They may not attack the US directly like the Japanese did, but China may want to take over its neighbours to expand. Just like Russia could.
Obviously that theory didn't work for Japan then, but there's nothing to say nobody else couldn't make the same mistake again. The mentality of the American public may have changed considerably since WWII, maybe Americans are already demoralized and no longer certain of their own righteousness. Maybe the would-be attacker has some reason to believe they can influence the mentality of the American public using control of mass media popular with Americans. Or maybe they're just so certain of themselves and their advantages they think America will back down when push comes to shove because if the positions were reversed, they would back down and they project that onto America.
I do think that America would probably go to war if US military bases or carrier groups were attacked by the Chinese, but I think it's plausible that China might come to believe otherwise.
Pearl Harbor was devastating and Hawaiians probably have plenty of reason to worry about the defense going forward. Then again I looked up where it is and I am shocked how remote the islands are. I think it was first and foremost symbolic attack. Not a real threat to west coast.
- Europe has under-invested in its military for 30 years.
- Japan by constitutional decree.
- South Korea is rapidly building out an armaments industry, but they're also still at war.
- The UK is gutted and unable to afford much of anything.
- India and Pakistan are laser focused on each other.
If China or Russia feel in an expansionist mood, who other than the US has the capability to stop them?
Historical echoes of the above dynamic are why Americans bristle at criticism of their military spending.
Sure, everyone's a pacifist until someone invades...
I'd still be a bit worried if I was Georgia, possibly Moldova, maybe the Baltics if European defense commitments start looking even weaker, but to a large degree they're safer right now than they'd been with how badly depleted Russia is, not more at risk.
Poland's spending heavily right now (2025 projection is 4.7% of GDP) and rapidly up-arming itself. In terms of conventional conflict they're going to be in a pretty decent position.
I don't really see much in ways for Russia to be particularly "expansionist" beyond the places they're already an ongoing problem in. (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova).
Pax Americana protects the global maritime order.
I believe, but cannot prove, that hegemony and "forever war" are inextricable. a la "if you want peace, prepare for war".
--
I'm not justifying or defending Pax Americana or American exceptualism. IMHO, there is no justice, fairness, ethical, or moral defence. Statecraft, world affairs, empire, hegemony are amoral. And while the status quo sucks, for some a lot more than others, I think we'll miss it when it's gone.
> I was struck on this trip by how clearly India’s chosen rival is no longer Pakistan, but China. It does not matter if we are talking in military, technological, economic, or even cultural terms. The default comparison Indians make is with China.
Regardless of whether or not Japan was a threat to the West coast, do you seriously expect a nation to stand by and simply shrug off something like that?