[JohnRawls]

Well, if Japan got rid of article 9 I am guessing the US presence there would be kind of redundant. I do think it will eventually happen, even if the US ultimately is allowed to stay.

It wouldn't because Japan needs allies in the same way as Europe or America

[wat0n]

It wouldn't because Japan needs allies in the same way as Europe or America

But not necessarily at the same levels and, furthermore, could be in a position not to have American troops in the country. It'd be up to them, basically. And yes, you could say it is up to them even now, but I think we can agree it would be suicidal to ask the US to remove its troops from Japan.

I do believe it's unlikely Japan would just renounce to have America's back. It'd rather keep the bases there AND a far larger domestic military power.

[late]

But not necessarily at the same levels and, furthermore, could be in a position not to have American troops in the country. It'd be up to them, basically. And yes, you could say it is up to them even now, but I think we can agree it would be suicidal to ask the US to remove its troops from Japan.

I do believe it's unlikely Japan would just renounce to have America's back. It'd rather keep the bases there AND a far larger domestic military power.

During the Trump years Japan signed an agreement that was not good for them, to keep us as allies. China has been an enemy for centuries, and it is much, much larger than Japan.

Having American troops there is symbolic. If there is an attack on Japan, we're in.

[wat0n]

During the Trump years Japan signed an agreement that was not good for them, to keep us as allies. China has been an enemy for centuries, and it is much, much larger than Japan.

Having American troops there is symbolic. If there is an attack on Japan, we're in.

It's not just symbolic if there are American troops in Japan.

[Beren]

If China invaded Japan, would France fight WWIII with China to stop it?

It depends on if how that invasion would happen. They'd most likely join up with a US-led international military coalition and do something about it if it appeared to be illegitimate and got condemned by the UNGA, I guess.

[late]

It's not just symbolic if there are American troops in Japan.

It's both.

We've walked away from conflicts before..

[wat0n]

It depends on if how that invasion would happen. They'd most likely join up with a US-led international military coalition and do something about it if it appeared to be illegitimate and got condemned by the UNGA, I guess.

Not the commitment required for accepting Japan in NATO then.

It's both.

We've walked away from conflicts before..

The damage done to American credibility to walk away from an attack against a country housing its troops would be irreversible.

[Beren]

Not the commitment required for accepting Japan in NATO then.

If we're realistic, China would invade Japan only either because of Taiwan or if they were attacked by or from Japan somehow, in either case of which would the French not go to war with China (for Japan). The French won't go to war (with China) for Taiwan anyways and they also won't go to war with China if they just retaliate somehow, so they won't take part in any global NATO thing (including Japan) at all. In my opinion they don't mean to participate in any East Asian military conflicts whatsoever unless China goes berserk for no legitimate reason.

[wat0n]

If we're realistic, China would invade Japan only either because of Taiwan or if they were attacked by or from Japan somehow, in either case of which would the French not go to war with China (for Japan). The French won't go to war (with China) for Taiwan anyways and they also won't go to war with China if they just retaliate somehow, so they won't take part in any global NATO thing (including Japan) at all. In my opinion they don't mean to participate in any East Asian military conflicts whatsoever unless China goes berserk for no legitimate reason.

Then Japan won't be joining NATO.

[Beren]

Then Japan won't be joining NATO.

I guess not.

[late]

Then Japan won't be joining NATO.

This idea was kicked around some time ago, and firmly rejected.

Participating in a crisis could happen, but there is simply no chance NATO will let in any Asian country.

[QatzelOk]

With China not caring about its relationship with Europe and siding with Russia ...

I like this opening clause because it highlights how "caring about Europe" means you have to hate and hurt particular targeted nations.

The West: "You can only be friends of us if you agree to hate the unpopular girls we loath and make fun of."

It reminds me of a podcast I recently listened to about the creation of the EU (steel and coal alliance). In the podcast, it's reported that the EU was formed to give Europe more influence over world politics.

