Japan want 2 aircraft carrier. . .die liao die liao

• Atobe

  23 Jul 03, 05:43

  
  The study of genetics is still in its early stages of being understood, and several countries are only presently unraveling the mysteries of its genome, and trying to piece together the mysteries that it hold.
  
  Much like when psychiatry was first promulgated by Sigmund Freud, who drew as much skepticism during his time, with very vociferous critics in the present day colors as our learned CX, any attempts to link genetics with racial characteristics will draw as much criticism and ridicule.
  
  It is interesting that Gedanken is a psychologist, and presently studying genetics in relation to drug addictions and mental illnesses.
  
  Your approach in the study of genetics in relation to drug addiction will probably be (in a nutshell description) in the direction of how the DNA in oneÂ’s genes kick-off certain drug addiction or the likes of it; but I am curious to understand in which direction will the study of genetics be linked with mental illnesses ?
  
  Behavioral distinctiveness of race is as much to do with circumstances – such as cultural, social, parochial environment, peer pressures – that amounts to nurturing, which will probably trigger the genetic traits of one group more then another from a different set of circumstances.
  
  Is “kiasuism” a genetic trait of Singapore alone ?
  
  I hardly think so, although the term is coined by Singaporeans to describe this form of social behavior, which I seem to see as pronounced mainly in all Chinese stock from Malaysia, Taiwan, and Mainland China - and Vietnamese too, considering that they have been ruled by China for more then a thousand years in ancient history.
  
  If CX remark is correct, how does one explain for the differences in cranial size, the physical bone size and body structure of Caucasians are much larger than Asians in general - not that there is any marked difference in intelligence levels ?
  
  This is still a fairly new area of scientific study, and there are still many unexplored areas that remain to be challenged, in our limited understanding of this unknown area.
  
  Do we close our mind and shut out the unexplored based on our present level of knowledge, and subject such area of study to ridicule ?
  
  There were more websites that I have visited to understand more about genetics and its effect on race, but found these short listed and diverse five - from disparate organizations, so as to gain some degree of objectivity.
  
  In the list of references given:
  
  The first, “Genetics – (The Flow): Review Lynn’s Eugenics
  This article was written “in defense of Eugenics written by Richard Lynn, who himself is a Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Northern Ireland, can this be the breeding ground for KKK “White Supremacy activities”?
  
  The second, “Race and Genetics” was an article of interest posted on a Website of a mysterious www.celluloid-wisdom.com - with an interesting article that does not hint of any association with the Ku Klux Klan.
  
  The third, “ Race and Genetics – Trinicentre.com” is an article promoted by the Trinidad Centre that promote the equality of Race through the understanding of Genetics, hardly a site for Ku Klux Klan.
  
  The fourth, “Genetics, Personality, and Race – (American Renaissance)” – is a White Supremacy organization, and the purpose of this reference site was purely for the paper that was presented on its merit. From the five reference sites given, only this site seems to be associated with the KKK organization.
  
  The fifth, “Modern Genetics is Eugenics” – was a post from the website of www.eugenics-watch.com, an organization that seems to be linked to the Catholic Church, hardly a site to be associated with the Ku Klax Klan.
  
  So I am surprised that the writers of these articles will “form the who’s who of the villains of scientific research”, if such a list exist.
  
  I do agree with all the views posted with regards to the weak link of the race and genetics – based on the present day understanding of genetics and eugenics.
  
  There are uniqueness in traits of a specific race that are not found in others – not by custom or social influences, but perhaps by genetic traits that affect the psychological characteristics of some racial groups.
  
  If genetic research can confirm that deformity can be inherited through the generations of a single family, will this not also result in some genetic “tweak” being passed on to an entire racial group – that give each its unique psychological and physical attributes?
  
  The purpose of raising genetic traits in this topic was to understand the make-up of the Japanese, from past known historical performance – military, economic, and cultural – and the possible threat that they can pose in the future, with their present attempts at gaining military experience (much as our SAF has taken a step-by-step approach in assuming its role on the World Stage, as described in my earlier post).
  
  I can understand the frustration caused by this very controversial line of discussion, but it will be a challenge to the future that will be a reply to CX statement - that “given the current World Order, Japan can no longer get away with aggressive expansionism. name me one place where Japan can conquer with relative ease and without repercussions?”
  
  The question or statement posed by CX sounded very familiar during the years before Pearl Harbor - in its own time context.
  
