I shouldn't try to write coherently when sleep deprived.
I meant that Article 9 remained in place because many (most?) Japanese felt secure leaving it alone. The assumption on which that feeling of security rested is dead and gone.
5 days ago
My sense is that Japan's constitutional restrictions on military activity are very much based on a confident belief that, if Japan were attacked, the US would (as promised) come to its defense. But today we have a US administration which could care less about what the US might have promised, what treaty obligations we might have made.
Japan would have to be crazy, suicidal even, not to rethink their policies on their military. What kind of Constitutional change might be best, I can't say. But refusing to change isn't really a viable option.
I shouldn't try to write coherently when sleep deprived.
I meant that Article 9 remained in place because many (most?) Japanese felt secure leaving it alone. The assumption on which that feeling of security rested is dead and gone.
My sense is that Japan's constitutional restrictions on military activity are very much based on a confident belief that, if Japan were attacked, the US would (as promised) come to its defense. But today we have a US administration which could care less about what the US might have promised, what treaty obligations we might have made.
Japan would have to be crazy, suicidal even, not to rethink their policies on their military. What kind of Constitutional change might be best, I can't say. But refusing to change isn't really a viable option.