Most of these islands do not serve a practical purpose (i.e. have no potable water or rich land resources ), but they do have a purpose for security …show more content…
Since it has angered so many civilians it is worth questioning how the changes have specifically affected them. Over recent years, there’s been a growing debate about the Japan’s actual need to defend itself from other countries, when the US has acted as its military protector for decades. Japan has more reason than ever modify its constitution given the current political climate, but it also has to deal with the public pushback. The answer to the above question helps contribute to policy debates in …show more content…
Since Japan has not had the rights to have an offensive military force since World War II. Instead the instatement of the Self-Defense Force in 1954 has been the Japanese supplement in protecting their country through self-defense only.
Newer questions that surfaced during my research included the domestic protests as barriers that will prevent the Self-Defense Forces’ transition as an offensive power and whether or not the problem the public has are related to the constitution or the self-defense force. In other words: are domestic protests a barrier that will prevent the SDF’s offensive transition? Is the problem with the Abe administrations’ reactiveness to outside pressures? Domestic protests may not prevent the SDF’s transition into the offensive.
However, this brought me to my initial question in the first place. As for the Abe administrations reactiveness to outside pressures, I believe that although it makes sense that Japanese remilitarization makes its Asian neighbors nervous, it also makes sense that Japan wants to become a normal country with an offensive