Is it time for US Force to leave Japan?

Flanker said:

But there's still U.S. Bases there. Japan will be independent when the last U.S. base is closed down.

Click to expand...

Just because the U.S. has a military presence there does not mean they are not independent. That U.S. force has zero impact on Japanese national government. They dictate no terms. They are pretty much there as a coaling-station for naval forces, and an advance point of force-projection in East Asia. In other words, its easier to strike at enemies in East Asia from Okinawa than from Hawaii. We are not an occupying force. Hell, we are not even an occupying force in Iraq, we barely have enough troops there to be policing it, and it is costing us in lives and in tax dollars.

caster51 said:

If US force leaves Japan, japan would amend article 9.
I want to see american way in Asia that Japan could not do .
vietnum war and korean war were kind of good show. what is next?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Do you mean that you think Japan should develop hegemonic influence in East Asia, rather than direct territorial control? The pattern that the United States developed in order to combat the Soviets and the Chinese was similar to the hegemonic empire that the Romans had during the Early Empire (the Julio-Claudian dynasty). In other words, we tried to cultivate client-states that would buffer us from the Soviets and the Chinese. The Soviets, in turn, did the same thing with the Warsaw Pact in Europe (although they had much more direct control over the East European governments than we did NATO or our East Asian allies).

The problem with the client-state system is that the vassals have to see the empire as a big brother, a protector, and a friend. If they don't, the system breeds resentment, which is what many nations feel for the United States right now.

As for the Korean War and Vietnam Wars, I consider both of them to be absolute failures. The Korean War was never won, and technically has still been going on. Vietnam was won in the field, but was lost at home, because the American populace was against it. Iraq is shaping up to be opposed at home in a similar manner. The American populace and the polarized government are preventing the military from escalating the conflict and investing enough manpower into the region in order to stabalize it.

hanachan said:

I don't think that US Force leaves Japan.
US Force can get all they need here.
Their hi-tech equipments need high level technology for maintenance.

Click to expand...

We get most of our technology from guys like Blackwater, in Virginia. Most military technology is developed at home. American mercenary companies (like Blackwater and Executive Solutions) are better equipped, even then our own military (mostly due to Clinton's budget-cuts in the 1990s). The problem is, these companies are too darn small.

Certain groups in Japan are developing robotics that could have definitive military advantages. If mechs come out in the next century and are viable military options, I don't imagine the U.S. would have a problem buying units from Japanese companies.

its too bad japan got their military taken away :sorry:

nocomment1 said:

its too bad japan got their military taken away :sorry:

Click to expand...

It wasn't taken away, it was severely reduced. And, in case you haven't read enough of this thread, many of Japan's neighbors don't want Japan to rebuild their military.

Besides, maybe you should do some research into things like the May 15th Incident and other political affairs during the 1920s and 30s in which the military effectively took control of the government, with the help of zaibatsu. The pre-war history of Japan makes it very evident that perhaps dismantling their military (at least for a period of time) was a good thing, especially for their government.

I have voted No.

My reason is simple, Japan is at risk from North Korea and in the event of any unprovoked attack, it is better to have someone to fight with you than against you.

Seeing how Japan really doesn't have an offensive military, the USA basically acts as their military if they need it.

I would add that following the recent missile tests done by North Korea and the missiles landing in the Sea of Japan within the last seven days, there is even more reason as to why American forces should stay in Japan.

DangerousBob said:

Seeing how Japan really doesn't have an offensive military, the USA basically acts as their military if they need it.

Click to expand...

They are changing their Constitution so that they can have an offensive military again.

DangerousBob said:

Seeing how Japan really doesn't have an offensive military, the USA basically acts as their military if they need it.

Click to expand...

aren't all militaries supposed to be not for offensive purposes? so they want to be, what? to use their military for other than defensive purposes? i.e. to commit war crimes? which is what offensive war is, by definition.

EmperorHirohito said:

I would add that following the recent missile tests done by North Korea and the missiles landing in the Sea of Japan within the last seven days, there is even more reason as to why American forces should stay in Japan.

Click to expand...

the US is where it is, over 700 military bases in over 130 different countries for imperial purposes, says this non-NKorean gov't supporter, and non-communist.

how difficult is it for people living in Japan to make the connection that it is only logical for a country like NKorea to want to aquire a deterant to the beast that invades countries that obviously did not have such weapons, Iraq...
and has put the world on notice that it is their policy to invade any country they see fit.

