Japan's Takaichi protests to US after Marine accused of murder in Okinawa
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-marine-arrested-suspicion-murder-japans-okinawa-2026-10-04/37
u/walter-gropeyus 15h ago
Did she protest directly to her beloved Donald?
Alas, I bet she did not.
13
u/PM_ME__YOUR_HOOTERS 11h ago
Nah, she protested the women of Okinawa because she does not want to have a single difficult conversation with the US.
8
u/macguyver3000 9h ago
Read her quote. She basically said “this was bad. I protest to rhe US . We expect the American government to help us investigate.”
Wow. Scathing.
8
13
u/derioderio [アメリカ] 13h ago
A necessary performative gesture that's required in order to maintain the status quo.
3
-9
u/LostRadio8453 14h ago
Japan should reduce the scale of U.S. military bases, develop its own nuclear deterrent, and maintain a fleet of six nuclear-powered submarines. In the event of a major conflict, it should at least possess the capability to carry out nuclear strikes against multiple major cities in an adversary state.
11
-1
u/zAbso 13h ago
Even if it had the ability, Japan is too small of a country. They will always need someone else to lean on. Will another country be willing to foot the bill for their defense?
-5
u/LostRadio8453 12h ago
How about North Korea in terms of its land area, technological capabilities, and the size of its economy?
In addition, the Trump administration has been calling on U.S. allies to take greater responsibility for their own defense.
If the cost of maintaining U.S. forces in Japan were eliminated, Japan could redirect those funds toward nuclear-powered submarines and nuclear weapons. Even with a generous estimate, Japan could probably establish such a capability within about 15 years.
If Japan then possessed the ability to launch nuclear strikes against five major cities located relatively close to the coasts of hostile states, how would that change the strategic balance?
3
u/zAbso 12h ago
How about North Korea in terms of its land area, technological capabilities, and the size of its economy?
For starters, they have a defense pact with China. North Korea is also always ready to wipe out South Korea with it's arsenal. The assumptions is that they won't hesitate to use them if confronted by an ally of South Korea.
In addition, the Trump administration has been calling on U.S. allies to take greater responsibility for their own defense.
I could care less about what Trump is saying. This is about something that existed well before him, and will exist after him. He won't be in office forever.
If the cost of maintaining U.S. forces in Japan were eliminated, Japan could redirect those funds toward nuclear-powered submarines and nuclear weapons. Even with a generous estimate, Japan could probably establish such a capability within about 15 years.
The reality is that US allies depend on the US for their defense. The US is the main funder of NATO in terms of military power, funding, and resources.
The point of having allied bases is for a quicker response from those allies. If they removed all US bases, then someone else would take their place. If not, then the time it would take for a response could be well past the time it would take for Japan to suffer major damage.
If Japan then possessed the ability to launch nuclear strikes against five major cities located relatively close to the coasts of hostile states, how would that change the strategic balance?
Not really, they launch and then what? Japan is very densely populated, they stand to lose way more if struck than the damage the could potentially cause. They'd have a big stick to wave around, but they'd be in a bad spot if they hit someone with it.
Which is why having the backing of a much larger and stronger military force is way more beneficial. An example being the defense pact between North Korea and China.
-2
u/LostRadio8453 12h ago
If China’s relatively developed coastal cities were contaminated, its trade could be devastated. What would happen to the Chinese economy if maritime shipping could no longer be used?
There are also many nuclear power plants along the coast. Even without deliberately targeting them, there is always the possibility that several unmanned drones could accidentally strike nuclear power facilities.
0
u/zAbso 11h ago
If China’s relatively developed coastal cities were contaminated, its trade could be devastated. What would happen to the Chinese economy if maritime shipping could no longer be used?
A down turn for a short period, while they push back. Same as any other country. Then they'd recover. China has all the infrastructure, knowledge, and industry to build things.
I highly doubt they'd be in a state of unusable after an attack for long. People were working to rebuild Hiroshima within months of the bombs falling. Rebuilt within 6 years.
Air travel is also an option, as well as ground shipping to a further ports constructed to move around fallout while being cleaned up if needed.
There are also many nuclear power plants along the coast. Even without deliberately targeting them, there is always the possibility that several unmanned drones could accidentally strike nuclear power facilities.
The same would go for Japan. An accidental target by Japan could result in an accidental target by whoever they're fighting.
However, the difference is that China has been building out a lot of solar and wind power as well. Meanwhile, the much smaller Japan, who doesn't really have the space to expand into wind and solar, would be much more reliant on those nuclear power plants.
-1
u/LostRadio8453 11h ago
China currently refuses to accept agricultural products from Fukushima, but would it somehow be treated differently if nuclear power plants along China’s own coast were hit by missiles and suffered criticality accidents?
If major ports became unusable, would the countries China has regarded as friendly inland partners continue dealing with it in the same way as before? China has, after all, historically concentrated much of its development and investment on the coastal regions, while the interior has often lagged behind.
2
u/zAbso 11h ago
China currently refuses to accept agricultural products from Fukushima, but would it somehow be treated differently if nuclear power plants along China’s own coast were hit by missiles and suffered criticality accidents?
I don't understand what you're asking here. As I understand it, most of Chinas agriculture is not located near their costs.
Would that change if their coasts got hit? No, they'd just ask someone else if needed while rebuilding and responding to Japans attack. Same as other countries have done at times of war.
If major ports became unusable, would the countries China has regarded as friendly inland partners continue dealing with it in the same way as before?
Unusable for a short period of time, but they'd recover. Again, it took 6 years to get Hiroshima rebuilt. Imaging the speed with current technology. It being unusable only matters if Japan can overpower/outlast them and win to force a beneficial resolution.
If major ports became unusable then they'd just adjust. It's not a hard stop that would cripple their economy. There are more ways to get things in and out of the country. Japan would need to not only have naval control, but also have air superiority to stop air traffic and inbound land traffic.
China has, after all, historically concentrated much of its development and investment on the coastal regions, while the interior has often lagged behind.
Historically, yes. Though China has been developing areas outside of their coastal regions for a while. It comes with the push for growth of renewable energy. A lot of money is being redirected west, away from the coast.
Being able to fire off a few missiles isn't what matters, it's about outlasting and winning. The question is about whether or not Japan would have that capability on their own, even with nukes. Against a foe that close to their backdoor, that also has nukes, without the help of another major super power.
2
u/LostRadio8453 10h ago
If China’s ports became unusable, it would still have some very powerful trading partners: North Korea, Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam.
With the ports shut down, those countries might charge China a premium for trade and transit, but if China works hard enough to expand agriculture in its inland regions, I’m sure it will somehow manage!
1
u/zAbso 10h ago
Ask yourself what happens to Japan if China attacks their ports as well. Would they not be in just as bad, or potentially worse position without a global super power?
The fallout from nukes isn't as long lasting and devastating as you may think. Most of the radiation is effectively sent to the atmosphere. Once the radiation dies down, they can rebuild and start using those ports again.
Port strikes could also be to the benefit of those partner to get better trade deals once they recovers down the line for giving support. Global economics and politics is very complex. As that same attack could work to strengthen the relationship of China and some of those countries.
The reality is that Japan would still need a strong ally, nukes or not. Not just to help with fighting, if it ever came to that, but to also assist in recovery after the fact.
→ More replies (0)-4
u/Sigma_Variant 12h ago
Look into the Empire of Japan’s total reach during the 1930s and first year of the pacific war.
4
u/zAbso 11h ago
Military capabilities, technology, and intelligence has increased drastically since then. It's not really an apt comparison. Even then, allies were still able to drive them back once the US got fully involved after Perl Harbor.
0
u/TheDonIsGood1324 9h ago
It is an apt comparison and Japan could be very powerful militarily, even more then it is now, if it wanted to be so. Japan has a very advanced economy and manufacturing base, along with technology. Its got an effective government along with collaborative private sector. The comment was about nuclear weapons, Japan could make a nuke whenever it wanted and it has the ability to deliver them. Its just that Japanese pacifism has held back its military development
2
u/zAbso 9h ago
It is an apt comparison and Japan could be very powerful militarily, even more then it is now, if it wanted to be so.
After the results of WW2 they got set back very far, while the rest of the world pressed forward. Especially the nations around them that would be seen as threats.
Japan has a very advanced economy and manufacturing base, along with technology. Its got an effective government along with collaborative private sector.
True, but other countries have access to advanced tech too. Past that, it's not just technology and an effective government. It's military technology and intelligence.
Also, for the effective government to matter, they'd need to gain the upper hand to put themselves in a position to leverage it. For that they'd need a large level of suppression and the ability to outlast the waiting game without losing much, or any, ground to force a resolution.
The comment was about nuclear weapons, Japan could make a nuke whenever it wanted and it has the ability to deliver them. Its just that Japanese pacifism has held back its military development
It's not about pacifism, it doesn't really benefit them to use them. It's a stick they can't hit anyone with. They'd still just be relying on raw military power if they got involved in a conflict.
Their main threats are right in their backyards. If Japan uses theirs, then those threats will send theirs back. It's a lose-lose situation. They'd lose their stick and get hit with one the same size, or larger, back.
It wouldn't suddenly give Japan the edge or protection you'd think. Having the backing of a global super power gives them that edge and protection. As an example, as I mentioned in the other thread. Despite the fact that North Korea has nukes, they still have a defense pact with China and Russia.
-1
u/TheDonIsGood1324 9h ago
But did they really get set back that far? I mean they've high close cooperation with the US military along with development of domestic technologies. The Japanese navy is particularly powerful which is the most important branch. Like I said Japan has an advanced manufacturing base that only China really compares to, neither North Korea nor Russia come close to that. China has greater scale but Japan is an industrial superpower.
I don't agree that Japan needs nukes if they still have the US protection but if they didn't exist then they should pursue them, no two nuclear armed nations would start a war with each other.
1
u/zAbso 8h ago
But did they really get set back that far? I mean they've high close cooperation with the US military along with development of domestic technologies.
As a military force? Yes, aggressively so. They have close cooperation with the US because the US beat them and forced them into it. It wasn't really a choice.
It's worked out in their favor as they now have a super power as an ally. Though their military capabilities have lagging behind.
The Japanese navy is particularly powerful which is the most important branch.
They have a nice Navy because they're an island country. They have to have a good Navy. They're still behind the super powers though. The US, China, and Russia have stronger naval forces.
Like I said Japan has an advanced manufacturing base that only China really compares to, neither North Korea nor Russia come close to that. China has greater scale but Japan is an industrial superpower.
Their industrial power isn't on the scale that Chinas is. Past that, it's about military capabilities. Having the infrastructure doesn't matter if it can't be converted into something that would aid militarily.
I don't agree that Japan needs nukes if they still have the US protection but if they didn't exist then they should pursue them, no two nuclear armed nations would start a war with each other.
That's not exactly true though. It's avoided because of the potential global damage and damage to allies or neighboring countries.
If Japan was solo, then what happens once they fire all they have? They'd need to lean on their Navy. What happens if the Navy is beaten? They'd have to lean on their troops, meanwhile their adversaries can have their entire country surrounded by sea and locked down from air superiority. Could they outlast that without a strong ally?
1
u/TheDonIsGood1324 8h ago
I mean really explain why they are lagging behind cause it really doesn't seem that way considering the military they have, you say they've lagged behind but haven't explained that at all.
Russian navy stronger then Japan's? Most of their ships are Soviet era compared to modern Japanese fleet. Russia is not an advanced power and they can't even defeat Ukraine.
It isn't on the scale yes but they are still an industrial superpower which high tech advanced manufacturing, they already have a domestic defence industry and other industries can assist that. Things like automobiles, electronics, shipbuilding, steel, precision machinery, chemicals etc.
It is true, nuclear armed nations won't start a war out of fear of mutually assured destruction. All either side needs is a few hundred nukes and they can both destroy each them.
1
u/zAbso 7h ago
I mean really explain why they are lagging behind cause it really doesn't seem that way considering the military they have, you say they've lagged behind but haven't explained that at all.
They have a strong naval force. Though that is backed by the US. Their air force was largely shaped by the US. Their missile capabilities and tech are also largely backed by the US.
Their military capabilities are largely dependent on the US. Remove the US from the equation and it would likely collapse for a while, as they rebuild and rearm.
Russian navy stronger then Japan's? Most of their ships are Soviet era compared to modern Japanese fleet. Russia is not an advanced power and they can't even defeat Ukraine.
That is determined by size, not capability. Russia has their nukes and leaned on them to ward off adversaries. So their military tech lagged behind. Though that doesn't change global standings.
Ukraine advanced in areas that Russia didn't consider because they don't have nukes or the same size fighting force, which is how they've fought back. Now that their strategy is more proven, other countries are following suite to build out that capability.
It isn't on the scale yes but they are still an industrial superpower which high tech advanced manufacturing, they already have a domestic defence industry and other industries can assist that. Things like automobiles, electronics, shipbuilding, steel, precision machinery, chemicals etc.
Domestic defense is fine so long as communication channels survive. Knock those out and people get confused and disoriented. Same for their manufacturing capabilities. They'd need to be protected for them to be useful in a drawn out battle.
All of those factories would need to be converted as well, and not every one will be able to be converted in time.
It is true, nuclear armed nations won't start a war out of fear of mutually assured destruction. All either side needs is a few hundred nukes and they can both destroy each them.
It doesn't matter if you can't fire them. Like you said, mutually assured destruction is the assumed outcome. So why would you risk firing yours if they can respond by firing theirs? There's also a secondary risk to firing them. You now have less, and another adversary can use that as a chance to strike since you've opened the door for their usage.
The best outcome is still going to be the typical outcome. A skirmish, potentially a standstill, then leaders will come together for a resolution. The nukes just assure that the outcome isn't a total loss.
-6
u/Sebastian_Gravina 14h ago
No pueden hacerlo. US nunca lo permitiría y Japón no es 100% independiente, desde que extranjeros literalmente modificaron su constitución nacional.
2
u/Sufficient_Coach7566 10h ago
People acting like they forgot the US military presence is a direct result of the post war settlement...
1
u/No_Nobody_663 13h ago
Then go against their foreign made constitution and make a new one. What is America gonna do? Start another war?
1
u/LostRadio8453 12h ago
A constitutional amendment in Japan requires a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors. The Liberal Democratic Party already holds more than two-thirds of the seats in the lower house on its own.
The next House of Councillors election is two years away, and it could potentially take place around the same time as a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan, if such an invasion were to occur.
If that happened, the LDP would likely use China’s invasion of Taiwan as a justification to intensify calls for constitutional revision. If a Chinese invasion took place in 2027, the fact that Japan’s next upper-house election would follow in 2028 could create a politically favorable environment for those seeking constitutional amendment.
-4
-19
u/Akimbobear 14h ago edited 12h ago
It’s unfortunate but crazy people are everywhere. This guy, if guilty, will be held accountable, hopefully. Unfortunately all you can do in this situation is trust. Turning over US soldiers to foreign nations, while ideally is the right thing, it sends a bad precedent for the future from the US’s point of view. Best you can do is try to become more militarily independent.
1
64
u/Rough_Shelter4136 14h ago
One can imagine the tongue trying to protest against the boot