New Japanese Fascism

[Kubra]

They are going to have to get over that xenophobic thing, at least enough to be expand immigration ebough to offset the population decline. What they could do is limit immigration to say Vietnam, Taiwan, China and Korea, countries with a related culture and somewhat similar appearance as a middle ground.

And they real have to boost the birth rate. ASAP

Why should populations perpetually increase?

cuz unless you turn your old folks into soylent you end up with a population in which only a fraction is productive

[Novus America]

They are going to have to get over that xenophobic thing, at least enough to be expand immigration ebough to offset the population decline. What they could do is limit immigration to say Vietnam, Taiwan, China and Korea, countries with a related culture and somewhat similar appearance as a middle ground.

And they real have to boost the birth rate. ASAP

Why should populations perpetually increase?

It does not have to perpetually increase, but it must at least be stable. If it is falling you end up with too many non productive people as a proportion of the population. Oh plus perpetual stagnatation/recession, deflation, infrastructure collapsing, and ruin.

And you like social security right? You know it only works if the population perpetually increases, right?

Japan cannot keep increasing though as they do not have the space though. But the population decline is ruining their ecnomy and causing a decline in living standards.

They need a stable population. Their birth rate is 1.4 and needs to be around 2.1.

[NERVUN]

Incoming!

Okinawans are quite annoyed about the current status. Now, note, most are happy with the alliance, it's the fact that Okinawa hosts over 70% of US forces that's the problem. If they were moved out of the prefecture, they would be MUCH happier.

Although wouldn't that negatively effect the local economy? As I understand it they make a lot of money off of US forces.

It would, yes. The recent ban on drinking by US Naval forces HURT.

Okinawans however are willing to take the hit. Now, to be fair, US forces are, by and large, well behaved and cause less crime than the Japanese themselves, but, still... I can see Okinawans' point of view here.

[NERVUN]

One of the benefits on having the Marines there (Marines do operate aircraft after all) is that it really does prevent China from getting grabby with any of the islands in dispute OR Okinawa itself.

Well ground based Marines cannot defend any island besides Okinawa itself. And Marine aircraft are mostly for close air support. But like I said keep the airbase available to surge aircraft on a as needed basis.

Any combat between China and Japan over the couple of rocks they fight over would be mostly naval and air based.
Not really much Marines with no ships would contribute to such a fight.

But with Osprey, they can be landed, quickly. The point is that China is not going to attack something that has US troops on it. It's not how much damage the Marines can accomplish, it's very much a case of China knows that if US troops are hurt, the US WILL respond.

Look, for all our statements about solidarity with Japan, the honest truth of the matter is that if Japanese territory was attacked, you would see the US waffle a bit about if or not to actually do anything. US troops under attack is a different beast and the politics of the situation demands that POTUS, no matter who, responds.

In other words, troops on Okinawa itself holds America's feet to the fire, something everyone knows and THAT acts as a shield. Japan can rest assured that the US will live up to its word. China knows the US will live up to its word, and the US gets to keep China in place due to this because we know we HAVE to live up to our word.

And a Chinese land invasion of Okinawa is simply not likely. At all.

Except China is floating trial balloons about how Okinawa historically was a vassal of China. Considering its done this before making territorial claims...

And this is a case where Japan needs to step it up. It is there island after all. If Japan is attacked we should send reinforcements to help Japan. Japanese troops need to be the first line of defense in defense of Japan.

Um... the SDF IS the first line of defense. That hasn't changed.

The Marianas are US soil, thus the US has the first responsibility of defending them. Okinawa is Japanese though. And the Okinawans themselves do not want our help defending Okinawa. Fine. They can do it themselves.

We will of course send forces to reinforce Japan in case of a war. But the US should be the back up. The primary party responsible for Japanese defense is Japan. Not the US.

The US is an ally. Not the Japanese military.

Nothing you've said precludes what I have been talking about. The SDF has always been meant as the first line of defense until the US could send more troops. That's been the battle plan for a very long time.

[NERVUN]

Well those would be ways to try to boost the birth rate. In terms of sex ed it would actually make more sense to teach it, but teach people how to get pregnant (and tell them it is a good thing to have children if married and at a suitable age) instead of just avoiding it if you want to go that route. There are more moderate ways to boost the birth rate than simply go to extreme conservatism.

They've tried that... it SO did not go over well.

But boosting the birth rate is more than just laws. It is changing social attitudes. Many Japanese are not interested in relationships or sex at all. Also Japanese workplace culture is still very hostile to having children. You need to make sure people want to have and can afford children.

