Eh? The manufacture of high quality products happens everywhere in the world, regardless of branding and all the other marketing nonsense. The primary differences all come down to cost in the end. Japan is just as, if not more, expensive than the USA or Germany in terms of manufacturing cost. Nikon moved their manufacturing to Thailand to reduce cost, just like Leica had the Canadian plant as well as still has the plant in Portugal.
The perceived quality of Japanese, or German, or whatever, manufacture is without a doubt more myth, arising out of a time long ago pre-globalization of all involved in manufacture, than anything else. I've gotten superb bespoke products made in China within the past two years, for instance, where the perception is "mass produced, mediocre quality, cheap" ... and I've seen some truly awful crap come out of Japan and Germany too, in the same time period...
The point of a brand as a marketing tool is to build credibility in the quality and consistency of the products, regardless of where they're manufactured. Nikon's credibility as a quality manufacturer has suffered somewhat in the past couple of decades not because they have been moving their production to Thailand but because they're letting the quality controls (problem signals and rework indication) slip a little to reduce cost, since the vast majority of people are somewhat insensitive to product quality beyond a certain point of functionality and longevity. Most people no longer hold onto their camera equipment long enough for anything like normal wear and tear to render it unusable or unuseful, and the marketers have pushed this attitude because it's easy to sell "new, better, more, more, more, cheaper" rather than "same stuff, improved quality, more reliable, longer lasting". The latter are semi-hidden characteristics that simply don't sell as well as the former.
G