New Japanese Fascism

[Novus America]

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.

Ships can just as easily evade Okinawa. US Marines in Okinawa are nothing more than a sitting duck for Chinese missiles anyways. They do not have their ships with them so Okinawa is a trap that severely restricts their mobility. Having Marines in a place that cannot accommodate their amphibious assault ships is silly. Guam has a base for such ships. Okinawa does not.

Guam has a very strategically position Naval base. If you were going to keep the Marines in Japan, then move them to Sasebo.

The amount Japan pays does not nearly offset the costs, and the money goes right back into the Japanese economy. Moving the US forces to Guam and Tinian would be a huge boost for the economies of Guam and Tinian.

And it really comes down to the fact that we should not be where we are not wanted. If the Okinawans do not want us, fine. We should do what they want, as it is their land. Not ours.

[Rio Cana]

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.

But in Germany the fascist element was mostly removed and th fascist ideology cleaned out especially in the Soviet zone. In Japan it was not really like this. Germany was shaped by France, UK. US and Soviets. Japan was really left to the US which was more interested in having a Japan that would block any possible Soviet expansion in the Asian Pacific region.

[Novus America]

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.

Japanese working hours and working culture are a major problem in Japan for all the reasons you outlined. Japan needs to change that. Something Abe has taken some steps to do. But it will not be easy.

In fact Japan has fairly poor productivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_hour_worked
Japan is less productive than Italy. Long hours at low productivity are not beneficial. The objective should be to produce the most product with fewer hours. Productivity is product over man hours. Man hours is denominator. Increasing it is counterproductive in fact.

[Sabara]

-snip-

Allowing Japan to revoke Article 9/and or build up an offensive military would severely exacerbate tensions with neighboring countries, especially the ROK and China. Abe's inability to own up for past war crimes (except for that half-assed attempt to appease SK) has already left everyone in the region uneasy; a move to abolish pacifism would blow up that powder keg.

[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.

But in Germany the fascist element was mostly removed and th fascist ideology cleaned out especially in the Soviet zone. In Japan it was not really like this. Germany was shaped by France, UK. US and Soviets. Japan was really left to the US which was more interested in having a Japan that would block any possible Soviet expansion in the Asian Pacific region.

In fact they where very similar. Even the Soviets appointed former members of the Nazi regime to positions in East Germany.

Japan is in fact more pacifist and less inclined to foreign adventure than Germany is today. And again even IF Japan wanted to go crazy again, it simply could not. Japan could not be an aggressive threat even if it wanted to be. The world has completely changed. In 1940 Japan had a population of 103 million. The US only 132 million. China less than 500 million. And China was poor and weak.

Now the US has 320 million. China 1.4 billion and a much larger economy than Japan. Japan only has 120 million, and is losing a quarter of a million people a year. By 2050 it will only be 97 million.

The massive decline in Japan's relative power makes it incapable of going of on unilateral campaigns it used to. Who could Japan possibly declare war on? China? Japan would get crushed like a bug without the US. And the US would not support a unilateral Japanese attack.

[The Rich Port]

To be fair, and I'm not excusing Japanese warcrimes or saying they didn't happen, but it is true that they did liberate a lot of Asia. That Japan essentially granted them autonomy is a big reason why most of the colonial empires collapsed in the area, and it is true that the United States did wrong them in a lot ways before the war, though in fairness to that it was in not recognizing their own colonial empires like we did Europe's.

Not saying I support this platform or anything, but that Japan can take solace in that is something that I think they could do in that regard.

Sadly, Japan's contributions to peace aren't dominating the conversation.

It's this paranoia about China. Which, while I think are valid fears, we should not allow ideology to be the conversation here, but rather the facts of China's aggressive expansionism and imperialism, and the fact that THEIR conversations are often dominated by xenophobic ideology.

[Novus America]

-snip-

Allowing Japan to revoke Article 9/and or build up an offensive military would severely exacerbate tensions with neighboring countries, especially the ROK and China. Abe's inability to own up for past war crimes (except for that half-assed attempt to appease SK) has already left everyone in the region uneasy; a move to abolish pacifism would blow up that powder keg.

The proposed change again does not abolish Pacifism. And Japan would not build up an offensive military. Simply increase its defensive abilities. Which would create more stability. China preys on the weak, not the strong. If all the countries around China where strong, China would have too cease being so aggressive. China and North Korea are the ONLY aggressive countries in East Asia now. The only way to keep there aggression down is via deterrence. Deterrence comes only from strength.