The new amended constitution may allow collective defense, meaning even when Japan is not the direct victim of an attack, Japan will provide military assistance to another country (i.e. the USA) under attack. Collective defense involves risks, if the US is at war, Japan will also get pulled into war, and will have to fight a war that is not even her own. It's just like another WW, this time allied with the US.

Sukotto said:

aren't all militaries supposed to be not for offensive purposes? so they want to be, what? to use their military for other than defensive purposes? i.e. to commit war crimes? which is what offensive war is, by definition.

Click to expand...

The best defense is a good offense, some say. Pre-emption for one country is an offense for another.☝

Without reading into all the other posts in this thread, I just want to put this out there. This is just my opinion, so take it as that.

I have always felt that being stationed in Japan or Korea while serving in the US Military ( Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines), should be optional, not mandatory or forced. ALot of the problems that arise from stupid/drunk AMerican military come from people who don't want to be there in the first place. Before I left for Korea in 2005, I heard alot of soldiers asking the recruits if they drank, and if they were going to Korea, they will be doing a lot of it. I heard the same thing back in my days in the Marines regarding Japan. That's the WRONG attitude. The only thing I hated about being in Korea, was being in the Army in Korea. It's a beautiful place as long as you're not military, because you're not bound by ridiculous restrictions, and that kills it for alot of people. The same goes for Japan. Put people there who want to be there, and the attitude toward American Military presence would likely do a 180* flip.

I'm not claiming to be the saviour of anti-US discontent, but I will make the claim that had it not been for me damn near dragging a couple of buddies from the barracks on saturday mornings and showing them what Korea was like outside of where we lived, they would have been miserable. Some of them volunteered to stay another year, just because they liked it there. The same thing happened in Japan, only it was too late for me to extend there, but someone drug me from my barracks room and took me out around the island of Okinawa, and I fell in love with a beautiful Japanese girl in the process. I miss those days...

Anyways, I think that if they made Asian tours of duty optional instead of forced, things would be different there. There's an entire generation here who would love to visit Japan or Korea, and the US Dept. of Defense can give them a free tour for a year, if they use it right.

That's my veiw. Thanks.

Of course the Americans need to stay, plus the Americans won't leave. With the escalating probability of disaster between North Korea. It's a no brainy

Sukotto said:

how difficult is it for people living in Japan to make the connection that it is only logical for a country like NKorea to want to aquire a deterant to the beast that invades countries that obviously did not have such weapons, Iraq...and has put the world on notice that it is their policy to invade any country they see fit.

Click to expand...

Sorry,
this sounds kind of stupid, like i'm so smart. lame of me, of course.
Maybe as hard as it is for US citizens.
Governments always need an external enemy to take the public's eyes
off of domestic problems and away from watching the powerful (& rich).
I'm not sure the media situation in Japan, but in the US over 95% of
all media: tv, newspapers, book & magazine publishers, movies, radio stations, etc. are owned by something like 4-6 huge corporations. Thus Phil Donahue, probably the lone commentator voice against the Iraq war in the major media before in invasion took place, was booted off of MSNBC because they were afraid of ratings.
And if you take a look at guests, the greatest proportion are white males. (straight I might add).

diceke said:

The best defense is a good offense, some say. Pre-emption for one country is an offense for another.☝

Click to expand...

Pre-emptive war would not be offensive necessarily.
Pre-emptive is if there were troops actually lining up to cross the border to attack and the future defensive country attacks first.

Preventive war on the other hand, is if you think some day in the future someone might attack you. Clearly offensive.

And offensive war is still a war crime.



The latter one is what Bush did in Iraq,
since Iraq was not gearing up to attack anyone and was not involved in any attack against the US.

Another cause for trouble from US troops in Asia is the fact that the Army considers Korea a hardship tour, meaning families are not authorized to live there by government means. The Marines consider Okinawa a hardship tour, at least they did back in '92. And I haven't seen anyone mention anything about how US Troops contribute to crimes such as prostitution and drugs, as well as human trafficking, but it's all the result of leadership failure from the higher ranks.

They're basically tossing gasoline on the fire. WHen I was in Korea, we had to submit a request for a pass if we wanted to go outside the immediate area surrounding our base. It took three days to process the paperwork, so you had to have it in by tuesday if you wanted to go out on saturday. The first 30 days we were there in Korea, we weren't allowed to leave the base for any reason. So if you were new to Korea, all you could do was go get drunk. If you didn't have your pass in on time, all you could do was get drunk. And 99% of all "international incidents" were caused by alcohol abuse.

ANd then there's the sub-standard living conditions for US Troops on bases...

