http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2341
It raises an interesting question:
Will Japan and the U.S. jointly draw a real line at these islands, and stand behind it ? Will Japan decide to make a stand on it's own, even though the U.S. backs out on it's treaty obligations ?The Slate article wrote:
In the end, whether Japan should resist or retreat is a military and political question, not a legal one. If China’s ambitions extend only to the tiny unoccupied islands in the region, yielding these fisheries and hydrocarbons may be worth it to keep the peace. But if this is the first step in a larger march of conquest, then there’s a strong case that Japan (and the U.S. as its ally) should counter force with force.
Should Japan and the west merely let China have it because in the real world, might, does make right, and China needs the oil ?
Are these two islands worth a war, however small a war, or however large a war, as it turns out to be, over the principle and the oil ?
I do not see Obama standing up to China, ever... But I am not sure the U.S. refusing to get involved in this case might not be the smart thing to do. It worked well for the U.S. in World War I and World War II ... right up until the time Germany and Japan started sinking U.S. ships without a declaration of war.