BTW, the Japanese are NOT disinterested in relationships nor sex! That is a serious misreporting of the problem over here.

Look, the sex industry is GROWING and by and large, most Japanese still WANT to get married. So obviously they're still interested in sex and getting hitched.

What is happening is that Japan has some very, hrmm, practical ideas when it comes to marriage. Love is almost beside the point. To that end, many women are stating that they are not interested in guys who make less than 40k a year... and many young men, due to the economy and non-full time job positions, are making nowhere near that and are well aware of women's views on the subject. Since casual dating is still kinda not a thing (I.e. most relationships are with an eye towards marriage), it's a matter of guys feeling like why bother and women feeling the same. Birth out of wedlock is almost unthinkable still as well.

Then, yes, add in Japan's working environment which is very family unfriendly and... So it's very much a point of they want to, but they don't see it happening, so why try? Very practical, and typically Japanese.

[NERVUN]

Because currently the opposition parties suck. And suck badly.

To say nothing of the horribly broken Japanese election system, and the Supreme Court that rules it "unconstitutional" without the election results actually being invalidated.

But do they really suck that badly? I hear about it, but how can they be "bad" when they're up against this kind of shit or this shit? Are people just that disappointed with the few years the DPJ had in government, or something like that?

It didn't help that the DPJ broke most of their election promises, their governments were even MORE unstable than the previous LDP ones, and the Great Eastern Japan quake and Fukushima disaster happened on their watch... and they did poorly.

No, they really are bad. Abe SHOULD have been vulnerable. If this had been a US election, he would have been eaten for lunch as poll after poll after poll says that what the people are concerned about is the economy and NO ONE believes that Abenomics is working. Abe, at the time, was running on Abenomics. All they had to do was ask the question, are you really better off after this many years of Abe? Do you have more money in your pocket, or less?

What DID the run on? "Please elect us so that we can block constitutional changes!"

That was it. Yes, it was that silly. Nothing about the issues that actually mattered to people, nothing about jobs, nothing about income equality, nadda. They had no solutions so over here there was a lot of sighing and voting for the LDP with complaints that while they don't like Abe, they don't think his plan is working, and they certainly don't agree with changing the constitution, Abe is the only one who is saying "I have a plan!" which is SOME kind of direction as opposed to the DP which seems to be "We have no plan, but we're not Abe!"

There's so much wrong with this thread though, I don't even know where to start!

Give it a try.

Oh alright.

Few points, Japan was never a fascist country in the first place. Many of the militarists in power admired the Fascists, but it was never put into place during that time period, so you can't claim a new Japanese fascism.

2, The LDP's draft constitution is (most likely) a dead document. The politics over here are a bit murky, as much as it's been touted that the LDP has the power to get what it wants and the LDP leadership belongs to that ultra-right group, there's a few things stopping it. One, the public at large is very suspicious of changing the document, especially Article 9. Right now, any referendum will fail. Also, the LDP's majority is based on other parties, all of which have their own agenda. Specifically, New Komito is strongly against doing ANYTHING to article 9 and is also (as a Buddhist lay group) a bit at odds over the position of the emperor. I'm not sure how much of a check they will be on the LDP, but for article 9, they will dig in their heels. They have before after all.

My forecast is that given as many stakeholders that Abe needs to get ANY kind of change through the Diet AND with public opposition high, the changes are not going to materialize. I have a feeling that things are going to get seriously bogged down as all groups have stated that they will go along with this... for a price, their own pet amendments. But put too much in front of the public and their reaction will probably be outright rejection. It's gonna be a mess. What it more worrying is that right now, the LDP can easily skate around the issue with the majorities it commands in the Diet, and Abe has shown just how much he believes in doing so. THAT is what worries me.

3, The SDF is a military, kinda. There are a LOT of restraints on it, and honestly, the Japanese public doesn't feel the need to have a 'normal' military. There's a lot of fear that a 'normal' military means that Japanese troops will be dragged into wars that do nothing for Japan and everything for the US in places like Iraq. As it is, a lot of US pressure is simply because they want Japan to contribute troops to things, but is that really in Japan's interest? Already the SDF is capable and can respond to threats to Japan, changing the name to an actual military does nothing for that.

4, Japan, at least the public, does remember what happened during WWII and has no desire to repeat that, no matter what the conservatives say. That should be noted, Japan today is not the same as Japan 70 years ago.

[Novus America]

Well ground based Marines cannot defend any island besides Okinawa itself. And Marine aircraft are mostly for close air support. But like I said keep the airbase available to surge aircraft on a as needed basis.

