Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 10:37 PM.
Evidence that this reductionist view is far to simple can be found in just about all writings from "Uyoku dantai" affiliates. "The Japan That Can Say No" is a classic, although its focus is on US/Japan.
As for "It could just be replaced with ' any countries name Nationalism is incredible racist", I don't really disagree with that (although there certainly are many kinds of nationalism, some more assertive (and focused on an external evil) than others (more inwards-looking and self-assured)). It was you, not me, who suggested a significant difference between Chinese and Japanese nationalism on this point.
As for the rest of my post (the reassurance part), it was meant as a clarification of why apologies and money had been supplied by Japan. If you recall your post, you asked me (as a response to my claim that Japan doing this had more to do with self-interest than benevolence and altruism). Japan has had everything to gain from improving its image, as had (Western) Germany after Hitler.
Last edited by Dodraugen; 20-08-2012 at 10:58 PM.
Since then however, Vietnam has had time to prepare for any further attack from China. I don't think China will be foolish enough to try it.
It is not about which country is more important than the other but about credibility. What credibility would all the other "protective treaties" not just in this area but around the world have if they ignored one? Oh I know we had a treaty but that one doesn't matter. Now I agree the US aren't going to get involved in a little spat, perhaps beyond sending a token ship to Subic, but really the Philippines is not going to give up the Shoal without a fight and if Chinese ships are being attacked from Clark as is most likely do you not think the Chinese would want to respond?
I agree China will want to avoid an armed clash with Vietnam if possible. However, that should not be mistaken to mean that China will avoid conflict with Vietnam at all cost. When it comes to matter that China consider vital to their security, they will engage Vietnam, militarily if they have to.
Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 11:35 PM.
The US has more than sufficient credibility even if they choose not to intervene in the spat between Philippines and China. It is very much about which issue is important and which is not. The world is smart enough to know that the American standing won't be severely harmed if they pull below their weight over the shoal. At the end of the day, Manila will lose in any armed conflict with China over the islands. Yes the pathetic little treaty doesn't matter in today's world, short of an all-out invasion of the Philippines.
Attack Clark? The Chinese don't need to. They have the anti-air ability with their warships and the Chinese have their own fighters. They can destroy any Philippine attack without needing to attack their base. And the Philippine air force is too rundown and small to be able to sustain more than one or two wave of attacks.
Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 11:41 PM.
US interest in the region isn't exactly a secret. Can you think beyond the mutual defence treaties for the moment? What shows up? East_coast will probably know what I am talking about.
It's all down to cost vs benefit calculation. Choosing to fight a war with China over a shoal will adversly impact a whole set of other issues in Sino-American relations. Why bring the house down with China over a shoal? It's not like China is about to launch an invasion of Taiwan.
Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 11:55 PM.
Yes, and presumably you've performed this cost-benefit analysis for them?
The US has bases in both South Korea ad Japan and, soon, Australia too. Co-operation with Vietnam is at an all-time high. Do you see where this is going?
P.S. - Of course you do - you have all the answers.
Last edited by Dreadnought; 21-08-2012 at 12:33 AM.