
Japan's Cute Army - coloneltcb
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/japans-cute-army?mbid=social_twitter
======
njharman
I would bet a large part (or all of it) is that anime and cartoons and toys
aren't seen as toys, as things just for children, it is normal adult interest.
Much anime is very adult and dark. Other anime is war filled.

It's no different than painting pin-up girls on on your B-17. Also, btw, US
Cartoons bugs, daffy, woodpecker are not uncommon nose art subjects. google
"bugs bunny nose art".

~~~
jordigh
> it is normal adult interest.

Is it really? How intimate are you with Japanese culture? I am skeptical that
Japanese people generally view anime with the same reverence that they view
the works of Akira Kurosawa or Natsume Soseki.

edit: okay, anime is serious business.

~~~
ics
My partner's parents and grandparents watch anime, read manga, and her parents
definitely game way more than us (PC, iPhone, and handheld PS/Nintendo/...).
It's a casual activity like reading a book or watching TV, not just for
techies/geeks/nerds/etc. But to address any concerns about value to society,
they do hold Katsuhiro Otomo's _Akira_ on a pretty high pedestal. Not the same
as Kurosawa, but why should that matter?

Edited to add: both her and my parents are roughly the same age and share many
interests in art/media/culture. Mine are from the US and were adults by the
time Pong came out; despite the explosion of media in recent years I don't
think the type of content they look for is much different than it would be
otherwise. South Park might be the only exception.

------
patio11
Related (won't teach you anything very profound but you'll chuckle):

An actual commercial for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense force. An actual
commercial for the US Navy. Then the same two commercials with the audio
switched.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNdPPEwguDQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNdPPEwguDQ)

(This highly selectively picked example aside, the main recruitment messages
for the JSDF are very similar to that of the armed services in the US:
"Preserve the peace. Serve the nation. Learn a useful trade. Enquire within.")

------
NoGravitas
> This stressful, ongoing debate fuels the seeming paradox of an “endearing”
> military force. In Japan, where indirect communication is highly valued,
> cute illustrations have long played the role of tension-breakers and
> mediators in situations of conflict. Thus kawaii mascots, whether
> miniskirted girls or bunny-rabbit decoy launchers, are both a reflection of
> pop-cultural trends and a way to defuse the very touchy issues surrounding
> the military’s undeniable presence.

Contrast this to the way [The Culture][0] dealt with their ambivalence over
having to tool up to fight a full-scale war (the Idiran War). They
specifically designed their warships to be ugly, and gave them ship class
names reflecting the ugliness of their roles (e.g. Gangster, Torturer,
Psychopath, and Thug). While depicting your weapons as _kawaii_ is very
different from depicting them as heroic/inspiring, I think the Culture's lack
of euphemism is the better way to go.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture)

~~~
dkbrk
This is a very good point, but I think the Japanese way might actually be
better. The problem is that emphasising brutality and ugliness in the style of
the Culture may over time lead to a shift in perception normalising agression,
or in other words, it could shift the Overton Window towards militarism. For
example, if ships were named something like "Peacekeeper" or "Ambassador"
rather than "Torturer" or "Thug", it would lead to a perception of peace-
keeping as their intended role.

It works in the case of the Culture because of their extraordinary degree of
self-awareness and anti-militarism; no member of the Culture could possibly
lack cognizance of the significance of the names, wheras we, alas, live in
somewhat less enlightened times. In the Culture it serves to emphasise the
ugliness of their purpose, wheras if applied in our world could be all to
easily misinterpreted as unvarnished militarism.

It is interesting to note the degree of anti-militarism in Japan. Though this
may be taken to an extreme in the opposition to taking part in international
peacekeeping missions, at the very least it means that Japan is very unlikely
to be subject to escalating influence and dominance by the military as may be
permitted in other countries due to general public apathy. However, I think
this also means that any attempt to emphasise the inherent ugliness the the
purpose of the military would be prima facie faced with extreme opposition, no
matter the intent.

~~~
zyxley
> For example, if ships were named something like "Peacekeeper" or
> "Ambassador" rather than "Torturer" or "Thug", it would lead to a perception
> of peace-keeping as their intended role.

I'm reminded of Star Trek, where the Federation's focus on "peacekeeping and
exploration" never stopped it from fitting even the most measly science
vessels with phaser banks and maybe some photon torpedo launchers.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Keep in mind that in Star Trek, both phasers and photon torpedoes are
versatile tools (the former being useful for all kinds of pinpoint-accuracy
energy delivery, the latter being used for sending probes), and in general,
Federation's armament is multi-purpose and not really too optimized for
combat.

~~~
Jtsummers
As well, it's got a lot of naval/old west parallels in story and setting.
You'd be hard pressed to find a family venturing west in the 1800s that didn't
have a few guns on hand, or a sailing ship between Europe and the Americas
that didn't have an armory. There are dangers out in the wild spaces between
worlds.

~~~
brightsize
I wonder if these families and vessels had automated "self-destruct sequences"
built right into them like the original ST Enterprise did?