  Japan was on the right side during the outbreak of WW-1; then during WW-2, it took the side of the AXIS Powers by aligning itself with Germany and Italy.
  
  Perhaps it will be safer to get Japan to stay engage in the World Community, by getting it to spend its large reserves to participate in more UN sanctioned missions throughout the World – at the risks of allowing it to gain military experience on overseas missions.
  
  What happens when it find itself supremely confident of its own independent role, much like the USA is behaving today, and when sometime in the future a rogue leader appear in Japan – with the other countries in political and economic disarray?
  
  Who can say what the world order will be like in another ten, twenty, or fifty years?
  
  Did we believe that by 2003, the SAF would be the primary military force in South-east Asia, from our humble beginning in 1968?
  
  Can anyone foretell what the world will be like in another fifty years from 2003 ?
  
  Can we trust Japan with its present military adventurism through the auspices of the UN, and now allowing it to obtain two aircraft carriers ?
  
  I would like to agree with the position taken by Singapore Tyrannosaur that Japan will more likely to wage war - “if they as a people are not aware of the mistakes of their predecessors, they are not being very smart as they will end up repeating them”.
  
  However, it is too simple, and there must be something deep rooted for a group of people to be so quick to take up arms and kill.
  
  Psychological conditioning as suggested by Gendaken ?
  
  Some are quicker to the draw than others.
  
• Atobe

  23 Jul 03, 06:31

  Originally posted by redrooster79:

  "Grand Challenge III-2 Understand the relationships between genomics, race and ethnicity, and the consequences of uncovering these relationships.
  
  http://www.genome.gov/11007524
  
  --------------------------------------------------------
  
  Research done on genes is nowhere near conclusive, thus to claim that genes does not effect behaviour could be premature but the claim that genetic material dictates the behaviour of whole racial stocks could be even further farfetched at this point in time. Anyway Atobe, with your mention of neo-nazis you are bringing attention to a particular minority within a society and can hardly be conclusive evidence to be presented as proof for the "warlikeness", and the fact that or neonazis look similiar comes from the fact that it was designed to appeal to such people not only becuase of who they are but who they are suppose to prejudice against, the very precepts of neonazism already excluds a whole lot of people just because of their skin colour of ethinicity.
  Perhaps up to now, perhaps only the XYY gene provides some linkage between behaviour and genetic material where 1 in 1000 males have the XYY gene and 4% of inmates in britain possess the gene. This data could proof some correlation but is in no way a major contributor to the probability that you could become a criminal.
  Fact is, Genome research is at a point where it cannot even provide much useful data for a proper definhative discourse but could only aid in speculation(lets not even start to mention eugenics) thus it is far too early to take so many steps ahead and presume that there is definate relations between the content of a nations genetic stock and it ability to affect national and societal conscious and behaviour.
  My 2 cents
  

  Many thanks for your timely contribution.
  
  My intent to bring up the "Skinheads" and the "Red Necks" was to highlight the fact of such "aggressive" types found amongst the Caucasians, in their respective communities that are separated by geography.
  
  Although limited in size, the frequency of these neo-Nazis groups appearing within their various communities are quite high in UK, Germany, and USA - with these three countries having the highest rate of profileration found in the Caucasian World.
  
  These are the extremes from their respective societies, and although they come from different racial or national stock, they are all Caucasians - with a fair percentage not squirming away from violence, whether for a National Cause (as UK in the Falklands), or from a parochial cause (as in attitudes towards Asian migration).
  
  To broaden (or maybe to narrowly focus) the observation further on genetics and behavior, I noticed a higher level of aggressive social behavior AGAINST Authority found in the Belgians more than the French, or the Dutch, or the Germans.
  
  When the Caucasians are compared with the Asians (from the West, Central, South, South-east and the East), the behavior and attitudes are certainly different towards authority.
  
  One can attribute it to culture, social norms, political process, and what other influences, but such external influences are established by the Human purposeful intervention or involvement that affect its development - (genetics at work ?).
  
  Your post was timely, in your understanding of the issue raised, and certainly will help to shed additional light in this study of genetics and behavior - although my interest is in the direction of the group.
  
