• PugJesus@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    This is very much incorrect, on… multiple levels, but most notably the idea that the Japanese military is under US command. The fuck?

  • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The Japanese-American Status of Forces Agreements at no point remove Japanese jurisdictional authority over American military sites.

    They function nearly identically to other SOFA between states around the world — which makes sense because they are largely the template for later such agreements.

  • domusaltera@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Literally not true 🧐

    Just Google: “Is the Japanese military under US command when there is a national emergency?”.

    "No, the Japanese military—officially known as the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF)—is not automatically under United States command during a national emergency.

    Under the current security framework and Japanese law, the JSDF is controlled by the Japanese Ministry of Defense, with the Prime Minister as the commander-in-chief.

    Here is the breakdown of the command structure during emergencies:

    • Independent Command Chains: In an emergency, Japanese and U.S. forces operate under their respective chains of command, cooperating closely as allies rather than as a single integrated force.

    • Operational Coordination: While not technically under U.S. command, the JSDF is designed for extreme interoperability with the U.S. military. They use a “Joint Operations Command” (established in March 2025) and an “Alliance Coordination Mechanism” to synchronize efforts.

    • “Rear Support” Role: Japanese law allows the JSDF to provide “rear support” to U.S. forces in regional contingencies, but this is a coordinated activity rather than a command transfer.

    • Historical Context/Debate: The idea that Japan’s forces would fall under a U.S. commander in a crisis is a subject of political debate within Japan, stemming from an unofficial “secret pact” in the 1950s. However, modern Japanese officials have explicitly stated they are not considering transferring command authority to the U.S.

    Key 2025/2026 Shift:Japan has established a permanent Joint Operations Command (JJOC) to unify its own branches, allowing it to act more independently, while the U.S. is elevating its own forces in Japan (USFJ) to a “Joint Force Headquarters” to facilitate smoother peer-to-peer cooperation rather than unilateral command.

      • sartalon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Served in the Navy and was stationed in Japan for three years.

        It is not inaccurate.

        TLDR: The U.S. is not taking over Japanese assets and under any circumstances barring alien invasion and kaiju. (In the case of kaiju, we should probably operate under Japanese control.)

        While we practice/train with the JMSDF, and have ok interoperability, there is zero infrastructure for us to control them.

        It would actually hurt us and would be easier to tell them to stay home while we did everything than to try and control both assets at the same time.

        However, we can work together, by assigning each service their own responsibilities and let each perform those responsibilities within their own chain of command. That would work peachy.

        In that sense, we may have overall strategic command, but the Japanese would absolutely have a seat at the strategic table, and the Japanese would and should take their toys and go home, the minute we asked them to do something against their best interest.

        • domusaltera@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Thanks for that comment. This was such an odd post. Also the other statement in it that Japan has no jurisdiction over US bases is also inaccurate. They are Japanese territory leased to the United States under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. While these bases are under exclusive U.S. control and operate under U.S. jurisdiction, they remain part of Japan. It seems posts like these are just intended to increase friction.

      • domusaltera@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        What a weird conversation terminating comment. All the information is referenced. Are you suggesting we should disregard Google results even if the references confirm the information? The Japanese military IS NOT under US command in emergency situations. If you believe otherwise I look forward to your evidence to the contrary.

        • expr@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          No, I’m saying you should link to actual sources instead of whatever an LLM decided to barf out (which may or may not be rife with inaccuracies).

          Posting garbage like that is both a recipe for spreading misinformation (and we have strong evidence that LLMs greatly increase the potency and spread of misinformation), as well as devolving intellectual discourse into users just tossing slop back and get forth at each other. It would be trivial to make an LLM say the opposite of what you claim. So why should one trust the text spewed out by your LLM vs the text spewed out by someone else’s? Regardless if what you say is true, giving us the garbage from an LLM as “supporting evidence” completely undermines what you are trying to say.

          Find real sources and link them. It raises the quality of discussion and makes the internet an ever so slightly better place.

          • domusaltera@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 hours ago

            You’ve already been told by someone else that this is not inaccurate and you are fully able to research it yourself. If you want to “raise the quality of discussion” please do so. So far I see very little evidence of that.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 hours ago

              The slop may happen to mostly be correct this time. Did you actually follow it up and verify it was true before you posted it?

              Or did you post a question to Google and copy out the LLM response as if it said something true?

              • domusaltera@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                “The slop may happen to mostly be correct this time.” I’m glad you understand that now. There really isn’t anything else to discuss. This was never about AI Slop. That’s just a distraction.

    • GalacticSushi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      In their defense, I don’t think Japan anticipated that the US would be debuting a new weapon that is capable of vaporizing entire cities along with everyone and everything within it.