Right there we have a fundamental difference; I think its very important how other countries other than US act and talk and how China is perceived in the international arena. US has many allies, China has none. That makes a big difference and it has made a big difference in the last world wars.
We are in the age of Super Powers, not great powers. Germany, Italy and Japan against UK, US(at the time), France, and Russia, were roughly equal in strength.
Today, one US can take on the world in a direct confrontation, and win. Neither of those powers can or close. For China to win against the US, we need to do something similar. That essentially eliminated even Japan to the realm of minor power status of the last world war, like Norway or Denmark.
Being in the Asia Pacific, the amount of US power, US can call upon is limited, relatively. If China can get close enough to that power, it hardly matters what the likes of Japan does.
Consider the entire current Chinese strength to US strength in the area, we are about equal, unless they start putting more assets there. Now consider if 70% of ALL US forces are in the theatre, that means 8 carriers, and 18 more LHD and LPD and more DDGs, Nuke Subs, 140 something F-22s, two thousand more other 4+ gen fighters to go with 400 thousand ground troops and marines.
Would Japan. Vietnam, Philippines switching to our side make the difference for us?
If we are looking at current projections, by 2035, that's roughly what we will have, short on carriers, more on other war making assets.
Obama is one hell of a wimp when compared to the republicans, he restrained Hillary Clinton and the neocons, otherwise you would it have lost SCS already.
Lose SCS? Like how exactly would you consider lose? Bombing our islands? Sanctioning us? Attacking Chinese mainland? Repeat flybys on top of our islands? Sink our ships? Make our neighbours go nuclear? Put more assets in those nations?
How would we lose SCS, exactly? Keep in mind if it's the last few points, I already made what I think of allies in this super power conflict.
SCS is the opportunity for confrontation, the other issues don't provide the opportunity, that's the key difference. China provided the opportunity in a silver platter.
Yes it does provide opportunities, it provided US to set up TPP, trade wars, anti dumping regulations, keeping our currency out of reserve currency, stopping others from joining our bank.
Now you can argue it's effectiveness, but you can't argue, those are far more serious moves than some fly by around our islands.
Had we not succeeded in AIIB, our credibility would be severely harmed, had we not developed a large domestic market, skilled workforce, complete supply chain and effective as well as comprehensive infrastructure. We be toast.
Had we not been trading currencies with other countries, conduct as much trade as we did, sign as many treaties as we have, our currency would not be as widely used today nor would it be in the discussion.
All these have far more serious consequences than not having the SCS.
Again, all these have nothing to do with Vietnam, nor SCS, but they are key interests and a failure to win here would severely damage Chinese economy and prestige. The SCS is also important to us, it is a key interest, and I will further expand on it in the next part.
Win what? Something that you already virtually had, but now you risk losing it, that's not a big risk for you? I didn't see anybody calling China weak, that's your way of seeing things, which is the reason why you confront USA, because you perceive it to be weak. That can be your undoing. Just ask Japan.
The US was flying regular patrols right up to our 12 mile continental shelf, and the US was sending ships left right and center near our coast, the Japanese and Korea ADIZ was right up to our coast, even going into our continental EEZ which is not in dispute.
What had jack.
You don't see anyone calling China weak? 10 papers were released by America think tanks, military, and government that would disagree. The only thing putting doubt in people's mind is that China is standing up for our interests. Had we had the same response as Russia, well, even Japan joined the sanctions. I doubt anyone would line up for our AIIB.
No, human rights and many other little things can't do it, it has to be a very serious reason to do what western countries are doing to Russia and to be backed by the whole west. It has to be a Ukraine, or a SCS.
Again 1989, I specifically mentioned 89, the US was thinking of serious sanctions, economic ones after 89, but went another coarse instead. What would have happened if they didn't do that?
The threat of sanctions is there if you leave yourself vulnerable.
Last point if you don't mind me asking, how far would you have China retreat back? Completely give all islands that the Philippines and Vietnam claim even those outside of their Continental EEZ?
Completely back away from SCS, with only EEZ extending as far as Hainan? Or even less since if we did give a few back to Vietnam, it would cut our Hainan EEZ by quite a bit.
Just like the vast majority of SCS belong to the lesser nations who btw have less claim as we do since they didn't exist in 47 and the islands are well outside of their EEZ.
You know this map, see if I am lying.