  After reading from your recommended National Human Genome Research Institute, I will look forward to any further development from their declared goal as shown in:
  
  Grand Challenge III-2 Understand the relationships between genomics, race and ethnicity, and the consequences of uncovering these relationships.
  
  http://www.genome.gov/11007524
  
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  23 Jul 03, 09:49

  The main problem with using genetics to explain complex behavior, in the case of humans, is directly from the evolutionary standpoint of view.
  
  While it is apparent that in some species genes are the direct cause of their innate behavior, in humans it is a new ball game. This is beacuse humans are the only animal we know of so far that has managed to break outside of the neverending evolutionary arms race that is the interlocking interaction between both species.
  
  Firstly, genes are never constant. While they can define one species, the numbers of permutations within the species is many, if not infinitely possible. This is because diversity is the basis for evolutionary selection.
  
  Ego, the ability to classify one race as another as more warlike or not, (not to mention the idea of distinct races within homo sapiens sapiens in genetics is in itself faulty) dosen't hold too much water at the moment because of the basic fact of evolution, that only those who survive get to pass on their genes.
  
  Visa vi, if we look at the human race, we would discover that our ability to wrest control a large part of our evolutionary path away from that of nature would mean that many features, that would be quickly weeded out in nature, like myopia and other disorders, persist within our numbers.
  
  Hence, one can only argue for genetics making particular people more warlike if that kind of behavior is genetically profitible, meaning that it allows their people to survive and pass on those genes which make them more predisposed to that particular behaviour to the next generation. This can been seen in the particular traits of "races" which made them more adaptable to their environment, dark skin in africans, slight build in asians, pale skin in the caucasians. These traits allow their individuals, back in the days before they were technologically enough to do so, to overcome the features of their environment.
  
  However, now this cannot be said for aggressive behaviour or other behavioural traits you mentioned. While it is concievable that these traits can predispose individuals to certain types of behaviour, to do so to an entire population would be by genetic mathematics, impossible. This is because there are also thousands of other variations of these genes which can work directly against, or cancel out these genes which cause the basal behaviors you describe. And since having such traits are not necessary to survive and pass them on to your next generation, hence achieving a foothold in the genepool, such genes would be by all rights dissapiated or diluted, if not dissolved by breeding within the population.
  
  Basically, neo-nazism being genetic is about as genetic as star trek or star wars fanaticsm. While genetic factors can predispose certain individuals towards liking these things, they are more of a working of idealogy and culture rather then genes. And why do you find populations of them in seperate areas? The basic reason why people with extreme idealogies with alienate them from others do: they flock together.
  
  Hence, by virtue of genetic maths, it is quite obvious that in our modern world where little traits are advantages over the other and most people get to breed as pass on their genes with little regard to the genepool thanks to technology which allows us to survive despite defects which would be deadly in nature. (something white supremists dislike intensly), racists will not be more likely to occur in one population or the next. It is the cultural outset that determines how they turn out. In asian cultures, we appear to be less racists because of our traditions of hospitability? But just ask your grandma what she thinks of white people or balangadeshis.
  
  Likewise, it is most probably the culture of the soceity that determines neo-nazism. If you are brought up in a culture that is has strong self-esteem (sounds like america), ignorant of others, and thinks everyone should have a right to speak out, soon or later individuals with neo-nazi idealogies will band together.
  
  Hence it's more nurture over nature.
  
  
• Atobe

  23 Jul 03, 12:16

  
  Hi ST,
  
  While I can understand the general directions of your post, it does not explain for the marked differences in the different energy of purpose, depth of its value systems and abilities between the Jews and the Arabs.
  
  Nor can we explain for the vast difference in similar comparative values between the Malays, Thais, Burmese compared with the Vietnamese, Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese.
  
  Is this due to the culture, social norms, political process, history nuturing these peoples; or did the genetic make-up of these peoples create and affect these nuturing factors that bind them further to be what they are ?
  
  
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  23 Jul 03, 12:50

  How you turn out is highly dependent on your environment, even cloned animals turn out to be different in both character and apperance from their parents as a result of external influences. Scientists have known for a long time that being genetically identical hardly determines how you will actually turn out in terms of apperance or behaviour. Genes determine the basic makeup, but the environment plays a very large part in shaping these patterns.
  
  Basically, if you rasied a jew up as an arab, or a malay up as a chinese, and never made the distinction to them, they would preform no differently from what is percieved to be the cultural norm of their adoptive cultures.
  
  Basically, despite having decoded the human genome, and figuring out what certain genes and do, we have yet to find a gene which we can say attributes to a particular behavior that will be innate in an individual and which will determine future behavior encouraging them to nuture it.
  
  Basically, for such a claim to exist, the very genes that allow this have not only to be present, but advantegous over other traits and renforced and selected, either by deliberation or nature. However, it appears in the case of racist behavior or the like, non of thse conditions have been fufilled.
  
  In a sense, while I cannot say absolutely that genetics have no role to play in such behavior, I can say that it is highly likely the role they play is very small, that can be easily overweighted or canceld out by other external factors, such as culture or doctrinal teaching. Basically, to make the claim that genetics must have something to do with current evidence, is like trying to make a square peg fit a round hole. It just dosen't fly.
  
  I still remain strongly convinced that nobody's behaviorual destiny is determined from the outset of his birth or merit of genes, thousands of external factors come into play, and many of them alone are enough to overwrite those predispositions put down by their genes. It's like saying you have a jet powered aircraft that's also incidently powered by a rubber band, and then obessing on the rubber band as the source of the plane's propulsion. No guess which system actually does most of the pushing. An extreme case, but you get the idea.
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  23 Jul 03, 13:16

  Basically, I do not buy the idea of behavioural genetics. It's easier to see how the environment can play a very large part in shaping actual preceptions and behavior. In rome do as the romans do.
  
  Basically to assume all soceities and cultures values are determined by their genetic makeup is folly. The values are shaped in direct response to their environment and lifestyles, rather then their genes.
  
  Things however that are shaped by genetics are traits such as physical abilities and morphlogical differences. A tibetian will always be superefficent at higher attitudes and certain people from an african tribe can run faster and longer then what we determine as the norm. The list goes on.
• Atobe

  24 Jul 03, 07:44

  
  Based on current knowledge levels of genetics and eugenics, I will tend to agree with much of your posts, and that from CX and Gendaken.
  
  However, these are still early days yet, and that even the National Human Genome Research Institute see fit to include into this field of research - (to determine the effects of genetics on human behavior) - will show some validity in this direction of thought.
  
  
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  24 Jul 03, 09:43

  The effects of genetics on behaviour is not exactly a black art, it has been understoond fairly well since DNA was discovered. However what scientists are interested to find out is the extent of effects of genetics on complex behavior, ie. racism.
  
  Basically from what we do know, is is entirely possible for genes to play a part in this, and they probably but as said, environment or nuture will play the major part in determining how the individual will actually turn out. As we can easily see in the ultimate case of genetically alike individuals, conjoined twins.
  
  Even through conjoined twins are virtually genetically identical and even share biological components, their character, behaviour and idealogy are an individual as the normal person. Basically while scientists are interested to find out the effect of genes on behaviour, they know that the day where they can nail what behaviour down to what gene never be possible, because it has never been what actually drove our behavior in the first place.
• Gedanken

  24 Jul 03, 10:37

  That is an interesting pooint you brought up, ST. Given that conjoined twins are necessarily exposed to the same environment and that only monozygotic twins are conjoined, it would be interesting to find out what accounts for the differences between them. I shall have to look into this.
  
  Atobe, one thing to keep in mind is that the genome project is ultimately reductionistic. As we understand how simple organisms like amoeba react to environmental conditions, we are trying to understand how each gene produces simple reactions. The difference is that we are looking at a large number of different reactions within a single organism, and at some point I expect that we will start looking at how these reactions interact with each other. However, the pertinent point here is that it is a study of how organisms react to objects and events around them. Without these environmental factors, there would be no effect because there would be no reaction. For example, in my drug-addiction study, a person may have a propensity towards drug addiction, but without exposure to drugs in the first place, there will be no addiction.
  
  Another thing to remember is that as far as behaviour is concerned, the rule of research is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Some Nazis obviously enjoyed their work but others, as demonstrated in the Milgram experiments, did it only under authority. The same set of behaviours can be the result of different motivations and circumstances.
  
  The most sound approach taken in research is that the results are always viewed with caveats kept in mind. In the present case, the two points I made above need to be considered when interpreting the findings of any genetic study. The people who have failed to do this constitute the who's who of research villains that I wrote about earlier (I think you misunderstood what I wrote - the list of researchers cited in Lynn's review was what I was referring to, not the list of writers that you presented).
  
