Japan is a partner nation of NATO, along with South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Do you think this is a good idea?

Being a "partner" is not the same as a member. And since Japan is not in the North Atlantic better to stay out and take of Japan's own issues like child poverty, womens rights, the murder of immigrants in immigration centers, and ...

Yes. Any time we can bring a country into the fold, to participate with humanity, the better. Japan wants to work with the world, so the more the world works with Japan, the better for everyone.

Yes,

definitely yes!

Japan is a pacifist country!

it needs all the help it can get!

No.

Yes.

No. NATO has not been a force for good since the collapse of the USSR. Its a solution looking for a problem

Its not.

Japan is neutral country.

Japan have wn JSDF we pay dearly costs from our taxes.

Beside that we still have foreign occupation forces here we pay for their lavish life here as well.

There is no need more for Japan to feel safe.

Japan is not going attack any country in region,no one neigbour in reagion is going attack Japan unless will be provoked.

Japan needs to start to mind own business now,solve ongoing and unfinished territorial disputes with Chimna and ROK,establish normal diplomatic relationship with DPRK and stop meaningless antirussian sanctions which are great threaths for japanese economy and for japan-russian relationship.Than Japan can consider to restart talk with Russia about Kurils islands status and so on.

For all of this Japan needs to act as sovereign country and not as american poodle.Its about time to be adult.And act as dult.

I don't see any recommendation of full membership to NATO for Japan or anyone in the Asian area. We I see it democracies battling non-democracies.

If you think authoritarian governance is a good thing for the citizens of a country, don't do anything. You'll get to discover what that is like quickly enough.

Europe can easily afford more defense spending. They chose not to and to appease Russia. Look at what happened to Ukraine. To be fair, Europe is paying for the Russian war machine buying Russian fuel. I don't know that they have any other real option for the next 20 yrs.

When the USSR fell, didn't the world try to engage with all the former USSR states, opening commerce, spending money, building infrastructure? Hint: yes.

But full democracy has slipped away from Russia. Why is beyond me. A weak military that refused to oust a bad leader, but not take over political control? IDK.

Former Russian spies who wanted to return to the USSR days when they could be thugs without any legal repercussions?

Russian people who didn't see that allowing any single person in top power positions for too long is a terrible idea. They should have blocked Putin's change, but didn't.

Orderly change in power every 4-10 yrs really is a requirement for a working democracy. History has shown that over and over and over again. So much of the world is under the grasp of longer running leadership. That needs to change.

NATO is an organization of vassal states of the USA and its military adventures.

King: I require 3% of your manor’s receipts for defense of the realm.

Vassel: I’ll send 1%. If you want more just bugger off.

(end of fief)

”… vassal states …”. Come up with something better.

Yes, for the shared intelligence alone.

Well, if the WMD in Iraq is anything to go by, then I don't want that "intelligence."

Anything America touches dies.

Yes, what are the minuses, Japan already have USA military bases and allow NATO ship are allowed to refuel and re supply. Plus: Weapons, more weapons like nuclear. Technically Japan are still at war with Russia and if a nuclear weapon is employed on to Russia, it will be a classes as a defending move and that what NATO is about defending from agrasors. Also get back the Northern Territories at the same time.

A multinational framework may be better than a bilateral one namely the current US-Japan pact especially with regard to military procurement. Japan can hardly negotiate the price of US-supplied military equipment.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) we haven't yet seen whether and how NATO really works as a collective security arrangement when one of its members comes under attack. And that's the most important question for Japan.

Yes, for the shared intelligence alone.

"Mr KiplingToday 06:41 am JST

NATO is an organization of vassal states of the USA and its military adventures.

No, it is not a good idea to join. NATO members get US bases on their land. The US doesn't get Japanese or other nations bases on its territory."

Succinct and EXACTLY on point.

Just to add that the U.S. appears to be trying to consolidate its Empire by tying its 'assets' closer and closer together in its control so that all can be controlled with as few puppet strings as necessary...

‘North Atlantic Treaty Organization’ OR

’North Pacific Treaty Organization’ OR

‘West Pacific Treaty Organization’??

Well, only the first has a mutual defence clause and trigger. And the US has bi-partite treaties with all the other listed nations anyway - for what they are worth.

Post-1945 Japan traditionally prefers softer solutions than regional sabre-rattling. However underlying that, they prefer to be linked to all options, including military links, and keeping good relations with partner nations is even more important than facing off would-be adversaries.

So, in the end, the question just reflects strategic business-as-usual for Japan.

NATO is an organization of vassal states of the USA and its military adventures.

No, it is not a good idea to join. NATO members get US bases on their land. The US doesn't get Japanese or other nations bases on its territory.