It’s ridiculous, if those Japanese SDF on U.N. peacekeeping missions overseas are not allowed to use their weapons to rescue foreign troops that come under attack. So it’s natural that the rule will be changed for SDF to allowed to use weapons to guard troops from other countries on the same missions.

GI Korea : As for Dokdo(or Takeshima) issue in the reality, average Japanese aren’t interested in Dokdo at all. Most of them even don’t know exactly where it is. Probably some Japanese fishers who fish in neighboring sea, are concerned. Only Koreans are exited about this issue.

It’s a hell of a way to run a military, but Japan doesn’t have a military. It has a “self-defence force,” which wasn’t intended to ever be engaged in operations overseas anyway. Yeah, the precedent has now been set that overseas “peacekeeping” operations are to be considered legitimate, which they may technically be according to a strained interpretation of the letter of the law. But it takes a lot of gall to break the obvious intention of the law, and then complain that the law doesn’t facilitate your actions.
And no, I’m not at all worried about a Japanese “return to militarism,” but I wish that one of my favourite of Japan’s unique features would be preserved. And I find some of the hypothetical scenarios being used to try to justify constitutional revision to be rediculously contrived.

RYO

I wish it were the case, but a lot of people say that sort of crap with a straight face.

One reason why Japan’s constitutional reforms on the military are slow – countries like China and South Korea cry “wolf” to make political capital and try to keep Japan in its box.