• Atobe

  24 Jul 03, 12:37

  Many thanks ST and Gendaken for both your patience and clarifications to this subject of genetics and human behavior, and my apologies to Gendaken for misinterpreting the “list of villains”.
  
  While I can understand the logic of drugs shaping the habits of addiction by “kick starting” certain gene within one’s DNA, and that “without exposure to drugs in the first place, there will be no addiction”; the part concerning "environmental factors affecting the general behavior of Humans" remains curiously interesting.
  
  While “organisms react to objects and events around them”, will it not be the case of some organisms in each person pushing him to form reactions and decisions that RESULT in the larger guidelines of Life Activities; and with peoples within the Community having similar organisms reacting and accepting similar attitudes ?
  
  An event that is similar to a “Push-Pull” effect amongst peoples with the same “organism” within them; while those that are not attracted will find it repulsive and move on to form other communes.
  
  Will not the Milgram experiments also prove this “Push-Pull” concept even if on a speculative basis - if the “Authority” behind the “Teacher” had this “organism” and form an environment to activate the “latent organism” in the “Teacher” ?
  
  Could this not explain for the behavior of the conquering Mongols that swept across Asia into Europe, and for the behavior of the Germans that started two World Wars, and the land grabbing of the Colonialist Europeans throughout the world to do battles with each other ?
  
  Although there seems to be some hope of an Age of Peace after WW-2, there are smaller scale wars being fought during the last fifty years, by different peoples that seems to have the organism that affect their propensity to be aggressive.
  
  Some of this groups or community or race seems to display it openly, or with varying degree of tolerance towards such groups – as seen in the warring communities of Yugoslavia, Albania, Rumania, Germany, West and Central Asia (ex-Soviet regions), Spain, France (Corsican region), and South Americas.
  
  Although North Korea and South Korea are of similar stock, if you have ever encountered a Korean before, their natural propensity towards “ACTION” is quite high, when compared to other Asians.
  
  Similarly, if one looks at the Germans, and compare with the other European stock, their natural propensity towards “ACTION” is similarly acute.
  
  These peoples with a natural propensity for “ACTION” also seem to have a similar degree in the threshold of endurance towards pain and suffering.
  
  Japan seems to be a nation of people that is wealthy (by Asian standards), modern, industrious and industrialized, with law and order being the guiding spirit.
  
  Before WW-2, this was also the same set of conditions that largely allowed Japan to grow industrially to even challenge the might of the Russian Navy, and to allow them to be accepted as an equal to the Europeans in their relations in China – to the extent of Japan believing themselves to be far more superior then the Europeans (or Caucasians).
  
  With the highly secret world of Japanese Politics – conducted at so many different levels behind the scene, and the interconnection of Politics with Business and Industries; who can tell how the “Push-Pull” effect may not trigger some genetic “organism” within the Japanese people to accept “ACTION” again ?
  
  The study of genetics and behavior (of people or race) is a new area that has been included in the study of genetics, while much of what is written here is drawn mainly from observations of events and personal experiences in dealing and working with people from different nationalities and backgrounds, and in different settings and environments, with different pressures of work and challenges.
  
  It is interesting how different racial groups respond in different ways to near similar situations - not so much in handling the task at hand, but in their behaviorial attitudes such as emotion, patience, temper, frustrations, span of attention, persistence.
  
  
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  24 Jul 03, 16:54

  Don't put too much credience on the latent organism theory to explain such theory. Such extreme behaviours can easily, or more easily be induced via nurtured cultural idealogies or pratices being naturally extended to the extreme by those who know how to twist them.
  
  Basically, there is no good reason why any certain population of people will share a bias towards ACTION in their latent organism unless it had been bred into them via evolutionary processes, of which we have none. I seriously doubt the average german will have more genes making them want to follow extreme action. There are good reasons for this. Basically, it's not always a good thing to do extreme things, evolutionary speaking. This is because humans are not eusocial. If such genes exist, they are basically self defeating because it drives the race to exaust their best and brightest doing basically pointless things like invite war onto themselves. These genes will remove themselves from the gene pool in short order. Genes which encourage such extreme behavior would only be rewarded if humans were eusocial.
  
