Few words on 〈美國會介入保衛台灣嗎？要問日本〉

The author concludes the article with a specific note: “This reporting was made possible by a grant from the Foreign Press Center Japan.” This implies that the article received support from the Japanese government or a semi-official entity, as the experts she interviewed provided insights into various perspectives.

Therefore, if readers view this article in this way, there is no issue: The author aims to alert Japan to a tangible crisis, acknowledging the difficulties and emphasizing the need for a serious response to these challenges. Japan is also actively undergoing transformation. Thus, this article can be considered a reminder directed at the general public in Japan, rather than an official advisory. The journalist also outlines several points:

1. If China invades Taiwan, it may trigger the U.S.-Japan alliance, or may not.
2. If the U.S. hesitates to intervene, it could lead to the collapse of the U.S.-Japan alliance and withdrawal from the Western Pacific.
3. If Japan does not take action quick, it may result in the breakdown of the U.S.-Japan alliance, with Japan becoming a vassal state of China, along with South Korea, the Philippines etc.
4. China is well aware of the above points and their consequences.

In this context, the vulnerability of alliance nations lies in the fact that a smaller member as well as the enemy, knowing the consequences, intentionally disrupts the situation.

As the author mentioned at the beginning of the article, the article is a political war-game, more challenging and complicated than a military war-game. The primary value of the article is not the quick conclusion as Chinese people like most, but in the process of idea-building, the Western people focus more. In summary, the more relevant countries take a serious approach towards China's expansion, the more cost China has to pay in its invasion. By comprehensively addressing and preparing for potential situations, it constitutes a civilian approach to "halting" conflict (not just "avoiding" it), if not actively pursuing peace.

作者在〈美國會介入保衛台灣嗎？要問日本〉一文末特別加註「本報導是在日本外國新聞中心的資助下完成的。」引含了本文是日本政府或半官方第三部門的支持成果。

於是，讀者若這樣看本文就沒問題了：作者旨在提醒日本有切實的危機、雖有困難卻應嚴肅因應困難，而日本也在努力轉變中。因此，本文算是面對日本一般大眾，而不是官方的提醒。

記者也有提到幾個場景：

1.  中國侵略台灣，會引出美日同盟

2.  美國不出手＝美日同盟毀掉＋退出西太平洋

3.  日本不出手＝美日同盟毀掉＋日韓臣屬中國

類似這樣的場景，中國必然知之甚詳。

對於此，同盟大國最怕同盟小國（或敵方）的點就在這裡—某一方明知如此，卻故意將局面搞亂。

本文很像兵推（文章最前有說，政治兵推更難更複雜），最重要的價值並非看結論（中華模式），而是看思路（歐美模式）。

總之，相關國家越來越認真看待中國的擴張，就是在增加中國的侵略成本。只要認真看待並做好準備，就是文民手段的「止戰」（不只是「避戰」）。