The region is not a powder keg. It is a fire resilient structure. But China and North Korea still play with fire. The fact that is has not burned shows how not war prone it is. The Republic of Korea has more than adequate grounds to destroy North Korea. Vietnam and the Philippines grounds to fight China. They do not though. Because the people in those countries do not want a war. Neither does Japan.

Nobody, not even China and North Korea wants a war. China and North Korea only act as they do because they know they can get away with it.

[The Rich Port]

I was thinking that by "fire resistant" you meant more... You know, asbestos-lined.

Asia's nice and all, but it ain't exactly Western Europe... During the 90's and aughts.

[Novus America]

I was thinking that by "fire resistant" you meant more... You know, asbestos-lined.

Asia's nice and all, but it ain't exactly Western Europe... During the 90's and aughts.

Asbestos is in fact great a stopping fires, despite its other negative properties.

[The Rich Port]

I was thinking that by "fire resistant" you meant more... You know, asbestos-lined.

Asia's nice and all, but it ain't exactly Western Europe... During the 90's and aughts.

Asbestos is in fact great a stopping fires, despite its other negative properties.

Well, yeah, exactly my point.

There's no fire, but now everybody's pooping lungs.

[Rio Cana]

To be fair, and I'm not excusing Japanese warcrimes or saying they didn't happen, but it is true that they did liberate a lot of Asia. That Japan essentially granted them autonomy is a big reason why most of the colonial empires collapsed in the area, and it is true that the United States did wrong them in a lot ways before the war, though in fairness to that it was in not recognizing their own colonial empires like we did Europe's.

Not saying I support this platform or anything, but that Japan can take solace in that is something that I think they could do in that regard.

Sadly, Japan's contributions to peace aren't dominating the conversation.

It's this paranoia about China. Which, while I think are valid fears, we should not allow ideology to be the conversation here, but rather the facts of China's aggressive expansionism and imperialism, and the fact that THEIR conversations are often dominated by xenophobic ideology.

Even if China were democratic chances are most would still feel threatened by China. China is among one of the oldest civilizations around. In its 5000 years of recorded history they have generally kept to China proper. Geography, being isolated on the far end of Asia, has also shaped the way they do things. Culturally speaking , faced with a problem a European ruler might impose a solution while a Chinese ruler would look at the same problem and solve it in a different way since they would see it differently.

Read this which explains it - https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... 21.ch3.pdf

[Novus America]

Sadly, Japan's contributions to peace aren't dominating the conversation.

It's this paranoia about China. Which, while I think are valid fears, we should not allow ideology to be the conversation here, but rather the facts of China's aggressive expansionism and imperialism, and the fact that THEIR conversations are often dominated by xenophobic ideology.

Even if China were democratic chances are most would still feel threatened by China. China is among one of the oldest civilizations around. In its 5000 years of recorded history they have generally kept to China proper. Geography, being isolated on the far end of Asia, has also shaped the way they do things. Culturally speaking , faced with a problem a European ruler might impose a solution while a Chinese ruler would look at the same problem and solve it in a different way since they would see it differently.

Read this which explains it - https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... 21.ch3.pdf

Regardless the would feel LESS threatened by China if China did not engage in imperialism that is illegal under international law and seize territory they have zero legal right too.

But what is your point? None of this answers any of my points.

Japan will not and cannot be a major threat to anyone anymore.

[Trumpostan]

Even if China were democratic chances are most would still feel threatened by China. China is among one of the oldest civilizations around. In its 5000 years of recorded history they have generally kept to China proper. Geography, being isolated on the far end of Asia, has also shaped the way they do things. Culturally speaking , faced with a problem a European ruler might impose a solution while a Chinese ruler would look at the same problem and solve it in a different way since they would see it differently.

Read this which explains it - https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... 21.ch3.pdf

Regardless the would feel LESS threatened by China if China did not engage in imperialism that is illegal under international law and seize territory they have zero legal right too.

But what is your point? None of this answers any of my points.

Japan will not and cannot be a major threat to anyone anymore.

China must think that if the USA can illegally invade Iraq (approval begotten based on lies invalidates that approval) and get away with it, they ought to be able to do similar things. Plus the US record of supporting brutal dictatorships (since 1945) is pretty bad.

[Geilinor]

Regardless the would feel LESS threatened by China if China did not engage in imperialism that is illegal under international law and seize territory they have zero legal right too.

But what is your point? None of this answers any of my points.

Japan will not and cannot be a major threat to anyone anymore.

China must think that if the USA can illegally invade Iraq (approval begotten based on lies invalidates that approval) and get away with it, they ought to be able to do similar things. Plus the US record of supporting brutal dictatorships (since 1945) is pretty bad.

That's a classic tu quoque fallacy.

This is not about the US record, while we have made some bad moves.

[Novus America]

Regardless the would feel LESS threatened by China if China did not engage in imperialism that is illegal under international law and seize territory they have zero legal right too.

But what is your point? None of this answers any of my points.

Japan will not and cannot be a major threat to anyone anymore.

China must think that if the USA can illegally invade Iraq (approval begotten based on lies invalidates that approval) and get away with it, they ought to be able to do similar things. Plus the US record of supporting brutal dictatorships (since 1945) is pretty bad.

The US did not annex Iraq or claim it as US territory. It was stupid, but different. However nothing anyone else did absolves China's responsibility for their own actions.

And as far a military supporting military dictatorships go I am not sure what that has to do with anything.

[NERVUN]

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


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.


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'.


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.


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.


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


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.

Why does Japan NEED to be a 'normal' country? It isn't militarily weak, you, yourself, noted that the SDF is actually a rather well trained, well equipped, and respected force. This notion of being "normal" is bull, it means nothing, does nothing.

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.

Right now, no. That's the point.

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.

And Japan is supposed to do what?

Actually Japan DID do things, it was helping refuel US ships in the Indian Ocean.

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.

... Got a bridge I'd like to sell you, great view of Brooklyn.

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.

I hold that it was not a mistake. Indeed, I believe the world would be MUCH better off if all nations had such a notion in their own constitutions. And here's the thing though, the US gains a lot with these arrangements. We took this on, we own it.

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.

Now, really, this is stupid. Seriously, think about this. China, Russia, or North Korea decide to get into a snit with the US and... do not attack Japan, Japan that is currently home to the largest permanent US military bases outside the United States? Home to the 9th Fleet? Large concentrations of Marines? Why? In what scenario would this make sense?

And the minute that they do... the SDF could... respond. That's what it's for after all. It ain't broke, why fix it?

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.

That's the thing though, there is very little going on that would NOT see the US involved... and that would put Japan right in the cross-hairs, so Japan can respond as is. It's ONLY in things like regional wars outside Asia that Article 9 does anything... So again why bother changing it?

The amount Japan pays does not nearly offset the costs, and the money goes right back into the Japanese economy. Moving the US forces to Guam and Tinian would be a huge boost for the economies of Guam and Tinian.

This, BTW, is incorrect. Japan offsets over 70% of the costs for US forces in Japan, and they just agreed to pay more. They're paying for this protection.

Finally though, here is the big thing... the Japanese people do not wish for Article 9 to be changed. This has been shown time after time after time. They do not want it changed or dropped.

Checkmate.

[Ashkera]

I'm curious if we have any native Japanese players who want to comment on this. Partly for comparison, and partly because, due to the proliferation of anime and interest in East Asia and Japan in specific by foreigners, I'm not sure if we have many or any Japanese players.

[Novus America]

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.

Why does Japan NEED to be a 'normal' country? It isn't militarily weak, you, yourself, noted that the SDF is actually a rather well trained, well equipped, and respected force. This notion of being "normal" is bull, it means nothing, does nothing.

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.

Right now, no. That's the point.

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.

And Japan is supposed to do what?

Actually Japan DID do things, it was helping refuel US ships in the Indian Ocean.

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.

... Got a bridge I'd like to sell you, great view of Brooklyn.

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.

I hold that it was not a mistake. Indeed, I believe the world would be MUCH better off if all nations had such a notion in their own constitutions. And here's the thing though, the US gains a lot with these arrangements. We took this on, we own it.

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.

Now, really, this is stupid. Seriously, think about this. China, Russia, or North Korea decide to get into a snit with the US and... do not attack Japan, Japan that is currently home to the largest permanent US military bases outside the United States? Home to the 9th Fleet? Large concentrations of Marines? Why? In what scenario would this make sense?

And the minute that they do... the SDF could... respond. That's what it's for after all. It ain't broke, why fix it?

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.

That's the thing though, there is very little going on that would NOT see the US involved... and that would put Japan right in the cross-hairs, so Japan can respond as is. It's ONLY in things like regional wars outside Asia that Article 9 does anything... So again why bother changing it?

The amount Japan pays does not nearly offset the costs, and the money goes right back into the Japanese economy. Moving the US forces to Guam and Tinian would be a huge boost for the economies of Guam and Tinian.

This, BTW, is incorrect. Japan offsets over 70% of the costs for US forces in Japan, and they just agreed to pay more. They're paying for this protection.

Finally though, here is the big thing... the Japanese people do not wish for Article 9 to be changed. This has been shown time after time after time. They do not want it changed or dropped.

Checkmate.

70% is not 100%. Only 100% would completely offset the cost. So I am right that Japan does not fully offset the costs. It still costs us money.

As far as us owning it, what if we do not want to own it anymore? Nothing ensures we will continue to own it. That is I think the real impetus to change. The world is changing. US public oppinion is changing. Isolationism is rising in the US. Frankly I do not know how much Japan can safely rely on the US, and for how long.

Now you do bring up a good point though. Article 9 is a legal fiction, and not follwed in spirit at all.
The LDP has already "reinterpretated it" so that they say it allows collective defense. So why change it? Well I do not like legal fictions. Rule of law requires following the law. The fact that Japan has a powerful military despite being prohibited from having one at all I think is legally doubious to say the least.

The proposed change is to codify the de facto changes the LDP ALREADY made. I like it because the legalist in me likes making the constitution actually match reality. Currently there is a stronge divergence between the legal fiction of article 9 and Japan's actual policies.

But I guess if the people of Japan like the status quo of having a provision they de facto tore to pieces already, well I guess we stay in the same situation.

[Arumdaum]

I'm curious if we have any native Japanese players who want to comment on this. Partly for comparison, and partly because, due to the proliferation of anime and interest in East Asia and Japan in specific by foreigners, I'm not sure if we have many or any Japanese players.

In my seven years on NS (with lots of activity, especially on NSG) I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER seen an actual Japanese poster from Japan on the forums, EVER.

[Sinnoh2]

I'm curious if we have any native Japanese players who want to comment on this. Partly for comparison, and partly because, due to the proliferation of anime and interest in East Asia and Japan in specific by foreigners, I'm not sure if we have many or any Japanese players.

In my seven years on NS (with lots of activity, especially on NSG) I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER seen an actual Japanese poster from Japan on the forums, EVER.

In NS forum i have also never seen anyone that is from japan, but i'm also very rare here.
In anime forums i meet some japanese people. ^^
I think here can maybe some too, maybe.

[Nayba Collective]

I'm curious if we have any native Japanese players who want to comment on this. Partly for comparison, and partly because, due to the proliferation of anime and interest in East Asia and Japan in specific by foreigners, I'm not sure if we have many or any Japanese players.

In my seven years on NS (with lots of activity, especially on NSG) I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER seen an actual Japanese poster from Japan on the forums, EVER.

It's strange, because we've got Singaporeans, Vietnamese, Chinese, lots of Filipinos, and so on. Then again, there's a chance any Japanese player might be playing as one of those Germany clones or something along those lines for similar reasons that Westerners and other non-Japanese play Japan-based nations.

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

It's strange, because we've got Singaporeans, Vietnamese, Chinese, lots of Filipinos, and so on. Then again, there's a chance any Japanese player might be playing as one of those Germany clones or something along those lines for similar reasons that Westerners and other non-Japanese play Japan-based nations.

I doubt nation simulators are going to be popular in Japan, though. I even doubt if Japan has a vibrant internet forum base, 2ch seems to be only like the most popular internet forum there. I don't know, I'm not in Japan.

[Saiwania]

If Japan were to somehow become fascist again, I'd be in favor. The Japanese aren't going to attack the US, this time around they'd clearly be on the US' side which will be wonderful. I don't mind if Japan is free to engage in an arms race with China or to become more fully independent on the world stage.

[Trotskylvania]

And I do believe the Japanese populace will reject it, should it actually come to a vote. I've seen the polls, after all. The polls, however, always seem to suggest a mind-boggling paradox in the realm of Japanese politics: The public disapproves of many major LDP policies or simply has no faith in their implementation, yet they keep voting them in. Like pigs voting for the butcher.

Because currently the opposition parties suck. And suck badly.

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

It's been twenty years, and the opposition broadly, and left specifically still hasn't recovered from the collapse of the Japan Socialist Party.

[Arumdaum]

In my seven years on NS (with lots of activity, especially on NSG) I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER seen an actual Japanese poster from Japan on the forums, EVER.

It's strange, because we've got Singaporeans, Vietnamese, Chinese, lots of Filipinos, and so on. Then again, there's a chance any Japanese player might be playing as one of those Germany clones or something along those lines for similar reasons that Westerners and other non-Japanese play Japan-based nations.

There's only ever been one Vietnamese Vietnamese person on NS (this is also according to him, and he's been here a while).

I only recall ever seeing two Korean Koreans.

Singaporeans speak English, as do a lot of Filipinos I think, so that is less surprising.