  Basically, a more likely theory is nurturing of the basal human. Basically, any human being, Japanese or German or Malay, if brought up from young with strong values of loyality to their nation and the basic belief of their superiority, added with the idea that other people are jealous of them and want to take what's rightfully theirs. Let that fester from youth and allow misconceptions to grow into unquestioning acceptence, and then kick start them on extreme idealogy. It's not difficult to see how anybody can become a nazi. It dosen't take genes, even if those genes may make you more likely to become one or not. The fact is, anybody could become a nazi or racist, given the right conditions. And back then, the conditions were suitable to affect a large proportion of the population.
  
  Basically at most we can say is that genes may make one group of related people more implusive then another. But basically, the human being is a very complex animal that works on the outer loop of evolution. Environmental factors have and always have played the larger role in shaping the nuances person while genes defined the ballpark in which these factors play.
• Gedanken

  24 Jul 03, 17:05

  Atobe, I think we are starting to reach a point of agreement here. I agree with you on the fundamental point that people from certain cultures tend to act in a certain way; each culture seems to have its own distinctive characteristics. However, the research evidence I have seen in favour of environmental factors being the stronger influence is much more compelling than that in favour of genetics.
  
  If you were to take a person from one culture and place them in another, would that person entirely retain his or her original cultural characteristics? My answer would be no. A good case in point here would be Alberto Fujimori, who not only acculturated when he went from Japan to Peru, but indeed did it to the point where he got himself elected president.
  
  From an evolutionary perspective, one of the key characteristics that has allowed the spread of the human race across the world is adaptability. If we have one characteristic that is genetically driven, it is that we alter ourselves to suit our environment. To some extent we attempt to influence the environment, but is is always in reaction to a preexisting condition.
  
  Being picky, "behavioural attitudes" is a bit of an oxymoron. It is either a behaviour or action, or it is an attitude or thought. Nonetheless I get the gist of what you are saying, and the way different cultures conduct themselves is very much a matter of the social environments that exist within them.
  
  At the end of the day, however, as I said in my first post, looking at the circumstances that you described, be it from a psychological or genetic perspective, i agree that there is little, if anything at all, to stop Japan from a repeat of WW2.
  
• CX

  25 Jul 03, 01:27

  well, guess we've found some common ground... thats cool... at least this didn't degenerate into a flame war... i do lose control of myself sometimes and get excessively curt and sarcastic sometimes...
  
  my apologies to all if i've crossed the line of courtesy sometimes...
  
  however, i do think that it will take a fundamental change in the current world order to get Japan to take that path again... there are just too many unknowns at this point in time.
  
  we can't say for sure that "if we let them do this, they'll invade the rest of asia again" ... its just too shallow... pple might be tempted to bring in the lessons of appeasement and munich, but times have changed... this isn't munich and koizumi isn't hitler... nor do we have any reason to conclusively believe that they'll go that way...
  
  besides, it isn't about appeasement... i still think its about respecting their right to defend themselves and given their awkward situation, they are rightly worried...
  
• Atobe

  25 Jul 03, 05:47

  
  Many thanks Gendaken, ST and CX for an insightful tour of your knowledgeable and thoughtful contributions that allowed a real exercise of the minds to probe into a very controversial subject of Genetics and the Behavior of the Human Race.
  
  I certainly agree with CX that it is senseless to seek recrimination towards the Japanese or the Germans for some events that happened during the 1940's; with those events caused by past National Leaders, who were foolishly driven by greedy political ambitions that led their respective nations to cause misery to themselves and millions of people across the globe.
  
  While it is pointless to seek recrimination, we should ensure that Japan will act responsibly to allow for more openness in the flow of information to all her peoples to the events that had occurred, and we should not accept nor allow any attempts to distort history for the sake of the future generations before us.
  
  The World Community should press this minimum standard onto Japan in exchange for an acceptance Japan's desire to play a bigger positive contributory role on the World Stage.
  
  Human kind has a tendency to forget past events, and with the passing of each generations the memory of past events become less significant; resulting in lessons having to be learnt again at a much higher cost.
  
  Asia has been much kinder towards Japan and its people, when compared to how Israel has continuously held the Conscience of the World to ransom for the holocaust that fell on their People during WW-2.
  
  While we encourage Japan to play a positive role in the World Community, we should expect Japan to be more responsible and forthcoming in the conduct of its relationship with its immediate neighbors and those further from its shores.
  
  Her aggressive determination to succeed in any tasks is an innate characteristic of the Japanese People, and when harnessed and managed by the World Community it will be able to play a positive role for the benefit of all.
  