Any combat between China and Japan over the couple of rocks they fight over would be mostly naval and air based.
Not really much Marines with no ships would contribute to such a fight.

But with Osprey, they can be landed, quickly. The point is that China is not going to attack something that has US troops on it. It's not how much damage the Marines can accomplish, it's very much a case of China knows that if US troops are hurt, the US WILL respond.

Look, for all our statements about solidarity with Japan, the honest truth of the matter is that if Japanese territory was attacked, you would see the US waffle a bit about if or not to actually do anything. US troops under attack is a different beast and the politics of the situation demands that POTUS, no matter who, responds.

In other words, troops on Okinawa itself holds America's feet to the fire, something everyone knows and THAT acts as a shield. Japan can rest assured that the US will live up to its word. China knows the US will live up to its word, and the US gets to keep China in place due to this because we know we HAVE to live up to our word.

And a Chinese land invasion of Okinawa is simply not likely. At all.

Except China is floating trial balloons about how Okinawa historically was a vassal of China. Considering its done this before making territorial claims...

And this is a case where Japan needs to step it up. It is there island after all. If Japan is attacked we should send reinforcements to help Japan. Japanese troops need to be the first line of defense in defense of Japan.

Um... the SDF IS the first line of defense. That hasn't changed.

The Marianas are US soil, thus the US has the first responsibility of defending them. Okinawa is Japanese though. And the Okinawans themselves do not want our help defending Okinawa. Fine. They can do it themselves.

We will of course send forces to reinforce Japan in case of a war. But the US should be the back up. The primary party responsible for Japanese defense is Japan. Not the US.

The US is an ally. Not the Japanese military.

Nothing you've said precludes what I have been talking about. The SDF has always been meant as the first line of defense until the US could send more troops. That's been the battle plan for a very long time.

If you just want a minimum "trip wire" deterrent, and I can see your argument for that, there is still no need for the massive amounts of troops on Okinawa. Instead of 10s of thousands it could be a much smaller number.

I did propose keeping an airbase there. Keep a forward airbase and rotate through a fighter wing on a year long deployments (thus no need to send families) in times of high tensions (now would be such a time). That way you get the same deterent value yet can still remove all the Marines and the vast majority of forces there. That way it will make the Okinawans happier, eliminate most of the forces and bases there, but still keep a deterent.

I think that is a fair compromise.

Japan can deploy ground troops to Okinawa if they feel they are needed.

[NERVUN]

But with Osprey, they can be landed, quickly. The point is that China is not going to attack something that has US troops on it. It's not how much damage the Marines can accomplish, it's very much a case of China knows that if US troops are hurt, the US WILL respond.

Look, for all our statements about solidarity with Japan, the honest truth of the matter is that if Japanese territory was attacked, you would see the US waffle a bit about if or not to actually do anything. US troops under attack is a different beast and the politics of the situation demands that POTUS, no matter who, responds.

In other words, troops on Okinawa itself holds America's feet to the fire, something everyone knows and THAT acts as a shield. Japan can rest assured that the US will live up to its word. China knows the US will live up to its word, and the US gets to keep China in place due to this because we know we HAVE to live up to our word.


Except China is floating trial balloons about how Okinawa historically was a vassal of China. Considering its done this before making territorial claims...


Um... the SDF IS the first line of defense. That hasn't changed.


Nothing you've said precludes what I have been talking about. The SDF has always been meant as the first line of defense until the US could send more troops. That's been the battle plan for a very long time.

If you just want a minimum "trip wire" deterrent, and I can see your argument for that, there is still no need for the massive amounts of troops on Okinawa. Instead of 10s of thousands it could be a much smaller number.

I did propose keeping an airbase there. Keep a forward airbase and rotate through a fighter wing on a year long deployments (thus no need to send families) in times of high tensions (now would be such a time). That way you get the same deterent value yet can still remove all the Marines and the vast majority of forces there. That way it will make the Okinawans happier, eliminate most of the forces and bases there, but still keep a deterent.

I think that is a fair compromise.

Japan can deploy ground troops to Okinawa if they feel they are needed.

I'm all for moving the bulk out, but some should remain.

BTW, SDF troops ARE on Okinawa already. There's actually a lot more SDF bases all over Japan than US ones.

Hell, there's an SDF base in the middle of my city for... no particular reason as far as I have been able to tell...

[Goldwater Coast]

Was anyone else slightly nervous until they remembered that a ton of them will be too old to do any sort of fighting? I mean, it's definitely daunting, but they're also dealing with things like hikikomori and herbivore men, so I don't see how they'd be able to sustain an intimidating military for very long if they ever really end up trying, and I don't know who they'd even be able to really fight. China? Not very wise.

[Novus America]

Well ground based Marines cannot defend any island besides Okinawa itself. And Marine aircraft are mostly for close air support. But like I said keep the airbase available to surge aircraft on a as needed basis.

Any combat between China and Japan over the couple of rocks they fight over would be mostly naval and air based.
Not really much Marines with no ships would contribute to such a fight.

But with Osprey, they can be landed, quickly. The point is that China is not going to attack something that has US troops on it. It's not how much damage the Marines can accomplish, it's very much a case of China knows that if US troops are hurt, the US WILL respond.

Look, for all our statements about solidarity with Japan, the honest truth of the matter is that if Japanese territory was attacked, you would see the US waffle a bit about if or not to actually do anything. US troops under attack is a different beast and the politics of the situation demands that POTUS, no matter who, responds.

In other words, troops on Okinawa itself holds America's feet to the fire, something everyone knows and THAT acts as a shield. Japan can rest assured that the US will live up to its word. China knows the US will live up to its word, and the US gets to keep China in place due to this because we know we HAVE to live up to our word.

And a Chinese land invasion of Okinawa is simply not likely. At all.

Except China is floating trial balloons about how Okinawa historically was a vassal of China. Considering its done this before making territorial claims...

And this is a case where Japan needs to step it up. It is there island after all. If Japan is attacked we should send reinforcements to help Japan. Japanese troops need to be the first line of defense in defense of Japan.

Um... the SDF IS the first line of defense. That hasn't changed.

The Marianas are US soil, thus the US has the first responsibility of defending them. Okinawa is Japanese though. And the Okinawans themselves do not want our help defending Okinawa. Fine. They can do it themselves.

We will of course send forces to reinforce Japan in case of a war. But the US should be the back up. The primary party responsible for Japanese defense is Japan. Not the US.

The US is an ally. Not the Japanese military.

Nothing you've said precludes what I have been talking about. The SDF has always been meant as the first line of defense until the US could send more troops. That's been the battle plan for a very long time.

If you just want a minimum "trip wire" deterrent, and I can see your argument for that, there is still no need for the massive amounts of troops on Okinawa. Instead of 10s of thousands it could be a much smaller number.

I did propose keeping an airbase there. Keep a forward airbase and rotate through a fighter wing on a year long deployments (thus no need to send families) in times of high tensions (now would be such a time). That way you get the same deterent value yet can still remove all the Marines and the vast majority of forces there. That way it will make the Okinawans happier, eliminate most of the forces and bases there, but still keep a deterent.

I think that is a fair compromise.

Japan can deploy ground troops to Okinawa if they feel they are needed.

[Rio Cana]

They had this on the news last week. With this win, some members of the ruling political party hope to change the constitution to allow Japan to wage war. On this news program, they had a family who was against this. She did not want her son to be conscripted in the future in any war. So if there is a referendum this family would vote "No". Has for the resurfacing of militaristic groups in Japan the word "resurfacing" says it all. They say that after the end of WW II, Japan was no longer on the US radar but the Soviets were on the radar. So the US got rid of a few bigwig Japanese militarists/politicians for public consumption while secretly recruiting former Japanese militarist/politicians in the new fight against the Soviets. So these groups stayed low and helped the US rebuild and run Japan. Some of them waiting for the opportunity to resurface and continue on with there militaristic beliefs while doing illegal things at times.

Has time goes on there will be less Japanese who lived through WW II devastated Japan. Some say hearing about it or seeing it on TV is not the same has living through it. So modern Japanese could fall into the same political trap there great grandparents fell into.

Read this - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... twar_x.htm

[NERVUN]

Has time goes on there will be less Japanese who lived through WW II devastated Japan. Some say hearing about it or seeing it on TV is not the same has living through it. So modern Japanese could fall into the same political trap there great grandparents fell into.

Could, but very, very unlikely baring a massive shift. Japan is not the same as 70 years ago, no matter how much the extreme right wishes to make it so.

[Novus America]

They had this on the news last week. With this win, some members of the ruling political party hope to change the constitution to allow Japan to wage war. On this news program, they had a family who was against this. She did not want her son to be conscripted in the future in any war. So if there is a referendum this family would vote "No". Has for the resurfacing of militaristic groups in Japan the word "resurfacing" says it all. They say that after the end of WW II, Japan was no longer on the US radar but the Soviets were on the radar. So the US got rid of a few bigwig Japanese militarists/politicians for public consumption while secretly recruiting former Japanese militarist/politicians in the new fight against the Soviets. So these groups stayed low and helped the US rebuild and run Japan. Some of them waiting for the opportunity to resurface and continue on with there militaristic beliefs while doing illegal things at times.

Has time goes on there will be less Japanese who lived through WW II devastated Japan. Some say hearing about it or seeing it on TV is not the same has living through it. So modern Japanese could fall into the same political trap there great grandparents fell into.

Read this - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... twar_x.htm

This is very misleading.
As I said before.
Moreover the proposed change does actually keep the pacifism clause
http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/how-spec ... stitution/
The changes still state the military can only be used in self defense and in accordance with the UN charter, and that Japan would still be prohibited from declaring war.

The proposed change still bans Japan waging any war except in defense.
This is not going back to empire. And as has been pointed out many times, Japan could not do so even if the wanted to.

Japan no longer has the relative economic nor demographic strength to be the threat it was.

[Internationalist Bastard]

To be hinest, I'd just lift some of the limits on JDF rather then rebuild the old system, but that's me

[Novus America]

To be hinest, I'd just lift some of the limits on JDF rather then rebuild the old system, but that's me

Which is is exactly what the LDP has proposed. They are not proposing to return to the 1930s.

[Internationalist Bastard]

To be hinest, I'd just lift some of the limits on JDF rather then rebuild the old system, but that's me

Which is is exactly what the LDP has proposed. They are not proposing to return to the 1930s.

Then it's reasonable. But the whole "we did nothing wrong" bit that's attached with it...

[Novus America]

Which is is exactly what the LDP has proposed. They are not proposing to return to the 1930s.

Then it's reasonable. But the whole "we did nothing wrong" bit that's attached with it...

Yeah, I agree. That part bothers me too. But the proposed constitutional change of article 9 is very reasonable.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/how-spec ... stitution/

And still prohibits Japan from starting wars.

Germany has an official military, and that has not sent the back to the Nazi era. People are blowing this way out of proportion. If Italy and Germany can have an official military so can Japan end the legal fiction of claiming they do not have a military when they cleary do.

[NERVUN]

Then it's reasonable. But the whole "we did nothing wrong" bit that's attached with it...

Yeah, I agree. That part bothers me too. But the proposed constitutional change of article 9 is very reasonable.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/how-spec ... stitution/

And still prohibits Japan from starting wars.

Germany has an official military, and that has not sent the back to the Nazi era. People are blowing this way out of proportion. If Italy and Germany can have an official military so can Japan end the legal fiction of claiming they do not have a military when they cleary do.

The main problem with the LDP's idea is that it very clearly takes out a lot of rights and replaces them with duties. THAT is worrying.

Also, it's proposed Article 9 lacks a number of safeguards.

[Novus America]

Yeah, I agree. That part bothers me too. But the proposed constitutional change of article 9 is very reasonable.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/how-spec ... stitution/

And still prohibits Japan from starting wars.

Germany has an official military, and that has not sent the back to the Nazi era. People are blowing this way out of proportion. If Italy and Germany can have an official military so can Japan end the legal fiction of claiming they do not have a military when they cleary do.

The main problem with the LDP's idea is that it very clearly takes out a lot of rights and replaces them with duties. THAT is worrying.

Also, it's proposed Article 9 lacks a number of safeguards.

Well I was talking purely from the foreign policy perspective. As I said early little will change for those outside Japan. Numerous other proposed provisions that apply to domestic policies would reduce political and civil rights. I can see where those could be a big concern.

The article 9 revision on the other hand I see few issues with. As far as "safeguards" go it would still restrict the Japanese military more than any other major military in the world. Germany does fine without such "safeguards". If Germany can move on and still be peaceful, so can Japan. It would still restrict Japan even more than Italy (Italy also has a no starting wars clause).

And Japan lacks the will and ability to go on foreign adventures.
The fact that it allows collective defense I think is a good thing. Alliances should be bilateral. If Japan wants the US to come to Japan's defense, Japan also most be willing to help defend the US should the US be attacked.

[Sabara]

Fringe politicians exist.

[Nayba Collective]

Novus may have a point about moving the US military presence around a bit. Better to subsidize somewhere America technically owns, where the local government wants the base and associated money. If it increases Japanese military spending, that only means more forces available as a counterweight to the ambitions (or struggles) of the CCP.

