If I understand correctly- the pacifism of article 9 is broadly popular and part of their national identity now.

It is an inspiring idea to give up weapons, even if it hasn't worked in practice.

The idea is noble, certainly, but foolish in practice as evidenced by their actually having armed forces disguised as self defence forces. Now, of course to keep up appearances, it does hamstring them --but as further evidenced by this "helicopter destroyer" it's more of appearances --it's like whaling but calling the whaling "cetacean research" rather than just whaling.

Most countries refer to their arms spending as ‘defense spending’. Japan seems to go through further contortions but it’s not like everyone else is that different.

I am Japanese, and I don’t feel that not all our society agrees with whole article 9 thing anymore. North Korea has been too much threat for sure... real missiles flew over our houses few times in last 6 months..

It is up to Japan to decide to do this or not, the USA is already ok with article 9 repeal and have even encouraged it. It probably won’t happen until North Korea and China rattle their sabers more.

Yeah, USA is not enforcing it in the least outside of political posturing.

They've already started the process to rewrite, by 2020 I believe.

America wants Japan to take responsibility for more of Japan's own military defense. So the US wants changes to Article 9 as well. Trump moreso than Obama even.

I'm sure the military industrial complex supports this very wealthy nation being freed from its spending constraints as well.

The ink on the constitution had barely had enough time to dry when the US began pressuring Japan to repeal it. There certainly will not be any change to the constitution while Akihito is emperor, and I predict there will be a huge scandal when his son inevitably comes out against it.

what would actually be the repercussions of repealing article 9 on an international level? are there any interests that lean heavily on Japan not investing in military or would the consequences - aside from the obvious neighbouring tensions of having more guns in the world - be entirely internal?