and not any “natural” result of their economy. I’m sure much of its political class is aware of this. And they are still basically militarily occupied by the US given those *massive" bases, many of which are very unpopular with the locals. Just ask Okinawa.
And again, this is a plane doing a small toe dip on one route vs. long-range missiles designed to be able to carry nukes. Incredibly disproportionate.
My understanding is that after the war, the US agreed to defend Japan. And Japan is still allowed to defend itself against others too. I don’t understand how what you’re saying is related at all.
The US demilitarized Japan after they were defeated in WWII, with the Japanese preferentially surrendering to the US to hope for a better deal. The US then established a bunch of bases there. The point of this was to (1) prevent Japan from remilitarizing as its own imperial power and (2) use it as a forward base against the USSR and China.
The US is still using Japan to do this and important segments of the Japanese ruling class are trying to remilitarize Japan itself, both coordinating against China.
Finally, Japan has questionable sovereignty. Japan’s economic downtown in the 90s was “synthetic” in the sense that it was created by US-led fiscal policy and not any “natural” result of their economy. I’m sure much of its political class is aware of this. And they are still basically militarily occupied by the US given those *massive" bases, many of which are very unpopular with the locals. Just ask Okinawa.
And again, this is a plane doing a small toe dip on one route vs. long-range missiles designed to be able to carry nukes. Incredibly disproportionate.
My understanding is that after the war, the US agreed to defend Japan. And Japan is still allowed to defend itself against others too. I don’t understand how what you’re saying is related at all.
The US occupied Japan. The agreement wasn’t exactly one made by equals. It was the same kind of deal as the Marshall Plan.
Which parts of what I said don’t seem related?
Only until 1952. Everything you’re saying sounds like a strawman argument.
Are you under the impression that we’ve left Japan?
De jure, yes. But also what is your point? Do you think this contradicts anything I said?
A straw man argument is where you pretend someone else is making an argument that they aren’t because it is rhetorically easier to address.
At which point have I done that even once?