As for Japanese working culture - if you have people working even longer hours than Americans, when are they going to have time to find a spouse, settle down, and get married? It's got to be a serious drag on Japanese domestic consumption, too. It sounds like one of those scenarios where everyone attempts to simultaneously save more than they produce, which doesn't work.

[Shin Kanai]

As a side note, I do feel like it would be pertinent to mention that the Japanese government does pay for the U.S troops to be stationed in Okinawa, and I'm willing to bet that the economic benefits that America receives from that would be greater than stationing marines in the Marianas, or at the very least would off-set the cost of them, whereas stationing them in Guam would do very little to help the actual American economy, and I don't see it potentially having any of the positive strategical affects that having forces stationed in Okinawa would have as most ships have the range to easily circumnavigate around it, heck even a frigate could probably do it.

I did go to Tokyo once, and while I was there, there were black vans which said things which I couldn't understand (not being Japanese etc. etc.) but could tell that they were far-right due to the presence of an Imperial flag, as opposed to the new Japanese Hinomaru. most people who where passing by laughed or smirked at the people in the vans, and a Japanese man who didn't look too old told me he was sad that I had seen that.

I do feel like it would also be relevant to mention that from 2009-2012, the LDP, was not elected and instead the DPJ, was elected, thus showing that Japan is not a one party state, and that if the populace is riled enough they will be willing to have change.

Also, I'm confused about how people are saying Abe is a denialist or something, I'm sure that Abe has apologise profusely to all the countries it has ever done something wrong to do and then goes on a rant saying something like "the sins of our fathers are not held accountable by the son's" Which seems reasonable enough to me. If I'm completely honest I don't like Abe, mainly due to different political views, but just because I may lean on the other side of a spectrum doesn't mean I will call anyone right of me a Fascist.

While I may not agree with the enlargement of an army which should be nearly redundant, seeing as Japan's largest import and export partner is China, and China is very similar with it exporting the 3rd most goods of all countries to Japan and importing the 2nd most from Japan, I dare say that the countries have become far too reliant to blow nothing more than hot air at each other, I wouldn't say that it being expanded is the rise of a new fascism, in the similar way to how I loath the rewnewment of Trident, however would not go so far as to say we are experiencing a new cold war, such an assumption is abhorrently silly at best. anyway I hope this bloody post dies down soon, it's a bore, but always in the latest forum topics.

[George Rockwell]

Good.

[NERVUN]

The main problem with the LDP's idea is that it very clearly takes out a lot of rights and replaces them with duties. THAT is worrying.

Also, it's proposed Article 9 lacks a number of safeguards.

Well I was talking purely from the foreign policy perspective. As I said early little will change for those outside Japan. Numerous other proposed provisions that apply to domestic policies would reduce political and civil rights. I can see where those could be a big concern.

The article 9 revision on the other hand I see few issues with. As far as "safeguards" go it would still restrict the Japanese military more than any other major military in the world. Germany does fine without such "safeguards". If Germany can move on and still be peaceful, so can Japan. It would still restrict Japan even more than Italy (Italy also has a no starting wars clause).

See, I have some big ones. Let me use your article for a second:

Clause 1, entitled “Pacifism” (revised):
This clause asserts that the revision maintains Japan’s long-held “pacifism” and renounces both war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat and use of force as means of settling international disputes. An official LDP FAQ states that the implication is that “war” (sensō) and “aggressive use of force” (shinryaku mokuteki ni yoru buryoku kōshi) will remain prohibited.
Significantly, it makes explicit what Cabinet “reinterpretations” of Article 9 have made clear: these core principles do not preclude Japan from exercising the (UN-sanctioned) right of all sovereign nations to “self-defense” (jieiken). Presumably, the LDP intends to allow both individual and collective self-defense, meaning that this revision would remove the strict conditions imposed on “limited” exercise of CSD under the July 2014 “reinterpretation” of Article 9, and leave interpretation of what actions constitute “self-defense” to the Diet. (The revised clause’s ambiguity regarding CSD could prove problematic.)

That ambiguity is more than just a bit problematic, it could be used to drive a truck through it. During the run up on the security legislation, the ONLY scenario that Abe was able to come up with as to why this needed to be done was what if Japanese citizens were on a US naval that was somehow under attack by someone and the US military was not doing anything for some odd reason but the MSDF was near-by, they COULD actually intervene.

Anyone who reads that mess starts to wonder just what world Abe was envisioning this happening in. It's nonsense. Why would Japanese citizens be on a US military vessel? Why would it be under attack? Why wouldn't the US be firing back?

