HabboxWiki needs you!
Are you a Habbo buff? Or maybe a rare trader with a bunch of LTDs? Get involved with HabboxWiki to share your knowledge!
Join our team!
Whether you're raving for rares, excited for events or happy helping, there's something for you! Click here to apply
Need a helping hand?
Check out our guides for all things to help you make friends, make rooms, and make money!


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neversoft View Post
    Right old armchair warrior, aren't you. Japan will never develop nuclear weapons.
    Better an armchair warrior than a knock off mystic meg.

    Not that I even said Japan would develop nuclear weapons but it is widely known that Japan has the capacity, with nuclear material and technology, to develop nuclear weapons in a very short space of time should it ever need to much in the same way that Saudi Arabia has a secret-but-not-so-secret deal with Pakistan to purchase nuclear weapons in the event of Iran developing them.

    Geopolitics can change very quickly. If America ever waivers in the Orient, then Japan will go nuclear. If I were Japanese myself, I would advocate an independent nuclear arsenal anyway from the perspective that it is never a good idea to outsource your defence.



  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neversoft View Post
    They don't. Japan's sovereignty was restored many decades ago. Also, to describe two of the most affluent nations on the planet as 'basically just US outposts' is comical.
    Perhaps a slight exaggeration to call them outposts, but the US does have a relatively large military influence in Japan.
    Technically article 9 of their constitution does forbid a military and also the ability to wage war. So yes, they are limited in regards to an "outward" military and by the looks of it, some even think the JSDF are in breach.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    19,678
    Tokens
    9,053

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    Better an armchair warrior than a knock off mystic meg.
    Aren't you both?

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    If America ever waivers in the Orient, then Japan will go nuclear.
    Is this a fact, is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    If I were Japanese myself, I would advocate an independent nuclear arsenal anyway from the perspective that it is never a good idea to outsource your defence.
    No. If you were Japanese, you would be an entirely different person. You're speaking as a Briton who thinks this is what Japan should do.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    Perhaps a slight exaggeration to call them outposts, but the US does have a relatively large military influence in Japan.
    Technically article 9 of their constitution does forbid a military and also the ability to wage war. So yes, they are limited in regards to an "outward" military and by the looks of it, some even think the JSDF are in breach.
    I can read Wikipedia, too. Although the Constitution came into effect following the war, it is something which the US has no control of. Any 'restrictions' today are entirely self-imposed, and they are by no means forbidden to wage war (only to involve themselves in international conflicts), and the SDF is a military. The 'some' you refer to is an outdated quote, since new legislation was pushed through following the correct channels two years ago. The constitution was amended.

    The US has several military bases in Japan, but I would certainly not describe them as an 'influence' — strange choice of word. The US has a military presence around the world, even in the UK. As for South Korea, their own army is more than ten times the size of ours. They still employ conscription and mandatory service. The US military bases in those countries are just a droplet compared to their own forces. The only bases in Japan which are constantly scrutinised are the ones in Okinawa, which are seen as an oppressive and unwanted presence due to their size and proximity, given how small the island is.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neversoft View Post
    I can read Wikipedia, too. Although the Constitution came into effect following the war, it is something which the US has no control of. Any 'restrictions' today are entirely self-imposed, and they are by no means forbidden to wage war (only to involve themselves in international conflicts), and the SDF is a military. The 'some' you refer to is an outdated quote, since new legislation was pushed through following the correct channels two years ago. The constitution was amended.

    The US has several military bases in Japan, but I would certainly not describe them as an 'influence' — strange choice of word. The US has a military presence around the world, even in the UK. As for South Korea, their own army is more than ten times the size of ours. They still employ conscription and mandatory service. The US military bases in those countries are just a droplet compared to their own forces. The only bases in Japan which are constantly scrutinised are the ones in Okinawa, which are seen as an oppressive and unwanted presence due to their size and proximity, given how small the island is.
    I mean, if you can read Wikipedia then you would have been the mention of constitutional ambiguity about the JSDF which is aimed to be amended in 2020 (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...-constitution/). Article 9 still very much there: http://japan.kantei.go.jp/constituti.../frame_01.html.
    I also wasn't saying the US had control of their constitution, but it should be fairly obvious an "occupied" Japan would have had some US/allies influence or pressure.

