Robert D. Eldridge's idea in his March 30 article, "" sounds great, but there should be a condition: Neither country should deploy its military in the other's territory on a permanent basis.
Japan could not afford to deploy military/rescue teams to the quake-prone U.S. Pacific coast permanently anyway. So why would the United States want to do this? Eldridge should explain.
Furthermore, such a treaty should not be just a bilateral one between Japan and the U.S.; instead, it should be multilateral, covering the whole Pacific Rim. In that way, it would be more meaningful for sure.
One comeback to Eldridge's proposal is that the U.S. is already deployed in Japan "on a permanent basis." Wouldn't that fact go against the spirit and stipulation of such a treaty? The U.S. military, therefore, should leave Japan, which of course includes Okinawa, after its rescue mission is successfully accomplished.