WI: US insists on the demilitarization of Japan?

During the occupation of Japan, the complete demilitarization of Japan, stipulated in an international treaty that would include the Soviet Union, was suggested in a paper by George F. Kennan, provided that Japan would be deemed safe from internal unrest and should tensions with the Soviets not continue.

Suppose that for whatever reason, the US insisted upon it? How would Japan have dealt with this in later years? Would it have tried to skirt around it like it did in establishing the JSDF after interpreting the constitution to allow it?
 
One of the reasons the US reversed this policy was the need to expand defense in that corner of Asia. Without the JSDF the US either writes off Japan in most WWIII scenarios, or adds another 20% to its defense budget to defend Japan with US forces.

I supose if Japan is truly prevented from its own defense the the US might allow Japanese citizens to enlist in the US military, and buy the balance of the extra equipment from Japanese industry, and accept a monetary contribution from the Japanese government.
 
Last edited:
the Cold War between USA and Communist states result in Re-militarization of Japan and west Germany.

One way is to prevent the Cold War so Japan and Germany get demilitarization and stay this way.
But that is very difficult to realize in situation after WW2

one alternative option would be Okinawa
After WW2 the USA took Okinawa islands under there control
There were several plans like State of Republic of the Ryukyus or to annex it as territory even state of USA.
so there inhabitants could servis as Local military Force for US
 
As Carl points out above, It unlikely due to the Cold War.
And Who would fight Godzilla in the Movie with no Japanese Defense Force?
 
Well, legally, Japan IS completely demilitarized. Its 'selfdefence forces' sure LOOK like an army, navy and air force, but legally, they are something else.
 
Well, legally, Japan IS completely demilitarized. Its 'selfdefence forces' sure LOOK like an army, navy and air force, but legally, they are something else.

Even to this day?

Even if the Cold War went hot?

Article 9 is good and everything, but I tend to think it would be worth only paper if there were a shooting war between the USA and USSR. And today, Japan explicitly claims the right to, I think, 'collective self-defense', which is quite vague.
 
Even to this day?

Even if the Cold War went hot?

Article 9 is good and everything, but I tend to think it would be worth only paper if there were a shooting war between the USA and USSR. And today, Japan explicitly claims the right to, I think, 'collective self-defense', which is quite vague.

To this day.
War and nukes wouldn't change the law overnight.
The collective self-defense thing is a fairly recent development and it is kept vague on purpose because it is unpopular with the pacifist population, and thus could give leeway to the PM without alarming the people too much to the possibility of being dragged into a foreign conflict.

Personally, I just think American propaganda worked too well after WW2 and is backfiring now that America's most important ally in Asia is dragging its feet when it comes to participating in global conflict.
 
War and nukes wouldn't change the law overnight.

I don't think it would, but I think that Japan would contribute to the First World war effort in a direct fashion - edit, I mean, something like sweetheart deals on exports, maybe peacekeeping duties outside the main conflict, but that this involvement would escalate. It's possible they would be attacked by the USSR if they attempted a first strike, which may have rendered Article 9 moot in the eyes of Japanese leadership.

The collective self-defense thing is a fairly recent development and it is kept vague on purpose because it is unpopular with the pacifist population, and thus could give leeway to the PM without alarming the people too much to the possibility of being dragged into a foreign conflict.

Yeah, I wondered who the change was really designed to please. All states have agreed to not engage in offensive wars through the UN. Japan reaffirming this in their own constitution seems like a good policy. But then, like I say, if they were attacked directly, I do not doubt that they would respond. If it's a way to sneak through Japanese contribution to an unpopular engagement in, say, Syria, I am with you, this would be unpopular in Japan.

Personally, I just think American propaganda worked too well after WW2 and is backfiring now that America's most important ally in Asia is dragging its feet when it comes to participating in global conflict.

Yep. But then again, a major Islamic terrorist attack in Japan could change that.
 
Weren't there a number of movers and shakers in American politics/the military who thought that they US didn't need much of a standing military because of nukes?

Wouldn't it be possible that if the US decides to rely more on the nuclear deterrent than IOTL that the rationale for keeping Japan demilitarized was because they would maintain a couple bomber wings with nuclear capability on the home islands?

Not to say it would be a good idea, mind.
 
Top