Though it appears much has changed for the players in Northeast Asia, when considering actual shifts in military resources and alliance strategy, many things have stayed the same. When taking the role of the United States into account, there is much stability to be found. There has been little variance in the United States alliance credibility or in the number of troops stationed in the region. Acting as a buffer to North Korean aggression and a preventative backstop to Japanese remilitarization, the United States allows the regional players, especially Japan and South Korea, to focus on economic growth while avoiding confronting the thorny issues of resolving historical animosity and territorial disputes. Even for China, the U.S.'s main competitor, the American military presence, both directly and indirectly, has allowed China's economy to flourish. While conflict is possible, it is not impendingly inevitable as realist scholars might claim. Japan, South Korea and China must be prepared for conflict as tensions do occasionally rise, but the high-risk scenarios painted by many realists are unlikely to break out in Northeast Asia anytime soon. Furthermore, the Northeast Asian states see value in the American presence. Japan and South Korea, despite being heavily economically interdependent with China, will likely resist Chinese overtures to abandon its American ally until the Chinese military threat can credibly challenge U.S. firepower. Relatedly, even though Beijing would like the U.S. gone eventually, for the foreseeable future it is content to focus its attention elsewhere because the U.S. presence has also been a boon to Chinese development. In many ways, the utility of the U.S.-Japan and U.S.-ROK alliances has been a boon to all the regional players, and despite recurrent tension and conflict, the Northeast Asian states and the United States will be reluctant to solve animosity until the current status quo has drastically changed to upset the regional balance of power.