Panetta: New Asia focus not aimed to contain China

Of course it's to contain China. Come now Leon, no one is that naive. China is the obvious big threat in the region and a huge source of instability.

Who then? India? Pakistan? US is eventually going to commit imperial overstretch (has already??) - the barbarians are just waiting to take advantage.... Hadrian's Wall anyone?

Not to threaten China, but to respond to Chinese threats.

As in, defending Taiwan, defending Vietnam, defending the Philipeans, Japan, etc., from . . . Chinese threats.

And please, Mr Panetta tell the people of America, our valuable customers....the PLA ICBM/SLBM tests has nothing to do aiming at them or attempt to take their lives! China is just preventing aliens invasion!

Thanks to the 'Heritage foundation' giving the platform for the Ishihara cliques kicking up a string of troubles, the islet disputes between China and Japan is definately surely not a business of US involvement in the rising tension of east asia! The Heritage foundation is pro-republican not democrats, at least not the last four years!

Could someone really say that without giggling?

There is a side to a nuclear arsenal that is often overlooked. That is that a nuclear arsenal can prevent the escalation of a massive conventional conflict. You remember reading about World War II right? Yeah, one like that. It's not perfect, or even wise; but it is what has happened. We (U.S.) having not had our very own country obliterated during the war, unlike European and Asian countries, had been graced with economic and industrial advantage and we also held all the cards (the nuclear ones). This gave us power to essentially dictate world policy and to have the world (excluding the soviet block) to serve our interests, namely, free-market capitalism. "Stability" in a region is another word for the maintaining of the super-powers interests in that particular region.

Anyway, I've gone off track a bit here, sorry, back to the point; that is that the threat of Nuclear annihilation can and has prevented full-scale conventional warfare. (The Cold War never became a "hot war" for instance). Conventional warfare (and warfare of any kind come to think of it) is a real messy affair, obviously, any one can see that this Iraq and Afghanistan business has been a real nightmare for the people in those countries and the soldiers involved. Korea was a mess. Vietnam was a mess, Douglass MacArthur said "Don't get involved in a land war in Indochina" and he was right. Of course Nixon (naturally) wanted to drop nukes in Vietnam because the conventional war had gotten completely out of hand. (thankfully that never happened because there would have been NO redemption for the general character of the U.S and it's citizens.) So it's a two-sided sword in terms of "peace-keeping" but that's just how it is. Like I said these kinds of weapons do play a serious role in terms of "stabilizing" (keeping the interst serving systems in-line) and preventing the kind of warfare that is so much more devastating and economically draining than the, no doubt, equally horrifying alternative.

Leon's nose grew a few centimeters while making that speech it seems. Was there a straight face in the crowd? Who on Earth would believe it?

It's all about balance of power. The PRC has gained a modern military, an ocean going navy, economic and political influnces in the Asian region. Of course the US will have to balance her power in the Pacific to maintain her strength.

Not to threaten China, but to respond to Chinese threats. As in, defending Taiwan, defending Vietnam, defending the Philipeans, Japan, etc., from . . . Chinese threats.

action speaks louder than threats. china making these various threats, but the US actually invaded/attacked sovereign countries. All supposedly in the name of ridding WMD or restoring democracy. we all know these were all done for the oil. currently, the mid east is still a mess.

Please do not forget, for that past 2 thousand years, most ASIANS have never accepted nor gotten along with the Chinese. Ask any Vietnamese, Malaysian, Indonesian, Filipino etc..if they want to be slaves to CHINA, guess what that answer will be. Even Chinese outside of China do not want to be slaves to Beijing, just ask folk from Taiwan to Hong Kong to Singapore etc..China needs to learn that $$$ does not buy real happiness, real, true PEACE, HARMONY start from your HEART, from your words and deeds.

The US and China had a strong partnership when it came to Russia. Hopefully that can be built upon, but there is a trust issue, China with "encirclement" (hence the carefully worded statement by Panetta) and the US with China's aggressiveness.