98
submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip -1 points 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@hexbear.net 20 points 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@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago

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

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
98 points (95.4% liked)

World News

32291 readers
623 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS