Both aspects reinforce each other. On paper, Japan is allowing US to keep the troops on its soil, which is a political decision. And I agree that Japan could become a danger to worker movements Asia, however US is just as big of a threat in practice.
I mean that if Japan armed, I think it would make sense to interpret it as US force projection in the region, not Japanese resistance of US hegemony. Japan would need to first break US hegemony domestically, likely through expelling spies and thoroughly de-tapping technology at their highest levels of coordination before any domestic military development could possibly be on the right side of history.
I mean, the US is in a pretty rough situation right now that is only going to get resolved by another war. The US is mid-collapse at this moment, it’s really just a question of whether it can prolong the pain through deliberate action or whether it’s lost its manueverability.
Both aspects reinforce each other. On paper, Japan is allowing US to keep the troops on its soil, which is a political decision. And I agree that Japan could become a danger to worker movements Asia, however US is just as big of a threat in practice.
I mean that if Japan armed, I think it would make sense to interpret it as US force projection in the region, not Japanese resistance of US hegemony. Japan would need to first break US hegemony domestically, likely through expelling spies and thoroughly de-tapping technology at their highest levels of coordination before any domestic military development could possibly be on the right side of history.
Right, political control US exercises over Japan is the main problem. The only way I see that changing is if the current system collapses entirely.
I mean, the US is in a pretty rough situation right now that is only going to get resolved by another war. The US is mid-collapse at this moment, it’s really just a question of whether it can prolong the pain through deliberate action or whether it’s lost its manueverability.
Yeah definitely agree there.