[Slansitartop]

That doesn't sound right. IIRC, the US and the rest of the world view the South China sea as international waters, while China makes that claim that it's its sovereign territory (against all international custom).

> the US holding the first island chain

Come on, the US doesn't hold Japan. They're allies.

> Without a foothold in the South China Sea

China already has a foothold in the South China Sea: it's coast, Hainan, etc.

[seanmcdirmid]

Japan is in America’s sphere of influence, as is Taiwan. In case of a war, china’s only access to the open ocean is to the south, and that is assuming the Philippines and Indonesia are at least neutral.

[michaelt]

But there /are/ US military bases in Japan. If China fears a naval blockade anchored by Japan and the Philippines, that's enough.

[Slansitartop]

Are those bases "holding" Japan for the US? Stated another way, is the US militarily occupying Japan today?

[bjlorenzen]

If I follow you around with a gun held to your head, is it fair to characterize you as my ally?

[Slansitartop]

Do you really think that's what the US is doing to Japan today?

[bjlorenzen]

Yes, definitely. It might be a different situation if Japan also had military bases inside our country, or if they had any choice in the matter. Do you think Japan, Germany, or South Korea have any choice whether our military can occupy their countries? Are you aware how many countries around the world are currently occupied by us? It’s threat of violence, plainly and simply. I’d love to hear your perspective if it contrasts mine!

[gressquel]

I think Japan, Germany and South Korea prefers to "lease" US military as they're doing now rather than having their own military as the sole defence for the country. Germany in particular has shown signs of enjoyment in such an arrangement, leaving them to focus on other issues like building their economy and commanding EU. There is a reason why Trump is demanding more commitment from other NATO countries. An analogy to computer game would be, US is defending the NATO countries (+japan og SK) while the others are focusing on 'booming'.

If one day germany, japan or south korea were to decide to have referendum to remove US troops and get majority vote, I am sure US would remove their troops. So in short: no, US is not holding a gun to them because the other countries are certainly enjoying US nuclear and military umbrella protecting their territory.

[Slansitartop]

> Do you think Japan, Germany, or South Korea have any choice whether our military can occupy their countries?

Yes, they 100% have a choice. Why do you think otherwise? They're US allies and they benefit from the situation.

Another poster pointed out that they benefit from this arrangement by not having to spend so much on their domestic militaries to protect themselves.

Another point: in the case of South Korea and Germany, the US military helps protect those countries from the real threats of invasion. South Korea is still technically at war. For 50 years US soldiers eyed Soviet soldiers across the inner German border, and closely worked with West Germany and NATO to be prepare if those soldiers ever crossed over.

You have a very odd, binary perspective on international relations that seems to preclude win-win military cooperation.