This is the same Europe, of course, that genocided half the continents on the planet.... wanting MOAR influence than it already has. (This already over-sized influence, of course, includes its genocide-created sister nations in North America, Australia, and Israel).

[late]

I like this opening clause because it highlights how "caring about Europe" means you have to hate and hurt particular targeted nations.

The West: "You can only be friends of us if you agree to hate the unpopular girls we loath and make fun of."

It reminds me of a podcast I recently listened to about the creation of the EU (steel and coal alliance). In the podcast, it's reported that the EU was formed to give Europe more influence over world politics.

This is the same Europe, of course, that genocided half the continents on the planet.... wanting MOAR influence than it already has. (This already over-sized influence, of course, includes its genocide-created sister nations in North America, Australia, and Israel).

The EU was formed for a bunch of reasons. World politics wasn't one of the biggies...

Russia started a war, people are picking sides. Try to focus, you've been all over the place lately.

[QatzelOk]

World politics wasn't one of the biggies...

So a continental alliance where world politics wasn't one of the biggies?

You need to prove this, because it's not logical or likely.

[late]

So a continental alliance where world politics wasn't one of the biggies?

You need to prove this, because it's not logical or likely.

NATO already handled the Cold War.

They got together to be more economically competitive with the USA. That's the global context.

[QatzelOk]

NATO already handled the Cold War.

They got together to be more economically competitive with the USA. That's the global context.

Okay, I get it.

You can't prove your last point, so you're diverting attention with yet more hearsay that looks good on paper because the words are spelled correctly. Though the point you made (world influence is not one of the biggies) is disproven by your next post (more competitive with other world powers).

World Influence was THE HUGE BIGGIE. And you proved it yourself. Now go take a well deserved nap.

[late]

Okay, I get it.

You were talking about exerting influence, the EU was the continent forming a economic union to defend against economic challenges, the idea was to protect themselves. It's not far from the opposite of your assertion.

They already had NATO, and each country has their own national agenda.

[Political Interest]

The West should stay out of East Asian affairs.

There is no reason for Europe to be making defence commitments in the Far East!

[QatzelOk]

The West should stay out of East Asian affairs.

There is no reason for Europe to be making defence commitments in the Far East!

Europe is just "increasing its influence." What else was the EU created for?
When drugged out teenagers "get together" to form gangs, they're just increasing their influence. It's totally legit, as far as the EU is concerned. Gangs are what Michel Foucault described as "vascular power." Creating a current by syncronizing the behavior of a gang of humans.

It's like when every USA politician talks about the importance of "maintaining USA leadership."

These are all dog whistles for "supremacy of the world's nations," and it's always being promoted by oligarchs who have no real loyalty to any particular nation. They just like to use them to weaken the working classes of one another.

NATO expansion to Asia means: "We're worried about our sweatshops being nationalized so...."

[Political Interest]

Europe is just "increasing its influence." What else was the EU created for?
When drugged out teenagers "get together" to form gangs, they're just increasing their influence. It's totally legit, as far as the EU is concerned. Gangs are what Michel Foucault described as "vascular power." Creating a current by syncronizing the behavior of a gang of humans.

It's like when every USA politician talks about the importance of "maintaining USA leadership."

These are all dog whistles for "supremacy of the world's nations," and it's always being promoted by oligarchs who have no real loyalty to any particular nation. They just like to use them to weaken the working classes of one another.

NATO expansion to Asia means: "We're worried about our sweatshops being nationalized so...."

I had thought that the time of European involvement in East Asian affairs was long over. The end of empire is often lamented as some type of loss for Europe, but on the contrary it was a chance for Europe to know itself properly again after creating imperial identities far outside its borders. European involvement in the Far East was far from benevolent and it's probably not an episode of our history that we need to repeat. Europe (including the UK) is not America and there is little reason for it to be intimately involved in that part of the world. I see a day in future where America will leave Asia as well, once it has fulfilled its obligations to Korea and a stable post-American unified East Asia can be imagined and realised.

Trying to create adventures and empires over there is a distraction from our European reality here and now. We need to sort Europe out, make a stable and strong united continent.