Article 9 of the Constitution as a Deterrent to a War of Aggression









・それは誰の為の主張なんですか? 日本人? 自衛官? アメリカ? それ以外?




Yesterday, I took the occasion to study up a bit on Japanese history.

May 3, 1947: The Japanese Constitution came into force.
January 12, 1953: South Korea began an operation to seize by force Takeshima Island, which was part of the territory of Japan.
South Korea unilaterally fired upon Japanese fishing vessels, injuring 44 fishermen, of which 5 died.
Ultimately, a total of 328 vessels were seized, and 3,929 persons were detained.
Patrol boats from the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency were fired upon by the South Koreans, and 16 vessels were attacked.
As a result of this series of operations, South Korea took physical possession of the Japanese territory of Takeshima.
And the illegal occupation continues to this day.

Conclusion: The logic behind the argument that "because of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, foreign countries will not undertake an armed invasion of Japan" totally broke down some 61 years ago.

I thus find it hard to understand those who have over the years have insisted "Uphold Article 9 of the Constitution!"

For whose benefit is such advocacy? The Japanese people? The Self-Defense Forces? America? Other?

Is this realistic advocacy in light of the international situations in the Middle East, Tibet, Uighur parts of China, etc.?

And is this advocacy truly in the interest of Japan and the Japanese people?

If you think that the historical facts which I have relied upon for this reasoning are wrong, please let me know as soon as possible.