Trump privately talks about ending Japan defense treaty: Bloomberg

[Chomper Higgot]

The US Japan defence pact removes the need for a militarized Japan.

 

While Trump and former Defence Contractor executives within his cabinet might see this as an arms sales opportunity, Japan’s neighbor China will not be at all happy with the outcome.

 

The President’s idiocy risks lighting a fire under China/Japan fears and animosities.

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The US Japan defence pact removes the need for a militarized Japan.

 

While Trump and former Defence Contractor executives within his cabinet might see this as an arms sales opportunity, Japan’s neighbor China will not be at all happy with the outcome.

 

The President’s idiocy risks lighting a fire under China/Japan fears and animosities.

I don't think the present pact removed the need for a militarised Japan, but do agree with you, this is about arms sales. Cancel the pact, and Japan will buy more arms.

[Tug]

2 hours ago, Chazar said:

They could have stopped there but nope they still didnt  give up, needed number 2 to encourage them some more.

That’s not the whole story it was also the russans overrunning mancuko (Korea) in a matter of 2 weeks got their attention as well

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Japan has traditionally been the closest ally of the USA in recent times. They can defend themselves now. Japan should be allowed to openly acknowledge they have nuclear weapons.

Your final sentence is absurd.  What ridiculous "news" source told you Japan has nuclear weapons?

[billd766]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

I don't think the present pact removed the need for a militarised Japan, but do agree with you, this is about arms sales. Cancel the pact, and Japan will buy more arms.

But probably not from the USA.

[Mavideol]

18 hours ago, Tug said:

Atta boy Donald it’s party time in n Korea and another alliance thrown under the bus China will be delighted but it’s probably a ploy to pressure japan in some way

and just yesterday I was mention his "supposed" deal revision with Japan, timing is everything 555 he will find a away to screw up all "past" allies and be all alone, after all his slogan is MAGA (Make America Great ALONE)

[Krataiboy]

9 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

Another ally lost.

Soon Trump is fighting alone against the rest of the world. 

Not quite alone. The United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 overseas countries and territories - presumably with their consent.

[Mac98]

9 hours ago, nkg said:

 

Well, it has now been over 70 years since the treaty was drawn up. How many years have to pass before its terms can be renegotiated? 100? 1000?

 

Japan has the 3rd largest economy in the world. Few would consider that they pose a military threat to the West. Perhaps it is now safe to allow them to defend themselves. Failing that, a mutual defence treaty doesn't seem unreasonable, even though there is little likelihood of Japan ever needing to come to aid the US.

If a conflict were to come in S. Korea, or a naval threat in the Pacific, a strong Japanese ally would be vital, militarily and for the use of  their bases.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

I don't think the present pact removed the need for a militarised Japan, but do agree with you, this is about arms sales. Cancel the pact, and Japan will buy more arms.

 

Except for a short term reliance on main battle systems, Japan will likely manufacture its own hardware and whatnot. They have the funds, industry, know-how and motivation. The agreement in place essentially made sure that they do not compete with USA firms, and further, buy USA systems.

[tonbridgebrit]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Except for a short term reliance on main battle systems, Japan will likely manufacture its own hardware and whatnot. They have the funds, industry, know-how and motivation. The agreement in place essentially made sure that they do not compete with USA firms, and further, buy USA systems.

Look, how about Washington pulls it's soldiers out of Okinawa ?

And once this happens, let China and Japan fight their war. Why on earth should NATO risk it's own soldiers because a load of Chinese and Japanese want to fight each other. Let them get on with it, our soldiers should not be put at risk because these people want to fight one another.

And if Japan wants to buy American combat jets and missiles, let them do it. The important thing is, is that US tax dollars must NOT be used to subsidise Japan's military. Yes, sell to the Japanese a load of weapons, but not at a price that is being partly paid for by US tax payers.

Edited June 26, 2019 by tonbridgebrit

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Look, how about Washington pulls it's soldiers out of Okinawa ?

And once this happens, let China and Japan fight their war. Why on earth should NATO risk it's own soldiers because a load of Chinese and Japanese want to fight each other. Let them get on with it, our soldiers should not be put at risk because these people want to fight one another.

And if Japan wants to buy American combat jets and missiles, let them do it. The important thing is, is that US tax dollars must NOT be used to subsidise Japan's military. Yes, sell to the Japanese a load of weapons, but not at a price that is being partly paid for by US tax payers.

I wasn't aware that the Japanese were spoiling for a fight. It's not like they're claiming an entire sea which borders on many nations belongs to them alone.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Look, how about Washington pulls it's soldiers out of Okinawa ?

And once this happens, let China and Japan fight their war. Why on earth should NATO risk it's own soldiers because a load of Chinese and Japanese want to fight each other. Let them get on with it, our soldiers should not be put at risk because these people want to fight one another.

