Of course I would have to wonder what about Japan would be worth a war with the U.S.

Logistical value perhaps, for example by denying the U.S. the bases they currently have there, but certainly not for resources?

Same reason it made sense for the U.K. to prevent Germany from invading France and consolidating Europe. A China fearless of its near seas is a China more ready to secure the energy and natural resources it so desperately needs in central Asia, the middle East, Africa, and South America. The realpolitik angle is that it's simpler to balance a consolidating power versus a consolidated one.

Japan's utility is not only as a strategic launchpad. It also represented, in 2012, $216 billion in trade [1]. That is a $5.5 trillion asset when discounted at the U.S. 30-year rate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_par...

The Chinese in general still feel humiliated by their treatment at the hands of the western powers and then their occupation by Japan in WW2. Furthermore they have an issue of not having enough resouces to feed their growth. Who ever owns the islands (more then one set - China is arguing with Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Philippines) has the rights to exploit the oil/gas fields in the ocean beds around them.

Now to the story. I can see the parallels to the run up to WW1 however there is one large difference. In WW1 there was no real dominate military power (i.e. has complete unmatched and overwhelming force). The fact is that the US military so overmatches everyone else that it would be a very short war. Blood and a mess but still very short.

"it would be a very short war. Blood and a mess but still very short."

You may wish to read up on attitudes immediately prior to WWI. And there were three dominate military powers at the start of WWI, Germany the land empire able to call up 5M men in days, Russia with infinite manpower but so logistically messed up they never get to use them, and the British Navy dominated the waves, which was a pretty big deal as this was toward the end of the colonial era (although Germany didn't get to play colonialism which was arguably part of the problem)

Seriously, the franco prussian war was only a couple months adn the protoGermans won decisively. They really did expect to be done, one way or another, by winter time.

WW3 will probably be something like NK implodes and tries to blow up SK and .jp along with it (australia?), and China and "the west" argue very forcibly about who will dominate the area in a post-NK, perhaps post-SK and post-.jp world. At least if I was writing an Alt Hist type novel thats where I'd generally go.

> NK implodes and tries to blow up SK and .jp along with it (australia?)

I certainly wouldn't want to live in Seoul if (when?) that comes to pass but wouldn't be too worried even in Japan - it's a good 1000km, and I don't think NK has the tech to get much precision at those distances. Certainly they don't have stealth missiles which would be able to evade JP's considerable number of aegis equipped vessels. They could likely do some damage but I doubt it would be catastrophic.

As for Australia, I wouldn't be worried at all - that's well into ICBM territory, a whole different technological level and NK have never demonstrated anything even close. Not to mention Hawaii is actually closer to Pyongyang than Sydney - if they really can lob missiles ~8000km, why not go for the Great Satan himself?

I have. May I suggest a book called "The Sleepwalkers".

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sleepwalkers-Europe-Went-1914/dp/0...

My comments on the effects of military power come from first hand experience.

>Who ever owns the islands ... has the rights to exploit the oil/gas fields in the ocean beds around them.

that is the current post-colonial (post-WWI) framework of "independent sovereign nations". This framework starts to show its limitations in dealing with a host of transnational/transcontinental/global issues. Global warming in particular comes to mind. As usually, either framework will get adapted or it will rupture into a new WW, and the new framework will result after it, like it happened after previous WWs.

With regard of mutually assured destruction - this would assure that the war will be fought outside of populated areas, i.e. nobody is going to nuke each others cities (Walmart will still be importing and selling Chinese manufactured goods as sinking the container ships isn't a necessary part of fighting of the modern war for either side :). WWI was new kind of war - trenches. WWII - motorized. WWIII - precision and automated weapons, drones fighting drones.

The industrial base of the US is geared to manufacturing cold war weapons. Chinese industry is geared towards consumer electronics. Which could produce 1 million drones faster? Remember that a smart phone contains many of the key components for a drone.

>Remember that a smart phone contains many of the key components for a drone.

how about stealth supersonic self-landing on aircraft carrier satellite networked drones? Not that i doubt Chinese military or economical might, especially those of tomorrow, it is just they still have some distance to go.

In a conflict with thousands of drones none of that high tech stuff has really proven itself. What good is a satellite network, when satellite communication can be blocked? Why make something disposable stealthy?

Outmatching someone militarily doesn't necessarily forecast a short war. This is especially true if you do not have the resources or interest in total annihilation of your opposition. There are many recent examples of this to choose from. Iraq comes to mind.

I think the point is that Iraq was essentially positioned as a police action against the government - not a war against the whole country, so it has been relatively restrained, especially since Iraq couldn't hit back.

An all out war against a powerful nation that could hit back would be far less restrained.

Agreed which is why I mentioned 'total annihilation' of the enemy. But if you want to keep infrastructure or be able to exploit their resources after the war... You can't really do that. Its a decision that has to be made.

Modern (21st century) war in a semi-modern (early 20th century or earlier) vein would be hard to predict for a great many reasons. But thinking that the equation would work out the same seems pretty dicey to me.

I agree. Having experienced it personally I can assure your - the hands of the military were tied. They have been since the Korea "police action". If the gloves came off it would be over quickly, but very messy. If a war developed with China in this case, for whatever reason, I hope that our civilian leadership would have the sense to allow the military to do their jobs quickly. Remember the job of the military is "to kill people and break things".

See my comment above. I agree on many points... But also see the possibility that 'total annihilation' in a pre-21st century sense of war may not be in the cards for numerous reasons.

Manufacturing plants. 30 seconds after the Chinese can no longer supply Walmart for political reasons, we'll be buying Japanese electronics again.

Aside from the obvious diplomatic ally stuff. Our other diplomatic allies would make sure we don't leave Japan hang.

One minor problem is that stretch of water between Japan and China, of course. At this point in their military development, an invasion of Taiwan would be ridiculous much less the Japanese home islands. In a couple decades Taiwan might be toast, but its still another order or two of magnitude to invade Japan.

It's mentioned in the article that mutually assured destruction due to each side having nuclear capability is a big difference between now and WWI.