I think it's not fair that we crippled japan's military autonomy; I mean the military funding in the usa is why we are at the front of the computer revolution.
I just want a japanese competitor to wintel :'(
What's missing from that news article, is the announcement on Friday of the ten naval patrol boats Japan will supply or lend to the Philippines to help protect against Chinese naval and fishing fleet incursions in local waters.
I just wrote a fairly lengthy comment about the possible merits of an expanded Japanese military industrial complex (in helping Japan's languishing economy) given the industrial strengths of Japan that suit arms manufacturing well and potential interest in SE and South Asian nations of non-US non-Russian weaponry, but couldn't get myself to post the comment for fear that because my user ID clearly indicates that I am ethnically Japanese, I could be taken as an imperialist nationalist; a strange psychological phenomenon to say the least. I wonder if there is a name for such a double take?
"Funny"?
(Sorry for a non-serious answer to a serious comment, I'm making a point that you should relax. The lack of taking responsibility (school education etc) for what happened in the 2nd world war might make other countries nervous, but afaik only Germany ever took responsibility for large war atrocities. Not Turkey, Pakistan, the Chinese communist party, etc, etc. No one expects a return of the militaristic Japan.)
The revival of a militaristic Japan is actually more likely than you think, tho still very unlikely. The reason is simple, most of the conditions that led to WWII still exist today. Japan is still controlled by a largely hawkish right-wing elite aristocratic class. Japan still brainwashes its population by denying war crimes committed during WWII. Japan still has virtually no natural resources enough to sustain its large population. Japan is still the premier military power in East Asia. Japan still spends an enormous amount of money on its military, however "defensive" it may be (I honestly don't know how a military that has helicopter carriers is defensive in nature). The only difference is that Japan is now militarily aligned with the U.S. and that China is no longer a political, technological, economical and military weakling. The Chinese would like to believe that the only thing standing between a peaceful Japan and a militaristic Japan is the PLA.
With "take responsibility" in English afaik, it means that you take responsibility for the situation (often implied I believe -- that you caused). If something else is implied by the expression, please enlighten me.
I have a hard time believing that Japan would start doing military adventures. It is, more or less, a functioning democracy. See the democratic peace theory, not even USA makes wars against democracies...
(And about your examples... Syria could use some responsibility from the self proclaimed world cop. It is a horror story probably worse than ex Yugoslavia; a shame for Obama. It just doesn't fit his priorities.)
Only direct, total democracy leads to peace. There is no such government in place in the world right now. The US, though it has not formally declared war against other "democracies", it has in many instances, conducted clandestine subversive activities that one nation may use as the casus belli. For example, in 2001, Haiti democratically reelected a Catholic priest as president for the third time. In 2004, with the backing of the CIA, the president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed from office in a coup for reasons many accused as Aristide simply not being obedient to Western powers.
The US has also openly supported many oppressive regimes in the past and present time. This is also one of the pretexts Al-Qaeda used as justifications of their attacks against the US.
While Japan may not return to its imperial and militaristic roots in the past, it is perfect as a proxy vanguard against China and Russia. The US is good at proxy wars. As long as Japan is catering to the US's demands, the US may just turn a blind eye and condone Japan's rise as yet another aggressive nation in North East Asia. It only took Germany a decade to become Nazi Germany after all.
>>Only direct, total democracy leads to peace.
Huh? Check the democratic peace theory on wikipedia. It says that democracies don't make wars. This "direct" and "total" democracy sounds like a place I'd be careful moving to...
The problems with democracies is that foreigners can't vote, the behaviour outside can be as dirty as for a "traditional" country. But the home opinion cares more with more internationalisation, it has gotten much better over 50 years or so. (The Aristide example seems shocking, I thought such US behaviour ended with the cold war.)
You present conspiracy theories about the US -- afaik, it isn't US interests where the sea borders around China are. They are not the ones playing the jingoism card.
Well, maybe not Turkey as it hasn't been defeated in any wars nor committed large war atrocities, but the predecessor state the Ottoman Empire was effectively dismantled by the treaty of Sevres at the end of the first world war, and the only reason the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the German side was the minister of war going behind the prime minister's back and signing a secret defensive treaty with the Germans. The original plan was to remain neutral as the government of the time knew it couldn't fight a war against the British and French or the Germans without losing territory, and that by remaining neutral it would leave options open for alliances should Russia invade.
Because of this, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned and dismantled, leaving only Istanbul and a small surrounding strip of land. It was this that led to former military commanders fighting the independence war that led to the creation of the modern Turkish republic.
Is there some Turkish "50 cent army" thing?
Edit: Oh, wtf... see the censoring of the Armenian genocide in Turkey. Also afaik, they don't teach in Pakistan about what happened in Bangladesh in the early 70s.
The Armenian government claims that the Turkish government is responsible for the Armenian genocide, although the Turkish republic (and it's government) didn't exist at the time. This is a bit like blaming the US for atrocities committed by the republic of Texas in California.
The decision about censoring the Armenian genocide is purely political and saddens me, but it's more to do with geopolitics than history.
More weapons lead to more deaths.
There are better ways to stimulate the economy and technology EG race to Mars
Crippling their militaries, each country took to dominating economically instead and benefited the world much more than any of their previous military actions did.
Semi related, but anyone interested a good World War II series and has not seen it, I reccomend the BBC's World at War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War). Lots of first hand accounts and interviews of leaders and their staff at the time of WWII.
Technological improvement that happens because of military spending could have happened anyway under civilian spending, although the side effects resulting from research may well be different.
On the other hand, neither Germany or Japan in WWII had to suffer through the terms and conditions placed on Germany after The Great War (WWI). That was if anything, the worse possible way to help a country recover.
But it seems like a criminal waste of resources to build the developed stuff -- and train lots of people. This decision have no good reason (North Korea? Hardly), it is forced because China haven't democratized so it needs external enemies to generate jingoism and hinder criticism of the Party.
(But sure, maybe China's main motivation is to get natural resources in sea areas that have belonged to other countries for centuries. That is hardly better.)
Edit: Clarity.