Quote:
very broadly reinterpreted.
As a work colleague of mine (a lawyer) often says, all he does is read what someone else wrote, and works out what else it could mean.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
pascaly |
Re: Will Japan re-enter the aircraft carrier game? | ||
|
Posts: 1507 (23-Jun-2007 07:39:46) |
Quote: As a work colleague of mine (a lawyer) often says, all he does is read what someone else wrote, and works out what else it could mean. Kto kogo
|
||
Sargon |
|||
|
Posts: 210 (26-Aug-2007 02:56:09) Rice Boss |
That's about right. As mentioned in another thread here where I've discussed the thinking behind the Constitution at length, a lot of it boils down to
interpretation.
Sargon |
||
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2520 (26-Aug-2007 06:54:35) |
The current JSDF is capable of "offensive actions", and has lots of "capability" and "weapons", therefore is already in violation
of a (very) strict reading of the constitution.
Since what they now have is being accepted, very little (if anything) else is prohibited... at least by the constitution. There are, however several national laws that restrict operational locations and types, but these are far easier to change. |
||
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 2 (16-Dec-2007 21:16:12) |
Practica wrote: AFAIK that was a self-imposed limit. IIRC it was increased to 1000 nautical miles long ago, & since Japanese ships have deployed to the western Indian
Ocean in support of the USN, that must have been abolished, or exemptions authorised.
|
||
FreeloaderUK |
|||
|
Posts: 102 (12-Apr-2008 21:41:29) |
its in the USA's interest for Japan to get in the carrier game- a strong Japan will help counter china in 20years time.
|
||