• Cethin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s been several generations since WWII. Japan is one of the US’ closest allies. If they wanted to transform their self-defense force into a full-blown military and take over responsibility for their own defense, I’m sure they could do so. So far, no one has generated the political will to do that. Your buddy Kim isn’t helping things by sending missiles over Japan.

    This part is ironic. The tankies will often argue that Japan shouldn’t be expanding their military (and anything their military does they think is wrong), but also that the US shouldn’t be involved. You don’t get both. You can’t just say a nation should have no way to defend itself, especially when you are defending Russia and China.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a “tankie”, if I had to choose one or the other between “Japan grows military” vs “US stays occupying Japan,” the answer is absolutely the first one being preferable. However, as any of those dang tankies will point out, the two are not mutually exclusive. Japan can develop its own military while the US maintains its occupation, just look at the miserable state of South Korea.

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They arent mutually exclusive, but absolutely one or the other are required. You can’t have neither.