------
Animats
"Gate", the anime,[1] was written by a former JSDF member and is being used
for recruiting by the JSDF.[2]

It has its cute moments, but in some ways it's painfully serious. The concept
is that a Roman-empire level culture with huge armies tries to invade Tokyo
and conquer Japan via a magical inter-world gate in Ginza. Here's the short
version.[3]

[1] [http://gate-anime.com/](http://gate-anime.com/) [2]
[http://www.mod.go.jp/pco/tokyo/tokusetu/tokusetu.html](http://www.mod.go.jp/pco/tokyo/tokusetu/tokusetu.html)
[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWi2mYklRl4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWi2mYklRl4)

~~~
viewer5
I watched that, and enjoyed it for the most part, but I either totally missed,
or they just didn't explain, what the purpose was for the initial invasion
from the other world into Japan. Do we know what that was all about? Was it
purely, "Hey we've got this sweet portal thing, let's go seize whatever's on
the other side"?

~~~
mjevans
What I got from watching it (during one of the political discussions in a
later episode) was that the initial effort, what is seen in the opening
scenes, was a combination of blind land grab and attempting to experiment with
a new resource. Naturally, once the invading force had awoken the wrath of the
public the SDF fought.

------
api
"Or does the Japanese constitution allow for preëmptive strikes outside of
domestic borders, in the manner of a traditional military?"

I found this sentence interesting -- I've been under the impression for some
time that preemptive war is not necessarily a traditional doctrine, at least
in America, and was introduced in the post-9/11 national security backlash
era. But I don't know enough about military history to really know.

~~~
JohnBooty
Historically, a lot of military action is preemptive.

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was a preemptive move in their eyes.

Imagine how Americans would feel if Russia established a huge military base
halfway between Russia and America in the middle of the ocean somewhere. Now
imagine that nuclear weapons don't exist.

In that scenario, a preemptive strike might start to make sense to a lot of
people in America.

That's pretty much how Japan felt about Hawaii before Pearl Harbor.

I'm not justifying Japan's attack. It was a horrible tragedy. But it's totally
understandable, if not laudable.

~~~
mjevans
A huge military base... you mean like Cuba during the cold war?

~~~
JohnBooty
Yes, and Cuba's certainly a heck of a lot closer to America than halfway.

If not for the threat of nuclear war, I'm sure we would have attacked Cuba. It
very nearly happened anyway.

(Of course, without the existence of nuclear weapons, the USSR never would
have even attempted that move in the first place)

------
fluxquanta
Seeing how anime culture has permeated the military in Japan makes me wonder
if anime/manga/games like Strike Witches[0], Kancolle[1], and Girls und
Panzer[2] are strictly for entertainment purposes or if they are in part
developed as a recruitment tool?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Witches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Witches)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantai_Collection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantai_Collection)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_und_Panzer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_und_Panzer)

Edit: As I read more of the article I see it mentions "Combined Fleet Girls
Collection" which is the Kancolle I referenced.

~~~
an_ko
> recruitment tool

Are _Counter Strike_ , _Battlefield_ and their ilk in the west "recruitment
tools"? Nah. Fiction involving military is still just fiction and implies
little about its purpose. All those examples are definitely _entertaining_
though.

~~~
fluxquanta
While Counter Strike and Battlefield in particular aren't used as recruitment
tools, the US military has (albeit overtly) gotten involved in video games in
the past[0], so it's not outside the realm of possibility.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army)

------
comex
Not that putting the military in cute cartoons is always associated with
pacifism. Here's North Korea for you:

[http://www.cracked.com/article_19329_the-5-craziest-
children...](http://www.cracked.com/article_19329_the-5-craziest-childrens-
cartoons-from-north-korea.html)

edit: or, for that matter, WWII era Japan itself:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momotarō:_Umi_no_Shinpei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momotarō:_Umi_no_Shinpei)

------
hasenj
Somewhat related: using a cute teenage idol in a recruitment ad:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xoEiPbZ4yo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xoEiPbZ4yo)

------
dropit_sphere
Japan is not an independent country, but rather a satellite of the United
States.

from the article:

"...ongoing debate over the mission of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. Is their
role truly one of self-defense, pure and simple? Or does the Japanese
constitution allow for preëmptive strikes outside of domestic borders, in the
manner of a traditional military?"

This is kind of shocking to read when you think about it:

1) militaries, historically, are for more than self-defense, even pre-emptive
self-defense. The article leaves this out, casting the choice as "in-border
defense vs out-border defense."

2) In a rare moment of visible doublethink, the article _also_ implies plainly
that it is in doubt whether Japan has a military at all: Traditional
militaries are the only kind, folks.

How does Japan survive as a sovereign nation without a military? Answer: it
doesn't.

Strange times.

~~~
krapp
It might be the case that Japan's pacifist stance was forced on them by the US
~70 years ago, but they're _still_ officially pacifist because they choose to
be. The US has wanted Japan to take a more aggressive military role for years,
particularly in dealing with the other Asian countries, but why should they,
when they have the world's most powerful and violent superpower sworn to throw
themselves into the meat grinder on Japan's behalf?

