national

SDF kick off 4 days of annual live fire drills at Mt Fuji

18 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2015 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments
Login to comment

I have no idea..but isn't it a crime to damage world heritage sites? Aren't there rules for that?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

This happens every year no matter who is in power, why throw in Abe?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

kaynide: The title is misleading, it's not on or at Mt Fuji but near the base of it at a SDF training ground.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@ The Principle

You said, "No it didn't. It barred Japan from combat PERIOD. " Although you're entitled to your opinion, this is totally incorrect.

There is a distinction between legal rights and natural rights, self defense belongs in the latter category. Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.

No law, regardless of whether it be for countries or for individuals, can prohibit self defense (self preservation).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Of course many countries are wary of Japan's re-militarization, especially also in light of Japan's whitewashing of its atrocities. They are fooling themselves if they say they are not.

Having said that, who are these SDF live fire drills (and "joint USA-JPN-PHI-AUS-IND drills") supposed to scare? The local rabbits and beavers (marine life, sharks maybe)?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@ The Principle - "You cannot trust a country that violates its own constitution so blatantly."

1 - Since the right to self preservation is above all laws and constitution, possessing the means to such is also an inherent natural right.

2 - Having a defensive force as a means to self preservation cannot be denied by constitutions - hence the constitution is not violated by this.

3 - What the constitution restricts is using the said defensive force as a means to resolve international disputes. As far as I'm aware Japan has never used nor threatened to use the JSDF as a means for resolving international disputes since its inception. (Please correctly if I'm wrong, I am 100% willing to be corrected on this)

Hence, your remark about "blatant violation of constitution" is pretty much ungrounded when it comes to your accusations with regards to the JSDF. Furthermore, an agent possessing inherent capacity (or even previous tendencies) to do something that would violate the constitution does not equate to that agent blatantly violating the constitution neither. (Say a dog bit someone in the past, if he is not biting me right now, HE IS NOT BITING ME RIGHT NOW)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@the Principle: your point is what I have been saying on my posts here for some time. Unconstitutional bogus security bills (yet Abe shamelessly lectures others about rule of law) are obviously impossible for the people (and the world) to accept , much less to trust.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"A constitution imposed by a post-war U.S. occupation force barred pacifist Japan’s military from combat except in self-defense."

No it didn't. It barred Japan from combat PERIOD. The constitution even forbids Japan having these weapons used in the drill! Its all clear as day:

ARTICLE 9. 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. (2) 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.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Oh, believe me, I do think that Japan has every right to a military for the purpose of self defense.

But, just as there is a danger that certain selfish, war headed parties in Japan will willfully violate and misinterpret constitutions, its the same thing with regard to self defense forces.

Any country that remains wary to this day of Japan, considering what they did in the early 20th century, is going to rightfully point out how Japan violates its own constitution. How can anyone trust that Japan will then not use their self defense force for something other than self defense?

You cannot trust a country that violates its own constitution so blatantly.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What a waste of tax payer money! a price of each 50 call bullet is about $5.00 missiles thousands, fuel, thousands, wages.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Gogogo: Thank you! I don't really know well about Fuji and the surroundings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sir; as an ex military soldier its about time Japanese military find their feet. good to see face book military shashin too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The PrincipleAug. 19, 2015 - 09:31AM JST "A constitution imposed by a post-war U.S. occupation force barred pacifist Japan’s military from combat except in self-defense." No it didn't. It barred Japan from combat PERIOD. The constitution even forbids Japan having these weapons used in >the drill! Its all clear as day: ARTICLE 9. 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. >>(2) 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.

The United States forced Article 9 on a defeated Japan, It was a trade to placate the other victorious Allied powers who wanted the Emperor tried as a war criminal. We needed the Emperor to remain intact in order to ensure that there would be no grounds for civil unrest which would provide an opportunity for the Soviet Red Army to cross into Hokkaido from the Southern Kuriles which they had occupied. But just 5 years after WWII ended, North Korea backed by the USSR and China started the Korean War. This necessitated US troops and assets in Japan to be deployed on the Korean Penninsula. As this would leave Japan defenseless should the USSR invade Japan, we literally forced Japan to create the JSDF. In order to get around Article 9 they were established not as a military but as a branch of the Naitonal Police Force. So put buntly, the U.S, forced Article 9 on Japan and just a few years later forced Japan to "work around it". Today the JSDF is the best equipped military force in Asia and support the US Forces in the region.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

To be acurate inception of the JMSDF was a bit different where the US military needed to sweep the sea around the Korean peninsula of mines laid by NK&PLAN so they called upon Japan for help. Former IJN personnel were recruited with this difficult task which became the basis of JMSDF today.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

F4HA604,

1 - Since the right to self preservation is above all laws and constitution, possessing the means to such is also an inherent natural right.

False equivalence and typical of the pro-war mindset. War is not defined as an attempt at total annihilation of a populace. Typically the worst that happens when an invading force takes over is becoming a colony under an oppressive regime.

2 - Having a defensive force as a means to self preservation cannot be denied by constitutions - hence the constitution is not violated by this

I think you have constitutions confused with contracts.

3 - What the constitution restricts is using the said defensive force as a means to resolve international disputes. -

Yeah, and opposing a foreign power that invaded would be, by definition, an international dispute. I don't say attacked because its highly unlikely any power would attack Japan if it had no combat materiel, such as it is not allowed to possess anyway.

If you must know, I support a change in the constitution that would allow for the SDF. However, I do not want this change to occur under the war glorifying, textbook whitewashing LDP which should be for obvious reasons, which, in short, would be that they would screw it up and screw us all.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If they start any fires on the mountains I hope the press gives them hell and the local's protest!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Any country that remains wary to this day of Japan, considering what they did in the early 20th century, is going to rightfully point out how Japan violates its own constitution. How can anyone trust that Japan will then not use their self defense force for something other than self defense?

If you include 'collective' self defense, pretty much everybody besides the usual two. Perhaps they are admitting that they are enemies of Japan?

http://www.sankei.com/politics/news/140803/plt1408030008-n1.html

http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/10395111/

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

the principle, i think that the view of abe and his band of nationalists is that the constitution is one that was forced upon them and written by america. so no problem

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites