US Bases in Japan for What?

One of the questions left over from the 'North Korean Bombardment' is why there are US bases in Japan. It is because of the Security Pact between the two, making it possible, together with Article 6(a) of the Peace Treaty, for the occupation forces to stay on in Japan under a different name. Its original version, signed in 1951, said the US would defend Japan. The new one of 1960 says, reflecting the growth of Japan's SDF(Self-Defense Forces), that each will act (if not jointly) against "an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan". Its letters have remained the same for the last fifty years, but its substance has greatly changed, particularly after both started calling each other an ally in 1981. The US bases have been used as a stepping stone to deploy their forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, far outside the "Far East" stipulated in the Pact. Thus the Pact could serve as a mechanism to involve Japan in a US-led war with Asian nations. Or could invite attack on Japan. Closely following the joint US-Korean exercises already mentioned, US-Japan exercises were held from 3 to 10 December under the command of an American officer. It is as if they are preparing the ground, or rather the air space and the sea, for the exercise by Japan of the right for collective self-defense, not allowed by the Constitution(more on this later). It was an exercise for waging a war.
With the US, South Korea and Japan's SDF thus getting ready, with Japan's contingency act in place since 1999, and with the "provocation" by DPRK, we would be wise not to minimize the risk in the current situation. The Japanese Prime Minister talked about the possibility of sending SDF planes to South Korea to evacuate Japanese nationals. It was reported yesterday that the US military sources have described the situation as getting dangerous. Was it really provocation on the part of DPRK as the media would like us to believe?. Not necessarily. But even if it is so there are ways to defuse the tension. The two Koreas are to be advised to come to an agreement on the two separate armistice lines drawn on the sea. In the absence of an overall armistice between the two ending the Korean War, the initiative for peace started at the second Korean summit of 2007 may well be followed up. The bombardment could well have been averted then. China at the moment is proposing that the chief negotiators of the six-party conference should have an emergency meeting. Why are some of the others hesitant to accept it? There might not be plenty of time left.