  The alternative can only be a dreadful one, as history has shown.
  
  
• laser51088

  26 Jul 03, 20:44

  Concerns rise over Japan troop dispatch to Iraq
  2 hours, 35 minutes ago
  
  By Elaine Lies
  
  TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan enacted a controversial law on Saturday that paves the way to dispatch troops to Iraq (news - web sites) in what could be the nation's biggest overseas military deployment since World War Two.
  
  But with concern rising about safety amid continuing attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, it remained unclear when -- or if -- deployment would be carried out.
  
  After two days of opposition party delaying tactics that put back passage until the wee hours, parliament's Upper House approved the law, which critics say could violate Japan's pacifist constitution.
  
  Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has been determined to keep his promise to the United States to send troops to Iraq, despite the fact that a recent poll showed more than half of Japanese voters oppose the move, promising that troops would only be sent to a "non-war" zone.
  
  Koizumi said Saturday that maximum efforts would be taken to guarantee safety for Japan's Self-Defence Forces (SDF).
  
  "We will conduct precisely required aid operations....with sufficient consideration of the safety of SDF personnel," he was quoted by Kyodo news agency as saying.
  
  But Naoto Kan, head of the largest opposition Democratic Party and a vehement opponent of the law, condemned its passage.
  
  "We believe in trying to fill the Iraqi people's need for aid, but opposed sending the SDF over there, since a war-like situation continues," he said in a statement.
  
  Japanese media also expressed concern. The daily Asahi Shimbun warned the situation had to be carefully studied.
  
  "It is not as if the people of Iraq have asked us to be there," it said, noting that troops would face dangers such as the guerrilla-style attacks now plaguing U.S. troops.
  
  Kyodo quoted Iraqis as saying that Japanese troops could indeed become the target of attacks.
  
  "It is risky for Japanese troops to be stationed here," said Hassan al-Najjar, assistant dean of the Media College at Baghdad University.
  
  Koizumi's ruling coalition had pledged to have the bill passed by the Upper House before the current parliamentary session ends on Monday.
  
  Failure would have meant a huge loss of face for Koizumi, possibly forcing him to call a snap general election.
  
  The law's passage was fraught with troubles, including the submission of several censure motions, a no-confidence motion against Koizumi's government, and a scuffle between lawmakers from opposing sides during a committee meeting.
  
  ------------------------------------
  
  The next step away from Japanese pacifism.
  
  It now remains a question of time before Japan regains its legal right to have a force not bound by World War 2 treaties.
  
  
• cavsg

  11 Aug 03, 08:49

  Japanese Navy Seeks Carrier Funding
  Aviation Week & Space Technology
  08/11/2003, page 32
  
  Eiichiro Sekigawa
  Tokyo
  
  Maritime Punch
  
  Japan's navy has requested initial funding for the first of what will be the largest fighting ships--eight 13,500-metric-ton-class helicopter carriers.
  
  Funding to begin building the first ship is being sought in the fiscal 2004 budget. Each is expected to cost $1 billion and carry four Sikorsky/Mitsubishi SH-60K subhunters.
  
  Regional tensions, particularly the ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea's Taepo-Dong program, have prompted Japan to rethink much of its post-World War II pacifism. The Japanese navy's largest fighting ships are four 7,250-metric-ton Aegis cruisers. (The navy does have three 13,000-metric-ton transport ships.)
  
  However, for the past 30 years navy planners have been seeking a light carrier for helicopters and vertical takeoff/landing (VTOL) aircraft, such as a Boeing AV-8B. But their pleas have been rebuffed by the Defense Agency out of regional political concerns over Japan "rearming."
  
  But the North Korean aggression is wearing away such resistance. The country has developed its first military reconnaissance satellite fleet and is considering a missile defense system.
  
  The plan is to assign each of the navy's four fleets two of the helicopter carriers. Currently, those fleets are equipped with a 5,000-ton flagship that can carry three helicopters.
  
  Besides the situation's political ramifications, the navy will face some budget opposition because the cost is so high relative to other programs. The plan does not include introduction of a VTOL aircraft.
  
• JLennon

  11 Aug 03, 09:51

  Originally posted by nismoS132:

  seriously, i think it's a good thing.
  
  who knows, macross valkyries and gundams might not be that far off in the future.

  i look forward to that day man.... SDF-1 and protoculture may already be in the pipelines somewhere.