• refalo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in 2023 paved the way for their arrival to conduct training programs for troops on Taiwan’s front line.

      100% legal.

      • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The US has declared its own overseas military deployments legal. All is well. Ford is in his Flivver.

        • refalo@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not sure what your apprehension is… it’s not like they are forcing it on Japan against their will…

          • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            The US demilitarized Japan after they were defeated in WWII, with the Japanese preferentially surrendering to the US to hope for a better deal. The US then established a bunch of bases there. The point of this was to (1) prevent Japan from remilitarizing as its own imperial power and (2) use it as a forward base against the USSR and China.

            The US is still using Japan to do this and important segments of the Japanese ruling class are trying to remilitarize Japan itself, both coordinating against China.

            Finally, Japan has questionable sovereignty. Japan’s economic downtown in the 90s was “synthetic” in the sense that it was created by US-led fiscal policy and not any “natural” result of their economy. I’m sure much of its political class is aware of this. And they are still basically militarily occupied by the US given those *massive" bases, many of which are very unpopular with the locals. Just ask Okinawa.

            And again, this is a plane doing a small toe dip on one route vs. long-range missiles designed to be able to carry nukes. Incredibly disproportionate.

            • refalo@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              My understanding is that after the war, the US agreed to defend Japan. And Japan is still allowed to defend itself against others too. I don’t understand how what you’re saying is related at all.

              • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                2 months ago

                The US occupied Japan. The agreement wasn’t exactly one made by equals. It was the same kind of deal as the Marshall Plan.

                Which parts of what I said don’t seem related?

                • refalo@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The US occupied Japan

                  Only until 1952. Everything you’re saying sounds like a strawman argument.

                  • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Only until 1952

                    De jure, yes. But also what is your point? Do you think this contradicts anything I said?

                    Everything you’re saying sounds like a strawman argument.

                    A straw man argument is where you pretend someone else is making an argument that they aren’t because it is rhetorically easier to address.

                    At which point have I done that even once?