Talk:Japan–United States relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Recent history

June 17, 2006: Considering an expansion of the New Millenium subsection. The preceding section does not do justice to the heightened unity between these two nations resulting from what each nation's citizens feel is a vital alliance. Specifically, they believe that an increasing threat from China (PRC) and North Korea economically (in the case of the PRC) and militarily (primarily in the case of North Korea) makes the US-Japan alliance vital. In addition, these two nations have a great deal of cultural ties that have grown in the last decade with US citizens increasingly absorbing Japanese pop culture and Japanese citizens doing the same with American pop culture. Seeking an opinion before starting. -User:SZero

[edit] rename

why not rename this article into "Japanese-American relations"? march 06

[edit] Hiroshima and Nagasaki

How come an article on "Japanese-American relation" has no mention of nuclear bombing during World War? Is it not relevent or does it have no effect on the relation? Can someone add a reaction and psychological effect?

We need to cover the Pacific War. I just started a section.Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rise of the falcons?

Why does this article have a section titled "Rise of the falcons"? What do falcons have to do with Japanese-American relations? Although falcons are mentioned in the section title, they are not mentioned anywhere in the body text. --JHP 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US gov material

It would seem that the majority of the article is taken from http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/ and has remained basicly unaltered. The fighting falcons is there from the first version of this page as far as I can tell, even though I couldn't find any mention of it. What it might be is a reference to the F-2, the variant of the F-16 fighting falcon, even though I've only heard of the Fighting Falcon refering the the F-16 and the nickname Viper more commonly used for both. I suggest a title change for that section as it doesn't make a lot of sense.71.214.3.41 03:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1860-1940's?

there's a large gap between 1860 until World War 2. Can someone perhaps add to this section?

I was going to say the same thing. Shidehara Diplomacy, emigration issues, these all need to be covered. I know a little bit, but not enough to contribute singly. matt91486 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
An Uncertain Friendship: Theodore Roosevelt and Japan, 1906-1909 by Charles E. Neu is a great resource for the immigration issues and some Far East Hegemony/Sphere of Influence issues if someone wants to add; I would do it myself but it is almost finals season >_< Konamaiki (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Also Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 is a inter-wiki source for info... Konamaiki (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Information

This article mentions that the Japanese constitution forbids the deployment of Japanese military personnel overseas, however it also mentions that Japan sent troops to aid the U.S. in Iraq. Perhaps a knowledgeable person could insert information regarding whether or not their constitution had changed, and if not, how did Japan get around it to send the troops. Guldenat 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll insert some language when I have a chance. The Japanese Constitution is actually interpreted as allowing the dispatch of Self Defense Force assets abroad provided there is a legislative mandate and that the operation is authorized or organized by the UN. Japanese troops are not deployed into combat situations, but provide logistical support. Every deployment needs separate legislative approval-- a separate law has to be passed and, when it expires, it has to be extended again by the legislature. The Japanese Government interpreted the early UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq as providing sufficient constitutional cover to pass a law to allow the JSDF to deploy in support of the Coalition. There are still some Japanese air assets in Kuwait flying support missions (non-combat) for the Coalition. Japan also has a small naval force in the Indian Ocean providing fuel to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the Afghanistan operation. The GOJ has plans to pass a permanent dispatch law in the future to allow the government to deploy military forces on its own initiative (w/out consent of the Diet), as long as it doesn't break the constitutional prohibition; but it may be difficult to push it through the Diet's Upper House. A few years ago, when Koizumi was PM, it looked like Japan was seriously moving to amend the constitution and do away with the Article 9 restrictions-- but that didn't happen, and the past 2 Japanese Governments have been much too weak to tackle such a major project. 169.253.4.21 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

[edit] Copyright Infringement Notice

This Copyright Infringement appears to be erroneous, as the linked article was produced by the US Government, and documents as such typically carry no copyright. After looking at the link, I didn't see any copyright in the document either.--Batura (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I've withdraw the copyvio.--Cahk (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other points

"great cultural proliferation" ? Seriously? I suggest that this is changed, both due to percived gramattical issues and more to the point the fact that quite frankly it dosn't make any great amount of sense. The concept of "cultural proliferation" is only relevant in social philosophy or, to be blunt, idealogical warfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Where are all the monkeys??? (talkcontribs) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)