Japan, it seems, is soon to possess armed forces beyond what is necessary for self-defense, and there is nothing whatsoever 'nationalist' about this proposal. It is just the latest policy being foisted on Japan by the United States. Gee, that's funny, but every Japanese nationalist of any significance supported Koizumi and the governing coalition parties. But, then again, we should hardly be surprised that Western gaijin have arrogated to themselves the privilege of deciding who is and is not a true Japanese nationalist. Furthermore, it seems to me that there is something inherently and essentially nationalist about insisting on the right to defend the territory and interests of the country by engaging in war.
Japan is now defenseless against the possibility of attack.
And, in wishing for it, US policymakers will not necessarily be all that pleased with the results. Powerful pro-China interests, influential in the Bush administration, will likely be aroused to opposition. Best of all, Japanese rearmament, and the cultural-political shift this implies, will eventually lead to the demand for an end to the US occupation, a demand that has been getting louder and more insistent lately. Surely the noninterventionist Szamuely thinks this would be a good thing. The rise of China as a regional hegemon would never have been possible without the American conquest and subordination of Japan.