 

Washington doesn't have any soldiers in Okinawa. The USA, however, does.

 

And I'm sure that you and China would love that.

 

Why would you want the two countries to fight, I've no idea. The rest is just your usual bit - basically, that China ought to be given free rein to do as it will in Asia (for starters, anyway). You've used the same bogus argument and lines with regard to pretty much any conflict China is involved in. Kinda doubt as to the "our" bit as well.

 

And as for the addendum - you concern for the USA's economy is touching.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Morch

[heybruce]

53 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Look, how about Washington pulls it's soldiers out of Okinawa ?

And once this happens, let China and Japan fight their war. Why on earth should NATO risk it's own soldiers because a load of Chinese and Japanese want to fight each other. Let them get on with it, our soldiers should not be put at risk because these people want to fight one another.

And if Japan wants to buy American combat jets and missiles, let them do it. The important thing is, is that US tax dollars must NOT be used to subsidise Japan's military. Yes, sell to the Japanese a load of weapons, but not at a price that is being partly paid for by US tax payers.

Even if such a war could be prevented from going nuclear (a big "if") and even if it would not draw in other countries (the Koreas, Taiwan, Southeast Asia) and even if you ignore the unimaginable humanitarian cost of such a war...

 

Don't you think there might be a downside to the rest of the world if the second and third biggest economies in the world were to go at it?  One of the main reasons Japan attacked the US in 1941 was because the US stopped selling oil to Japan.  Currently Japan and China produce essential goods for which there are no alternative vendors.  If there is a war now between Japan and China the goods that would become unavailable would shut down the world economy.

[Caldera]

Will he withdraw from the treaty before or after annihilating Iran and North Korea? First steps first, Donald, have another Big Mac and think it through.

[Redline]

The same guy that said “If they try to impeach me, I’ll take them to court.”  He doesn’t even know the most basic structure of the government.  I’m sure they tried to make up songs about the Constitution so he at least knows the basics ????.  The saddest thing is, he doesn’t want to know, or care for that matter.  A loser from every angle ????

[Trouble]

On 6/26/2019 at 2:59 AM, Justgrazing said:

Not as disadvantaged as the Japanese were after the U S flattened Hiroshima and had a good go at doing the same to Nagasaki .. and then had to live under U S military rule .. How one sided was that .. 

They started the <deleted> war. The Japanese were ruthless in their conduct of the war. The US ended it. It's been estimated that the number of lives saved in both terms of US soldiers and Japanese citizens is in the millions.  More people died in the Tokyo raids of 1945 than in the 80,000 in Hiroshima.  These estimated 120,000 lives lost in both cities was tragic, no doubt, but it brought Japan to surrender. Frankly the Japanese are lucky they lived under U. S. military rule.  It could have been the Russians.

 

Obviously Trump feels that the treaty is costing the US too much and is looking for Japan to fund more of the costs.  This has been a theme of Trump's Administration from the get go around the world.  I see nothing wrong in trying to get others to pony up a little more of the costs for things.

[SpaceKadet]

15 hours ago, Chazar said:

They could have stopped there but nope they still didnt  give up, needed number 2 to encourage them some more.

It was needed to test the Plutonium powered nuclear device.

[lannarebirth]

On 6/25/2019 at 2:05 PM, tomacht8 said:

Another ally lost.

Soon Trump is fighting alone against the rest of the world. 

 

If the statement in the OP is correct "the more than six-decades-old treaty is one-sided to the disadvantage of the United States as the Japanese military has no obligation to come to U.S. defense, according to the report."  in what way does that make Japan an ally?

 

I had thought that most of the defense treaties the US has signed were "mutual defense" treaties. Mutual defense is the very definition of an ally.

[lannarebirth]

On 6/25/2019 at 4:38 PM, JAG said:

They were, and the Japanese lost, and surrendered. As a result governing Japan, and turning it into the society which it became (is now) was taken on by the victors (USA). The treaty which Trump thinks unfair was drawn up by, and consisted entirely of terms dictated by the USA.

 

Have they refused him planning permission for a golf course?

 

What you're describing is a treaty between a victor and a vanquished power. Surely the treaty has been updated since then, and if it hasn'nt been, it's probably time it should be.

[simple1]

15 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

If the statement in the OP is correct "the more than six-decades-old treaty is one-sided to the disadvantage of the United States as the Japanese military has no obligation to come to U.S. defense, according to the report."  in what way does that make Japan an ally?

 

I had thought that most of the defense treaties the US has signed were "mutual defense" treaties. Mutual defense is the very definition of an ally.

You may wish to understand the Japanese Constitution which was heavily influenced by the USA. Plus of course the terms of the treaty.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_Between_the_United_States_and_Japan

 

 

 

[lannarebirth]

23 hours ago, JAG said:

The treaty was designed to put strict limits, no to prevent, Japan from having the capability to engage in expeditionary warfare. This was, is and will long continue to be a significant source of reassurance to many nations in this part of the world.

