by David Axe, 9/2012
I wrote about a similar topic already. Let's be serious; China would not attack the U.S. unless the U.S. is engaged in (South) East Asia.
The still U.S.-occupied Philippines were the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbour. Without them, the Japanese could have felt secure trying to focus on the British, Dutch and Australians (Dutch for their oil in SE Asia, British because it had the dominant base of Singapore on the way, Australians because they would fight with the British and could have set up a dominant base at Rabaul).
The still U.S.-occupied Philippines were the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbour. Without them, the Japanese could have felt secure trying to focus on the British, Dutch and Australians (Dutch for their oil in SE Asia, British because it had the dominant base of Singapore on the way, Australians because they would fight with the British and could have set up a dominant base at Rabaul).
Alliances in East Asia do not serve the U.S.'s national security; they serve its great power gaming potential ("advantages") and the East Asian allies' national security.
It would likely better for (South) East Asian peace if the small powers in the region and Japan form one or two treaty-based collective defence alliances instead of being in some more or less binding alliance with the U.S. which appears to be more about some kind of containment than defence.
Well, I can be fine with it as long as Germany doesn't get involved by either war or its fallout.
S Ortmann
.
As can we all.
ReplyDelete