I’m sure that US has an incredible amount of influence over politics in Japan as well. That’s what facilitates the military occupation at the end of the day.
I would think it’s the opposite. The influence over politics comes from the force projection. If Japan could defend itself against the US, then it could resist them politically. Unfortunately, we can’t trust Japan to build up it’s military without it being an existential to the workers movements in Asia. So Japan will be stuck until it can be brave enough to resist the US politically while simultaneously pushing them out militarily and forging stronger ties with China.
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.
The military occupation is the most material reason probably.
I’m sure that US has an incredible amount of influence over politics in Japan as well. That’s what facilitates the military occupation at the end of the day.
I would think it’s the opposite. The influence over politics comes from the force projection. If Japan could defend itself against the US, then it could resist them politically. Unfortunately, we can’t trust Japan to build up it’s military without it being an existential to the workers movements in Asia. So Japan will be stuck until it can be brave enough to resist the US politically while simultaneously pushing them out militarily and forging stronger ties with China.
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.