Japan shouldn't have passed it's new bill (for SDF)
Debate Rounds (3)
1, no trolling
2, no need to cite sources UNLESS told to do so in the comments section
3, just be nice, be debate-like.
I believe that 1, the self defence force should not be allowed to operate outside of it's country, 2, the current official narrative for passing the bill is not valid, and 3, Japan is eventually going to cause harm on itself due to this bill.
Please note that I am looking for a debate with more discussion than sources, more informal than formal. Please list your own thinking. Thank you!
I of course wish we could still have a respectful and engaging debate.
So, the first problem is domestic.
Japan have survived for 70 years without a military that is allowed to fight overseas. In fact, the SDF is unconstitutional to begin with. The common narrative as to the reason for this bill is to battle 'potential threats' from China, Russia, and North Korea. However, if you think about it, battling 'potential threats' in these country is basically an invasion. If any of these countries are actually going to attack japan, the SDF has perfect constitutional right to defend itself. The narrative for this new law is completely invalid.
However, there is a true and reasonable reason behind this law. Japan have always received military protection from the US. The US, however, does not have as much incentive in using Japan to counter-balance China's influence of the area as before. The US, then, have continued to pressure Japan to develop it's own military. To edit Article 9.
Japan is already a great US ally. If it has a well developed military, then it would be another powerful ally.
Well, what US needs most right now is someone who can fight in Syria, Iran, and iraq hand in hand with the US. With a already well developed naval force, 2 (possible) aircraft carriers, and a strong infantry (regulars) unit. Japan has an unbelievably advanced military. It could also be an important force to project power in Asia.
The US policy in these countries, however, is really flawed. Look what they did in the middle east that got their own ambassador killed! Libya, Bangladesh, it's a mess. and it's tragic what have happened.
The US always finds someone to blame, and somehow our attention is always diverted from what the US is doing. Arming the rebels? The 'moderates'? The moderates get paid. They work for whoever pays them more. Now, the US is arming them, the US can't ask for the weapons back. Then what? A lot of them are already working for ISIS. ISIS already has so many US made artillery? I wonder why? If US's policy is already flawed, what will happen if Japan, currently not involved in this war, was to fight there! Hell, Japanese people will be killed. The only difference is, Japan doesn't even have a proper anti-terror unit! It doesn't even really have it's own intelligence unit! Japan is so vulnerable to terrorism. Most of the police force aren't armed, and are not trained to deal with terrorism. Japan would be doing the most unimaginable thing. Which will lead to the most unpredictable consequence. and we have been shown time and time again that Japan isn't prepared for unpredictable consequences. How did Japan respond to Fukushima?
Frankly, Japan is so much of a bureaucracy, too stubborn to take such a risk.
ilee24 forfeited this round.
However, I believe that this have the potential to be a very intuitive debate.
If you wish, you could leave arguments in the comments section. I will try to respond.
ilee24 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.