 

Requiring Japan to reconfigure it's defence capability to come to the aid of the USA would require them to develop a global capacity - geography dictated that.

 

Leaving aside some of Tom Clancy's more elaborate (hysterical) plotlines, such a capacity would alarm many countries and lead to a destabilising ramping up in defence activities in the region.

 

Japan has extremely capable and effective defence forces. I would council leaving them as such. By all means renegotiate elements of the treaty, add codicils, but do not walk away from it, particularly on some incoherent Presidential whim that it is "unfair".

 

The USA emerged from the debris of 1945 as, if not the world policeman, then certainly the guarantor of peace in a number of regions. That can cost - heaven knows we British know, we did it for donkeys years - and it has not always worked, especially when it comes to overenthusiastic support for some unsavoury clients; but to abandon it would cost far more 

 

I don't think anybody's abandoning anything and I suspect you don't either. It's just the A-hole in Chief shooting off his mouth as he is wont to do. That said, Japan is not now and into the far foreseeable future, a global threat, given their demographics. If they're to be an ally, defense treaties should be mutual, no matter how lopsided they are.

Edited June 27, 2019 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

You may wish to understand the Japanese Constitution which was heavily influenced by the USA. Plus of course the terms of the treaty.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_Between_the_United_States_and_Japan

 

 

 

 

Yes, I read that. It's probably time to change some of it.

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

What you're describing is a treaty between a victor and a vanquished power. Surely the treaty has been updated since then, and if it hasn'nt been, it's probably time it should be.

It was more than just a treaty, the US wrote the constitution that Japan is using today.  The constitution greatly limits what Japan can do militarily:

 

"The constitution, also known as the "Post-war Constitution" (戦後憲法 Sengo-Kenpō) or the "Peace Constitution" (平和憲法 Heiwa-Kenpō), is best known for its Article 9, by which Japan renounces its right to wage war; and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy."

 

"The constitution was drawn up during the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic system of quasi-absolute monarchy with a form of liberal democracy. No amendment has been made to it since its adoption.^{[1]"    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan}

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Yes, I read that. It's probably time to change some of it.

Changing the Japanese constitution has proven difficult. 

[lannarebirth]

Just now, heybruce said:

It was more than just a treaty, the US wrote the constitution that Japan is using today.  The constitution greatly limits what Japan can do militarily:

 

"The constitution, also known as the "Post-war Constitution" (戦後憲法 Sengo-Kenpō) or the "Peace Constitution" (平和憲法 Heiwa-Kenpō), is best known for its Article 9, by which Japan renounces its right to wage war; and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy."

 

"The constitution was drawn up during the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic system of quasi-absolute monarchy with a form of liberal democracy. No amendment has been made to it since its adoption.^{[1]"    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan}

 

 

You're not suggesting the US still retains voting rights in Japan's government that precludes it from updating its constitution are you?

[keemapoot]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

I don't think anyboddy's abandoning anything and I suspect you don't either. It's just the A-hole in Chief shooting off his mouth as he is wont to do. That said, Japan is not now and into the far foreseeable future, a global threat, given their demographics. If they're to be an ally defense treaties should be mutual, no matter how lopsided they are.

Of course it's just the d-wad in chief doing what he does. There is zero percent change of this defense treaty being abandoned. The SOFA status and embedded military cooperation and resources are massive and pervasive and the President of the US should know better than to spout off on something this important. What a dweeb.

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Yes, I read that. It's probably time to change some of it.

Perhaps so, but how much resistance to changing the Constitution

[lannarebirth]

15 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

Of course it's just the d-wad in chief doing what he does. There is zero percent change of this defense treaty being abandoned. The SOFA status and embedded military cooperation and resources are massive and pervasive and the President of the US should know better than to spout off on something this important. What a dweeb.

 

Well, if it's any consolation, he'll probably spend eternity in the 8th circle of Hell.

[lannarebirth]

23 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Japan has traditionally been the closest ally of the USA in recent times. They can defend themselves now. Japan should be allowed to openly acknowledge they have nuclear weapons.

Japan can not defend itself against adversaries such as China or Russia. That's why we have defense treaties because we are stronger when we have dependable allies. I was surprised to see that Japan is not a mutual defender of the US, not that it needs that, but it is what allies are supposed to do for one another.

[heybruce]

32 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

 

You're not suggesting the US still retains voting rights in Japan's government that precludes it from updating its constitution are you?

No.  Where did you get that idea?  If anything it is the opposite; the US wants Japan to change its constitution but lacks the power to make it happen.

 

If you were to do an internet search on terms such as "japan", "change" and "constitution" I'm sure you will find some news items that will explain it to you.  In a nutshell, the Japanese people don't want to change their constitution.