    Also yes the US does have a military presence around the world I know, but if you look at the number of US troops on foreign soil, their presence in Japan is the largest (http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-mil...17-3?r=US&IR=T). Not really sure why you seem to suggest that they have no influence because they have troops everywhere. If anything, it suggests to me the scope of their influence. I'm also not really sure why you're suggesting that, because only a few thousand troops are present, that it shows no influence? We should also bear in mind that modern militaries are more than the number of soldiers at this point.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    19,678
    Tokens
    9,053

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    I also wasn't saying the US had control of their constitution, but it should be fairly obvious an "occupied" Japan would have had some US/allies influence or pressure.
    Well, you kind of did, by saying they have restrictions in place from World War II, which was over seventy years ago. Japan is a sovereign nation — has been for a very long time — and is in control of its own laws and practices. Pure and simple. I'm not trying to debate and altercate, but what you said was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    Also yes the US does have a military presence around the world I know, but if you look at the number of US troops on foreign soil, their presence in Japan is the largest (http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-mil...17-3?r=US&IR=T). Not really sure why you seem to suggest that they have no influence because they have troops everywhere. If anything, it suggests to me the scope of their influence. I'm also not really sure why you're suggesting that, because only a few thousand troops are present, that it shows no influence? We should also bear in mind that modern militaries are more than the number of soldiers at this point.
    Tell me, then, how are these US bases influencing Japan? Are you telling me they have an input in the running of the country? Do they have a place within the government? To what extent are they involved? Let's also not ignore the fact that you called Japan "a US outpost," which is by definition 'a small military camp positioned away from the main army,' and now you're telling me their presence is substantial enough to influence a country? Which is it?

  6. #16
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neversoft View Post
    Is this a fact, is it?
    Why yes, yes it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    While there are currently no known plans in Japan to produce nuclear weapons, it has been argued Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and many analysts consider it a de facto nuclear state for this reason. For this reason Japan is often said to be a "screwdriver's turn" away from possessing nuclear weapons, or to possess a "bomb in the basement".

    Japan was reported in 2012 to have 9 tonnes of plutonium in Japan, enough for more than 1,000 nuclear warheads, and an additional 35 tonnes stored in Europe.

    In 2011, former Minister of Defense Shigeru Ishiba explicitly backed the idea of Japan maintaining the capability of nuclear latency:

    "I don't think Japan needs to possess nuclear weapons, but it's important to maintain our commercial reactors because it would allow us to produce a nuclear warhead in a short amount of time ... It's a tacit nuclear deterrent"
    Key pillar of Japanese security is American backing and pivot East policy. Should that ever waiver or disappear then Japan is well prepared to assemble nuclear weapons in no time at all - and will do. That isn't by accident either, it is by design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neversoft
    No. If you were Japanese, you would be an entirely different person. You're speaking as a Briton who thinks this is what Japan should do.
    No, i'm speaking in regards to future geopolitics and realpolitik.



  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    19,678
    Tokens
    9,053

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Christ. I can't even take you seriously. God have mercy on your soul, because you're a real loony.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neversoft View Post
    Well, you kind of did, by saying they have restrictions in place from World War II, which was over seventy years ago. Japan is a sovereign nation — has been for a very long time — and is in control of its own laws and practices. Pure and simple. I'm not trying to debate and altercate, but what you said was wrong.
    Self imposed restrictions then

    Tell me, then, how are these US bases influencing Japan? Are you telling me they have an input in the running of the country? Do they have a place within the government? To what extent are they involved? Let's also not ignore the fact that you called Japan "a US outpost," which is by definition 'a small military camp positioned away from the main army,' and now you're telling me their presence is substantial enough to influence a country? Which is it?
    I'm not suggesting the bases themselves have influence over Japan, rather it just indicates some degree of influence. The US is a large country (obviously) who has their fingers in many pies and I'm sure Japan gets something out of the arrangement.
    I wasn't trying to imply that Japan is under their thumb, but you can't deny US influence on Japan in many ways. Not to say the reverse isn't try to some degree. However, should Japan initiate a war (which I'm sure won't happen), then I can't imagine the US being particularly happy without some degree of consultation. Obviously I was wrong to call them outposts, but I can imagine it's a rather complex set up.
    Last edited by dbgtz; 15-09-2017 at 11:52 PM.
    Like Neversoft Liked

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    19,678
    Tokens
    9,053

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    Self imposed restrictions then



    I'm not suggesting the bases themselves have influence over Japan, rather it just indicates some degree of influence. The US is a large country (obviously) who has their fingers in many pies and I'm sure Japan gets something out of the arrangement.
    I wasn't trying to imply that Japan is under their thumb, but you can't deny US influence on Japan in many ways. Not to say the reverse isn't try to some degree. However, should Japan initiate a war (which I'm sure won't happen), then I can't imagine the US being particularly happy without some degree of consultation. Obviously I was wrong to call them outposts, but I can imagine it's a rather complex set up.
    Fair enough. I agree Japan must be getting something out of it, but I think it's also partly the nature of the US. Even before Trump, who is famously outspoken, Obama went and dipped his fingers in Brexit. America likes to be in charge, even when they have no actual power or jurisdiction to change anything. I think this is slowly changing, though. Especially in South Korea, which had a devious relationship with the US from the Korean War up until it's democratisation, but now you mostly have Trump running his mouth telling people what they should do. However, I think most outside influence is purely perceived — the real politics happens in a shady back room.
    Like dbgtz Liked

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •