Japan still divided on revising war-renouncing Constitution: survey

As we are sadly seeing with the rise and rise of warlike terror-states China and Russia, the democratic, free world needs to stand up more than ever to protect freedom and rule of law.

Japan absolutely should have the same right as every other nation to defend herself - and yes, that sometimes means striking at other nations. If Germany is allowed to normalise her defense forces - rightly so - so should Japan.

Scrap that US written constitution.

Second paragraph of Article 9 states that Japan will not maintain a military. Yet the JSDF, which was created at the urging of the U.S when the Korean War broke out in 1950, is considered number 5 in global miitary power ranking. This obvious contradiction can only be removed through an amendment,

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php

Besides, the government doesn't need majority support of voters to make decisions anyway. If they want to do it, they will...

A simple majority in the Diet is not enough for amendments. Two-thirds of MPs at both chambers shall support the motion, and then go to the public for a referendum to gain the majority. The entire process is tedious, time-consuming and demanding even for the LDP who has ruled most of the post-war period in Japan.

Japan is able to defend itself. Joe Biden said an offhand remark over a decade ago that if Japan wanted nukes they could do it in a day.

Nobody wants a war. But like any other country Japan must be able to defend itself. Article 9 must be amended in such a way that every action and plan does not require a lengthy constitutomal debate, and can be debated on the merits alone.

There's no need to amend Article 9. Just drop it along with the second paragraph of Article 76 that prohibits court marshal. Then Japan will be able to have a functioning military. Amending the constitution to introduce an emergency clause is a bad idea. It could be abused to curtail people's freedoms. A simple legislation would be better and just as effective.

Although Article 9 is the central focus of amendment debate, there arise several other constitutional issues which I think are also significant yet largely overlooked.

For example, the devolution of power into local administration levels would be necessary in proper responses to locally specific issues, some of which are new and hitherto unanticipated. Unfortunately, the 75-year old Constitution shall keep the current administrative arrangements or deny any form of realignment. Likewise the retirement aged Constitution never expects the same-sex union or other culturally diverse phenomena in Japan.

To judge from the polling and the comments here, I would say that the times have clearly changed. China is on a determined move; Joe Biden is wandering about in a daze. Japan must be able to defend itself. Si vis pacem para bellum.

Japan has not been at war since 1945. It is easy to forget the benefits of that after generations lived in people. Japanese did not fight in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan or overthrow democratic governments. Like the U.S.

Japan does not have conscription. Serving in the SDF is voluntary.

Citizens of nations that stay out of wars prosper. Warfare states breed misery. Look at the U.S. Look at Russia.

It is too easy to forget how good peace is. Until you've lost it.

In the survey, 76 percent said that Japan has not waged war since the end of World War II because of Article 9, up 9 percentage points from the poll last year.

Who actually really want war? Is not Japanese people right. Any other element in Japan really want go to war?

OssanAmericaToday  08:07 am JST

Nobody wants a war.

Except Vlad and Western Leftists.

ChibakunToday  03:33 pm JST

Nobody wants a war. But like any other country Japan must be able to defend itself.

Defense against nukes?

Not all invasions and conflicts invcolve nuclear weapons. In fact none have for the past 77 years despite countless conflicts and wars all over the world. There is no defense against Nukes, other than to have, or to have access to the threat of Reciprocal Nuclear Reprisal. Japan already is protected by the U.S. Nuclear Umbrella.

What's the point of being president if you can't make necessary changes to protect your country?

Keep it the way it is!!!!

Japan must stay peaceful.

@Kyo wa heiwa dayo ne

DO you really think Japan is sleeping? Think again!

This is basically just another announcement to inform us that the war renouncing constitution its changing or has changed whether we like it or not.

Japan has contested territory issues with China , South Korea and Russia.

Then there's North Korea also.

If there's no peace agreement then technically they ARE at war.

Then we have the economic war with Russia also.

This all adds up to not a good scenario for Japan.

Japan's a bit slow and lagging to even review the strike capabilities until the end of the year might be too late anyway.

Nobody wants a war. But like any other country Japan must be able to defend itself.

Defense against nukes?

Randy JohnsonToday  08:24 am JST

OssanAmericaToday  08:07 am JST

Nobody wants a war.

Except Vlad and Western Leftists.

Which... um, "western leftists," specifically? Got names and quotes?

If may be beneficial for Japan to put itself under the protective power of the bigger, nuclear powers of countries like USA and/or China . . . rather than to put itself in a totally independent position which could result in a disastrous situation of smaller nations, now hampered with war destruction . . . .

Yawn. This is as old as the end of WW2 itself. One side worships a guy who won the inheritance olympics and is emperor of a nonexisting empire. The other side are a bunch of academics who want to sell their nation off to China because academic reasons of theory.

Hate to tell both side, not gonna happen or it would have under Abe.

Wouldn’t say divided that suggests a 50-50 split, when it’s a 95-5 split. So not so divided. I’m embarrassed have to put my IJA uniform back into the cupboard.

Article 9 of the Constitution renounces war and bans the possession of military forces and other "war potential." 

and

The government has said the article does not prohibit the country from maintaining its ability to defend itself and thus allows Japan to possess defense forces.

so that's a definite maybe is it situation is it? （＾＿－）

The government never adheres to the constitution anyway so why bother to change it?

Yow, super blooper! The following should've read: " It is easy to forget the benefits of that after generations lived in peace. "

The moment you stop being a peace state and become a warfare state you lose, some, a lot of, most, or all of your freedoms and stability. Russia at the moment serves as a horrid and extreme example. But the American warfare state is also a horror. Think of the thousands of homeless disabled vets, or the rotten social services of the United States. The U.S. is a country that feeds the military and starves millions of people. Kill Article 9 and the horrors of living with a warfare state could be yours.

If Japan repeals Article 9, then what Japan gets is National Military(国防軍), not SDF.

Think about it.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, China's assertiveness and North Korea's repeated missile launchings -- all these are godsends for conservative Japanese lawmakers to propose that the war-renouncing constitution must be revised.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution goes like this:

"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."

Article 9 was an expression of remorse by post-war Japan over the invasion and devastation by Imperial Japan of its neighboring countries, and also a firm promise that Japan would never do it again. It was in this vein and spirit that the inscription on an epitaph in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park says to atomic bomb victims, "Rest in peace. We will never repeat the mistake."

So, what does it mean if the Constitution was revised and Article 9 recanted?

*Article 9 of the Constitution renounces war and* bans the possession of military forces and other "war potential."

If you abolish a Constitution that 'renounces war' then you are saying, in effect' you welcome war. There is nothing presently in Japan's constitution that prohibits it from defending itself. The debate is alarmist fantasizing.

I don't trust Kyodo to find unbiased respondents. Besides, the government doesn't need majority support of voters to make decisions anyway. If they want to do it, they will...

The biggest differences are that Ukraine has a huge amount of natural resources while Japan has zero. In addition Japan has a massive aging population and huge debt……not an attractive proposition for any would be invader.

If they want to see more body bags, then go ahead. Just don't come crying when USA forces you into participating in yet another of their pointless wars.

Blue

If you call allowing armed foreign nations breaching your territory boundaries and sending missiles into your ocean or over your country DEFENSE then your Sadly mistaken.

Its pathetically feeble defense or realistically non existing.

Do you even realize that the Senkaku are within Ishigaki city limits ?

Or that Japan indeed seeks strikes capabilities for foreign enemy bases and wants nuclear weapons at its disposal whilst preaching to the world about how we should all be free of nuclear weapons?

These details have everything to do with the article above that we are discussing about revisions to Japans war renouncing constitution.

I do not think that Japan should ever have a strike first capability. If there is one thing Japan never seems to understand, is that for every action there is a reaction. Playing the victim bares witness to that.

Probably time for Japan to amend its constitution.

However, there is something deeply untrustworthy about the LDP and Nippon Kaigi that really bothers me.

Probably stems from how they whitewash WW2 and make out Japan has the victims.

I just don’t like the idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of Abe et al.

I’m sure the LDP will use the Ukraine crisis to spend yet even more money on its big company benefactors.

Blue

The USA defense agreement with Japan is only if Japan is attacked ,and at that point it's too late !

Its the JSDF and coastguard duty to protect Japan's territorial borders and airspace of which they have done an awefuly feeble and pathetic job of .

Sorry to be so blunt !

Japan still divided on revising war-renouncing Constitution - survey:

~50% Japanese want to retain Article 9's status quo.

Yet, 76% said the nation has not waged war since end of WWII because of it. Does that insinuate, deep in their mind, they are actually craving for war..?

No, no, better not..

@AgentX

Regards also thanks.

This is basically just another announcement to inform us that the war renouncing constitution its changing or has changed whether we like it or not.

Japan has contested territory issues with China , South Korea and Russia.

Then there's North Korea also.

If there's no peace agreement then technically they ARE at war.

Then we have the economic war with Russia also.

This all adds up to not a good scenario for Japan.

Japan's a bit slow and lagging to even review the strike capabilities until the end of the year might be too late anyway.

It's corruption hiding in plain sight !

But Japan isn't just defending itself .

> Japan is involving itself in other countries conflicts.

> Japan is involved in waging an economic war against it's neighbors and seeks to be a big brother of Asia.

> Shooting down missiles heading towards Japan is yes defensive.

> but however seeking strike capabilities of foreign enemy bases and nuclear capabilities isn't pacifist or only defensive.

> If Japan is truly a democracy then why is the imperial system still in use ?

> Japan is an imperialistic dictatorship masquerading as a democracy.

Really well observed and said.

Fighto

Defense and strikes are two different things.

Look at a truly pacifist neutral nation and how peaceful and healthy and successful that nation is.

Japan isnt like other nations and with its wartime past it can never gain ultimate trust in only 80 years since Japan attacked other nations.

Japan is a himself nation not a herself nation.

As your name represents you are a fighter not a pacifist that seeks only Defense.

Your confused !

Its a passive agressive superiority complex issue .

The world doesn’t need a rearmed Japan.

Everytime they did we know what happened.

And especially with this government/sect in charge.

LDP/Nippon Kaigi.

But Japan isn't just defending itself .

Japan is involving itself in other countries conflicts.

Japan is involved in waging an economic war against it's neighbors and seeks to be a big brother of Asia.

Shooting down missiles heading towards Japan is yes defensive.

but however seeking strike capabilities of foreign enemy bases and nuclear capabilities isn't pacifist or only defensive.

If Japan is truly a democracy then why is the imperial system still in use ?

Japan is an imperialistic dictatorship masquerading as a democracy.

Randy

Japan seeks to change the status -quo and that is precisely whats happening.

The only reason the Japanese people have enjoyed 80 years of peace was because of a war their government started.

I don't support war for any reason.