ANd then there's the sub-standard living conditions for US Troops on bases...

Click to expand...

Where are you refering to in Korea or Japan?

heh...anywhere, really, but Japan and Korea could be the worst. Asbestos-contaminated buildings, Housing/barracks that's falling apart, poor water quality, all the while officers live in mansions by comparison.

I was on Camp Casey in Korea, and I was at Camp Hansen, Okinawa, where I have an old friend there again now. And I probably shouldn't blend Okinawa with Japan, because for all I know, military life there could be all peaches and cream...

Arc Light said:

heh...anywhere, really, but Japan and Korea could be the worst. Asbestos-contaminated buildings, Housing/barracks that's falling apart, poor water quality, all the while officers live in mansions by comparison.
I was on Camp Casey in Korea, and I was at Camp Hansen, Okinawa, where I have an old friend there again now. And I probably shouldn't blend Okinawa with Japan, because for all I know, military life there could be all peaches and cream...

Click to expand...

Arclight I dont know the last time you were here in Okinawa but believe me the Marines, Soldiers, and Airmen here in Okinawa definetly do not live in sub-standard housing. Their living quarters are heaven compared to the days of open squadbays. I know I lived through it.

By comparison they live in hotel live accomodations, if that is substandard then I have no idea what "standard" is.

I can vouch for Korea, because I was just there. The Army barracks there as well as here in Oklahoma, are like living in a public housing project. When I was in Okinawa, our barracks were like prison cells, without the bars. They may have improved, but according to my Marine buddy over there now, they still suck. By comparison, the Air Force guys had it made.

And according to the Veterans Administration, they're still contaminated with asbestos.

The Army barracks there as well as here in Oklahoma, are like living in a public housing project. When I was in Okinawa, our barracks were like prison cells, without the bars.

Click to expand...

And that makes it substandard? It's the military. Cripes, maybe it is time for them to leave if they can"t handle living in private rooms.

And according to the Veterans Administration, they're still contaminated with asbestos.

Click to expand...

Depends on the buildings I think, the overwhelming majority of the barracks here have been built within the past 20 years or so. There maybe some offices and older structures left but housing?

If you have a website of further information could you please put it here? Thanks.

Obeika said:

And that makes it substandard? It's the military. Cripes, maybe it is time for them to leave if they can"t handle living in private rooms.
Depends on the buildings I think, the overwhelming majority of the barracks here have been built within the past 20 years or so. There mayb e some offices and older structures left but housing? If you have a website of further information could you please put it here? Thanks.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how I should take your tone, so I'll say this: being in the military does not mean that soldiers should be subjected to materials that could harm them for the rest of their life. I lived in better buildings when I was on the skids a few years back. My own father has asbestosis resulting from asbestos used in Navy ships while he was a nuke tech for the Navy, and that was back in the early 80's. ANd myself, both of my sisters and my mother were all exposed to what he brought home from work. So what you're saying is that they just learn to deal with the lead in the water pipes, the asbestos in the building materials, and be good little soldiers and do what they're told...you'll be coughing up blood, have difficulty sleeping, have numerous bouts with pneumonia and cancer, but the VA will take good care of you. And sorry about that little sarin gas thing from the first Gulf war...oops, our bad.

http://www.house.gov/hobson/bushml.htm
http://pom-ima.monterey.army.mil/sites/directorates/dpw/inc/asbestos.pdf
http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070425-043.doc
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=1681317
Is contaminated housing poisoning military families?
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-03-04.asp
http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/ellsworthhousing.asp
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10000066.2002.html

There's this website, called "Google," at www.google.com, and you type things into the text box and click on "go" and it shows you all different kinds of stuff pertaining to your search. It's really neat. Try it sometime.

Arc Light said:

....... being in the military does not mean that soldiers should be subjected to materials that could harm them for the rest of their life. I lived in better buildings when I was on the skids a few years back. My own father has asbestosis resulting from asbestos used in Navy ships while he was a nuke tech for the Navy, and that was back in the early 80's. ANd myself, both of my sisters and my mother were all exposed to what he brought home from work. So what you're saying is that they just learn to deal with the lead in the water pipes, the asbestos in the building materials, and be good little soldiers and do what they're told...you'll be coughing up blood, have difficulty sleeping, have numerous bouts with pneumonia and cancer, but the VA will take good care of you. And sorry about that little sarin gas thing from the first Gulf war...oops, our bad.

Click to expand...

You know in all sincerity I am sorry that you and your family had to deal with issues such as this, you have my sympathy.

