Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
I think that you're completely incorrect to assume that countries will act precisely as their treaties dictate when an unprecedented crisis hits them. An attack on Japanese soil (especially a nuclear one) easily qualifies as such a crisis.
In any case, these are academic considerations since there's no real likelihood of military conflict between any of the major players in East Asia unless there's some sort of major change in the geopolitics of the region. This is especially true since the only likely belligerent is China, and China will not have the capability for offensive naval operations for at least a couple of decades. The PLAN currently trails the U.S. Navy, the JMSDF and the Russian Navy by a lot. Heck, it won't even be able to take on an invasion of Taiwan any time soon.
|
This is so oxymoron.
Even if it is a bluff do you really think a hostile nation will call that bluff?
Part of these type of treaty's function, especially in the atomic age, is to restrict hostile nation of making false moves by stating if you shoot the other will take revenge.
It's the same with NATO or any other mutual security packs and it doesn't work if one does not work closely with the other but the US Military and JSDF have shown so far that the treaty is functioning properly.