And faced with such a constitution, why did those in power not amend the constitution to permit legal rearmament of the nation? The answers to these questions are rooted in history. Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, which was ratified in 1946 and went into effect in 1947, renounces war, bans war potential, and prohibits the maintenance of land, sea, and air forces. Its purpose could not have been clearer if it had been one of the Ten Commandments. But because its provisions have created formidable obstacles to rearmament and have raised difficulties for U.S.-Japan security arrangements, the article has been a source of continual embarrassment to American policy makers and Japanese government leaders. In later years, both governments tried to disavow responsibility for the disarmament clause. On the American side, documents were released to support the argument that no one in the United States really intended that Japan should be permanently disarmed. Successive conservative governments in Japan, on the other hand, maintained that the no-war, no-arms clause did not mean at all what it said, and in any case a nation has an inherent right to self-defense.
What do You think about An Inoffensive Rearmament?