Now then in reply to the rest, I was asking you about here in Okinawa and what you know about the situations here. I know for a fact the the Marine, Army and AirForce enlisted and family housing have been either rebuilt or are in the process of it now.

I lived in the open squadbays and know very well what the housing situation was, plus the housing that is here now has none of the asbestos issues that you are claiming. Once again I repeat here I am sorry for your family and the issues you dealt with but what does that have to do with the question I asked you?

There's this website, called "Google," at www.google.com, and you type things into the text box and click on "go" and it shows you all different kinds of stuff pertaining to your search. It's really neat. Try it sometime

Click to expand...

Sarcasm duly noted, oh and btw what do these links have to do with housing here in Okinawa? The current housing for the military here can not compare to what it was like. They have it great and on that there is no argument. Plus the issues that you raise here about asbestos, from what I understand, have NOTHING to do with the housing NOW.

Hence my question if you could provide information about HERE not every other place on the planet.

Lastly I know how to take your tone. Next time try asking for clarification instead of making assumptions about what someone is asking, particularly after writing;

I'm not sure how I should take your tone

Click to expand...

I think the US should leave country's like Japan especially since we haven't been at war or "war" with them in so many years and they're now more so allies than enemies and everything. I wouldn't mind if there were some of the military left (like maybe a very small handful of bases) and an embassy but I just don't see what the purpose is to have all these military bases there.

SouthernBelle82 said:

I think the US should leave country's like Japan especially since we haven't been at war or "war" with them in so many years and they're now more so allies than enemies and everything. I wouldn't mind if there were some of the military left (like maybe a very small handful of bases) and an embassy but I just don't see what the purpose is to have all these military bases there.

Click to expand...

Ah SouthernBelle it would be nice but there are so many other issues involved particularly concerning China, Taiwan and North Korea.

The Us presence here has also allowed Japan to develop into the country that it is today.

What bases would you leave and what bases would you suggest they shut?

Because it's not just here, or there, it's military-wide. And I ain't about to go through 300 pages of web links to get your answer. I KNOW for a fact that there were buildings on Camp Hansen that do contain lead-based paint and asbestos in the building materials. Whether or not they have been torn down or still in use, I don't know. But the HQ for 9th ESB was moved into a new building back in 1992 due to unsafe building conditions from lead paint and asbestos, only to move into a new building with the same problems.

So now I assume you can speak for ALL servicemembers living on Okinawa are in great housing? So all of the buildings that were there in 1992-93 have all been torn down and replaced by newer, safer buildings? It's odd, because during my VA Disability briefing, they asked if I had been stationed there in the last ten years, which I have not. And even stranger, is that there are folks here who just returned from Okinawa and dispute your claim that housing is all hunky-dory there. I believe that the Marines/Navy budget is about the size of the Army's (or close, but I'm guessing), and the last time I checked, single-servicemember housing isn't a priority, at least not in the last ten years.

So, prove to me that there are new buildings there, and that the old ones have been torn down. Oh wait...you said "in the process of" which means it hasn't been done yet. So you're saying that half a battalion of feild artillery Marines who were stationed at either Schwab or Hansen are all lying about there living conditions?

The photo in Google Earth is too blurry, but I can see Camp Hansen and the town of Kin enough to say that it doesn't look much different than what it did back then. I can see where there may have been old houses/buildings on Kadena AFB that could have been razed, but I know the pace at which the government works, and I do not buy for a minute that the majority of all military housing there has been cleaned or replaced with safer housing. Neither the government nor it's contractors move that fast, especially when ther was all that talk about a drawdown of US Forces there in the last few years.

I want to see picture proof. I lived in Quonset huts too, but I dare say that barracks life was a hotel in comparison. Not even close, even to this day. I'll take a metal roof, pot-belly stove and a single window AC unit, with bunks and wall lockers anyday of the week over this mold-infested dump I'm in now.

My old barracks on Hansen was Building 2445 ( I think...). I'll bet you it's still there and still in use, and that barracks was built in the 70's.

Now my coffee's cold...

Well I would keep bases that are closest to civilian life but in reality I would make that be the decision of the leader of Japan (does Japan call them a prime minister?) since they know their military strengths and all.

Obeika said:

Ah SouthernBelle it would be nice but there are so many other issues involved particularly concerning China, Taiwan and North Korea.
The Us presence here has also allowed Japan to develop into the country that it is today.
What bases would you leave and what bases would you suggest they shut?

Click to expand...

I also wanted to say I know my answer sounds like a cop-out to the question but that's just my answer. I'm not some military expert and won't pretend to be.