Again, you're right, Japanese citizens have no wish to get involved in a war, period, but collective self-defense gets trotted out way too many times by the US as a reason why other countries should join in its wars for Japan's comfort. This kind of vague handwaveum seems to be designed to let the PM join in, regardless of the population's feelings.

In its place, the draft adds a lengthy new five-part clause stipulating that Japan will maintain a “National Defense Force” (Kokubōgun; NDF) and tasks the prime minister with commanding it to safeguard peace, independence, and the security of the nation and its people. It delineates additional NDF activities, including international cooperation activities to safeguard the “peace and security of international society,” maintain order, and protect the lives and freedoms of the Japanese people. An official LDP FAQ states that under this revision “use of force” in collective security operations would be constitutional, but legal only if allowed by Diet legislation.

Note how it's the LDP's FAQ saying this, because honestly, the control is NOT stated in the text... which is telling. Again, the control is missing to keep the PM from deciding to join in on the 'fun'.

Further asserting the principle of civilian control, this clause stipulates explicitly that the specific manner in which the NDF is employed to achieve these goals, as well as other relevant factors (its organization, control, classified secrets protection, establishment and use of military courts, etc.) will be in accordance with law and subject to approval by the Diet.

Which would sit better with me if Abe and the cabinet hadn't spent last Diet session attempting to get the bureaucrats out of control, leaving a military that answers only to the PM, who is not directly elected by the people and indeed operates outside the will of the population in many cases. The Diet has shown too many times that it is more than willing to ignore the people in order to further LDP aims because it knows it won't be punished as long as the opposition is worthless.

Clause 3, entitled “Territorial Integrity” (new):
The 2012 draft contains a one-sentence final paragraph stipulating that the state, in cooperation with the Japanese people and in order to protect its “independence and sovereignty,” must safeguard its territorial land, waters, and airspace, as well as the resources therein.

Now see, this one worries me. What does " in cooperation with the Japanese people" mean? This is where other parts of the proposed revision, the lessening of rights and the involvement of duties to the state starts taking on rather worrying meanings. This could very well be interpreted to mean Japanese people must be willing to give up their property to protect the state, or even their lives.

And Japan lacks the will and ability to go on foreign adventures.

The Japanese people do, I am not so sure about the Prime Minister, and THAT'S what scares me about this.

The fact that it allows collective defense I think is a good thing. Alliances should be bilateral. If Japan wants the US to come to Japan's defense, Japan also most be willing to help defend the US should the US be attacked.

It could be argued that a. America set up this system so we own it now and b. Exactly what is Japan supposed to do in case America gets attacked?

[Novus America]

Well I was talking purely from the foreign policy perspective. As I said early little will change for those outside Japan. Numerous other proposed provisions that apply to domestic policies would reduce political and civil rights. I can see where those could be a big concern.

The article 9 revision on the other hand I see few issues with. As far as "safeguards" go it would still restrict the Japanese military more than any other major military in the world. Germany does fine without such "safeguards". If Germany can move on and still be peaceful, so can Japan. It would still restrict Japan even more than Italy (Italy also has a no starting wars clause).

See, I have some big ones. Let me use your article for a second:

Clause 1, entitled “Pacifism” (revised):
This clause asserts that the revision maintains Japan’s long-held “pacifism” and renounces both war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat and use of force as means of settling international disputes. An official LDP FAQ states that the implication is that “war” (sensō) and “aggressive use of force” (shinryaku mokuteki ni yoru buryoku kōshi) will remain prohibited.
Significantly, it makes explicit what Cabinet “reinterpretations” of Article 9 have made clear: these core principles do not preclude Japan from exercising the (UN-sanctioned) right of all sovereign nations to “self-defense” (jieiken). Presumably, the LDP intends to allow both individual and collective self-defense, meaning that this revision would remove the strict conditions imposed on “limited” exercise of CSD under the July 2014 “reinterpretation” of Article 9, and leave interpretation of what actions constitute “self-defense” to the Diet. (The revised clause’s ambiguity regarding CSD could prove problematic.)

That ambiguity is more than just a bit problematic, it could be used to drive a truck through it. During the run up on the security legislation, the ONLY scenario that Abe was able to come up with as to why this needed to be done was what if Japanese citizens were on a US naval that was somehow under attack by someone and the US military was not doing anything for some odd reason but the MSDF was near-by, they COULD actually intervene.

Anyone who reads that mess starts to wonder just what world Abe was envisioning this happening in. It's nonsense. Why would Japanese citizens be on a US military vessel? Why would it be under attack? Why wouldn't the US be firing back?

