Ozawa proposed leaving the first two provisions as they are, and only adding a third to the effect that the second should not prevent Japan from maintaining forces to defend itself. This however appears to directly contradict the second provision, which states that absolutely no military forces should be maintained. While it does therefore provide for the defense forces, it appears almost as contradictory as currently having these forces in the first place. I would therefore rather advocate a more substantial revision than only adding a third provision.

The second proposal is submitted by Hatoyama. He bases his revision upon the existence of the Japanese SDF, which, as he maintains, is in effect maintaining forces of war. The existing Constitution forbids this. This is why Hatoyama proposes a complete revisal of both provisions. In contrast to Ozawa, Hatoyama goes to the other extreme of the matter by proposing a Constitution that provides for the maintenance of war forces and war potential, with a second provision that forbids the country from using these in acts of aggression. While this second provision therefore implies that military forces can only be used in defense, I do not believe that this implication strongly enough adheres to the spirit of the original first provision. Also, placing the provision second to the first that allows military forces emphasizes the war function rather than the self-defense functions....

The third proposal by Nakasone therefore appears to be the best option.
Nakasone proposes keeping the first provision intact, but discarding the original second and adding another in its place, together with a third provision. The second provision echoes the first by Hatoyama, that Japan has the right to maintain military forces, with the understanding that this is for self-defense purposes. The third provision then reiterates that the country retains its right for collective self-defense as well.

The latter proposal appears to work the best of the three. The most important reason for this is that it emphasizes the original purpose of Article 9 without removing military power entirely from the country. The first provision, remaining intact, emphasizes the country's desire to be an advocate of peace rather than war. The second provision still emphasizes this, but also provides that the country does have the right to defend itself should this become necessary. It does so without contradicting either of the other two provisions. The third provision further emphasizes the right of the country to retain its military forces for defense purposes, and also to help other countries with their self-defense effort.

The third proposal therefore includes all the elements that are necessary for Article 9 to target the country's perceived needs for self-defense, while also retaining the importance of its peace paradigm.