This is coolbert:
If indeed push comes to shove in the East China Sea with military conflict the result we have an appreciation of the situation as it might transpire thanks to the article from American Thinker..
That coalition of the United States and Japan at war with China.
That existing dispute over ownership of the islands in the East China Sea called Daioyo by the Chinese and Senkaku by the Japanese.
Five uninhabited and uninhabitable islands again ownership disputed, the United States having resolved to protect Japanese interests.
As was noted in 2005 by the author [and military expert?] Robert Kaplan such a war the conclusion and outcome of which might not be favorable to the Chinese
Scenarios and appreciations as given the military balance at the time  having changed?
"Some have seen this war coming well in advance. In 2005, Robert Kaplan wrote an article entitled 'How We Would Fight China'. In it he notes that China will approach the war 'asymmetrically', as terrorists do."
"Why China Will Lose the War It is Planning"
See my previous blog entry Air-Sea battle which describes such a conflict. A war fought above the ocean, on the surface of the ocean and under the water and out of sight. Submarines dueling with other submarines an important factor undeniably so.
Dominion and control of the islands not so much the reason for conflict but rather dominion and control of the surrounding seabed at stake. Vast natural gas deposits believed [?] to exist and only waiting to be found and exploited.
Sounds sort of like the Gran Chaco War from the 1930's. Bolivia and Paraguay fighting a protracted and very costly war over an uninhabitable desert, vast oil deposits waiting to be found and exploited that reason for conflict. Those vast oil deposits NOT FOUND OR EVER EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!