Japan should remove Article 9 of it's constitution

Apologies for the previous forfeit. I will try and merge my rebuttals and my conclusive arguments in this round.R1:" Sovereigns Self-limit. Pro defines "sovereignty" as “the authority of a state to govern itself or another state." Using this definition, any limitation on a state's authority is a violation of it's authority. Unless we want states that have no restrictions whatsoever (e.g. Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany, etc.), we must accept that sovereignty comes with limits. No sovereign can govern absolutely, and there must be limits on what powers a state has to make and enforce laws. Since the purpose of sovereignty, as implied by this definition, is to limit external intervention in "internal" affairs, we can conjecture that the only reasonable limitations on sovereignty are those that have internal legitimacy, since these restrictions best respect the the end-goal of sovereignty. By "internal legitimacy," I mean popular, internal support. "(In regards to the USSR/Nazi Germay) Mote that in the case of the USSR and Nazi Germany, the people were not given a choice as to the decision making of their government, and had little say into the ruling made by each leader. For example, the Gulag labour camps to which many political prisoners/dissidents were sent to as a result of questioning the sovreignty of the government. But this analogy does not apply well to Japan. Since firstly: I am suggesting that absoulte control is a sovreigns right and secondly: Japan is by no means comparable to the Stalinist USSR since in Article 15 of the constitution it states: "The people have the inalienable right to choose their public officials and to dismiss them."Hence the comparison is inaccurate.Thirdly, in dealing with sovreignty, a nation's ability to moblize military forces in self-defence is a fairly basic function to any sovreign state.Source:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://japan.kantei.go.jp...R2: "Many countries, through colonization or conquest or some other process have political systems that reflect foreign influence, but this foreign influence does not itself delegitimize the systems. If the systems are supported by the local people, the systems are still expressions of the will of the people consistent with the values of sovereignty. For instance, if you force X upon me, but it turns out I love X, it would be a violation of my wants and desires to take X away from me. Similarly, just because X may be imposed by an external force, if the people of a society love it, it would be a violation of their wishes and self-rule to rescind X."However, note that while the incuring influence of foreign powers may not delegitimize a government, it does not justify the original incursion of foreign powers.For example, as used in your previous analogy, "if you force X upon me, but it turns out I love X, it would be a violation of my wants and desires to take X away from me" Even if you do turn out to like X, it doesn't justify having X forced upon you. Similarily, if the Japanese population turns out to be satisfied with Article 9, it does not justify having Article 9 forced upon them originally.R3: "In the Sunakawa case, decided in 1959, shortly before the US-Japan Security Treaty was to be renewed, the defendants to criminal proceedings for trespassing on a US Forces base challenged the constitutionality of the US-Japan Security Treaty and the presence of US military forces in Japan...The Court went on to comment, however, that Article 9 did not deprive Japan of the inherent right of self-defense, and that such measures or arrangements that were limited to the purpose of protecting Japan would not therefore be inconsistent with Article 9." [6] Clearly, therefore, the constitutional law surrounding Article 9 does not prohibit self-defense, essentially making this point moot. "Given this, and given that Japan has a mutual defense pact with the U.S., [7] it seems implausible that Japan would be unable to protect itself or fulfill its national security needs even with Article 9 in place."The largest problem with putting one's defence in the hands of a foreign power is the dependency that would grow later on. For example, if the United States were unwilling to moblize troops for Japan (given the large amounts of Legal work and PR work that would be required to moblize trrops abroad) this would leave Japan in a position of defenslessness as they would not be able to respond to whatever imposing threat required mobliztion.Secondly, very similar treaties have been made with numerous other countries to whom already have an active military in the case that defense were required. Such countries are: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.Most of these aformentioned countries already have a military on their own (Such as Brazil and Canada) despite the defence that they have from the United States. So even though a treaty had already been signed by Japan and the US, having an active military would still make sense.Sources:1. http://www.state.gov...2. http://avalon.law.yale.edu...3. http://occupywallst.org...R4: "1. Nations that act in a pacifistic fashion are naturally less provocative to their neighbors. Thus, they are less likely to be targets of aggression.2. Pacifism prevents the military from gaining too much political power which could give it outsized influence in the society and/or threaten constitutional government.3. Pacifism impedes a country's ability to get entangled in costly wars."Pascificm and military can still be compatible. If the military only uses their power for defence when necessary. For example, acording to the UN Peace index, the 4 most peace ful countries in the world are: Iceland, Denmark, Austria and New Zealand.With the exception of Iceland, all of these countries have a standing army of their own, despite the lack of major conflicts they participate in. This hence shows that pacifism can still be achieved in countries with a standing army.Source:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. https://en.wikipedia.org...5. https://en.wikipedia.org... In conclusion and summary, here were my arguments.1. Article 9 impedes Japan's sovreignty2. The creation of the Article was not Japan's choice.3. Self defense in the country is required, and the existence of the Article inhibits such.4. With the removal of the Article, Expansion and Belligerency is unikely. I apologies for my absecne and await Con's rebuttals