Again, you're right, Japanese citizens have no wish to get involved in a war, period, but collective self-defense gets trotted out way too many times by the US as a reason why other countries should join in its wars for Japan's comfort. This kind of vague handwaveum seems to be designed to let the PM join in, regardless of the population's feelings.

In its place, the draft adds a lengthy new five-part clause stipulating that Japan will maintain a “National Defense Force” (Kokubōgun; NDF) and tasks the prime minister with commanding it to safeguard peace, independence, and the security of the nation and its people. It delineates additional NDF activities, including international cooperation activities to safeguard the “peace and security of international society,” maintain order, and protect the lives and freedoms of the Japanese people. An official LDP FAQ states that under this revision “use of force” in collective security operations would be constitutional, but legal only if allowed by Diet legislation.

Note how it's the LDP's FAQ saying this, because honestly, the control is NOT stated in the text... which is telling. Again, the control is missing to keep the PM from deciding to join in on the 'fun'.

Further asserting the principle of civilian control, this clause stipulates explicitly that the specific manner in which the NDF is employed to achieve these goals, as well as other relevant factors (its organization, control, classified secrets protection, establishment and use of military courts, etc.) will be in accordance with law and subject to approval by the Diet.

Which would sit better with me if Abe and the cabinet hadn't spent last Diet session attempting to get the bureaucrats out of control, leaving a military that answers only to the PM, who is not directly elected by the people and indeed operates outside the will of the population in many cases. The Diet has shown too many times that it is more than willing to ignore the people in order to further LDP aims because it knows it won't be punished as long as the opposition is worthless.

Clause 3, entitled “Territorial Integrity” (new):
The 2012 draft contains a one-sentence final paragraph stipulating that the state, in cooperation with the Japanese people and in order to protect its “independence and sovereignty,” must safeguard its territorial land, waters, and airspace, as well as the resources therein.

Now see, this one worries me. What does " in cooperation with the Japanese people" mean? This is where other parts of the proposed revision, the lessening of rights and the involvement of duties to the state starts taking on rather worrying meanings. This could very well be interpreted to mean Japanese people must be willing to give up their property to protect the state, or even their lives.

And Japan lacks the will and ability to go on foreign adventures.

The Japanese people do, I am not so sure about the Prime Minister, and THAT'S what scares me about this.

The fact that it allows collective defense I think is a good thing. Alliances should be bilateral. If Japan wants the US to come to Japan's defense, Japan also most be willing to help defend the US should the US be attacked.

It could be argued that a. America set up this system so we own it now and b. Exactly what is Japan supposed to do in case America gets attacked?

Well I would not say the draft is perfect, and could use some revisions. But I think you are being a little paranoid here.
Germany has does not have the restrictions of the Japanese constitution, yet does not go launching crazy wars. There is no reason to believe that Japan is especially militaristic and thus the only country that needs the extreme restrictions it has. Every other country does fine without such restrictions. Having Japan be more like Germany or Canada is a good thing. Neither are interested in wars, but do not have a constitution designed to make the country militarily weak.

And even if Abe wanted to launch such a war (and there is zero reason to believe he does) Japan still lacks the ability to do so. Japan could not engage in foreign adventures even if it wanted to.

And as far as collective defense goes, the US has only invoked it once, in Afghanistan. Which was perfectly legitimate as we were in fact attacked.

The US never did so in Iraq, and no US ally was bound to get involved in Iraq, many in fact did not. (Canada and Germany again). Plus Iraq is not going to happen again, the good thing about Iraq was it killed excessive US interventionism.

Yes we created the current Japanese system, but it was a mistake. And things change. Things have to change. Because Americans are growing increasing tired of collective security free loaders.
If Japan does not change, it is quite possible the US could abandon it altogether as the current arrangement is so one sided.

As far as what Japan could do if the US was attacked, is Japan could take action nearby. Japan cannot engage in distant campaigns, but can secure the air and sea around Japan. As Japan is near North Korea, China and Russia, Japan could help secure the sea and air against any of the 3.

If say Russia attacked the Baltics, Japan could help the US destroy the Russian Pacific fleet, and seize Russia's Pacific Islands. Now such a war is not likely to happen, precisely because Russia is deterred by the US military. But the whole western world cannot simply depend on the US military for deterrence. Collective security only works if the allied forces are strong. A bunch of weak countries together are still weak. Deterrence requires the countries like Russia, China and North Korea know that if they start anything, they will be beaten. Japan can play a role in that deterrence. Just as the US deters attacks on Japan, Japan can deter attacks on its allies as well. Because that is how collective security works. Collective security is by its very nature bilateral.