NationStates Jolt Archive

No, not the movie. No! No, this is just something that's occured to me. Peral Harbor was a military installation. The Japanese attacked military forces. Sure, they hadn't declared war force, but that's for a simple reason.

Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike. Duh. It's just that I'm tired of people comparing Pearl Harbor to 9-11. Not really an equivilance between uniformed official military forces attacking a military base, and terrorists flying hijacked planes into a civilian target. What do you think?

I think it's accurate in the sense that both attacks took us by surprise and marked the beginning of a prolonged military engagement. Other than that, not really.

Um...Yeah, I think this was already known :)

No, not the movie. No! No, this is just something that's occured to me. Peral Harbor was a military installation. The Japanese attacked military forces. Sure, they hadn't declared war force, but that's for a simple reason.

Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike. Duh. It's just that I'm tired of people comparing Pearl Harbor to 9-11. Not really an equivilance between uniformed official military forces attacking a military base, and terrorists flying hijacked planes into a civilian target. What do you think?

I wouldn't exactly classify the Pentagon as a civilian target.

I wouldn't exactly classify the Pentagon as a civilian target.

However, the targeting of the Twin Towers, as it should, overshadows that.

Look
i tnk that americans make too big a fuss about pearl harbour,
just as bad thiings happened to other countries, its just this one just so happened to be america

No, not the movie. No! No, this is just something that's occured to me. Peral Harbor was a military installation. The Japanese attacked military forces. Sure, they hadn't declared war force, but that's for a simple reason.

Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike. Duh. It's just that I'm tired of people comparing Pearl Harbor to 9-11. Not really an equivilance between uniformed official military forces attacking a military base, and terrorists flying hijacked planes into a civilian target. What do you think?
Pearl Harbor was NOT a pre-emptive strike, it was a sneak attack. Had the Declaration of War been delivered as planned, then it would've been a Pre-emptive strike and a victory for Japan... but it wasn't so it's not.

Look
i tnk that americans make too big a fuss about pearl harbour,
just as bad thiings happened to other countries, its just this one just so happened to be america

That's pretty much my point.

However, the targeting of the Twin Towers, as it should, overshadows that.

I don't know that it does overshadow it. Yes, more people perished. Yes, the footage was/is much more graphic; maybe that's why most people tend to reference the Twin Towers, as opposed to the Pentagon or Flight 93.

However, the fact that THE pre-eminent american military installation was attacked, well...that certainly seems (to me) to be on par with the pre-eminent american (hell, maybe even world) financial institution being attacked. Unless you're just focusing on pure casualty numbers, and the images...

Pearl Harbor was NOT a pre-emptive strike, it was a sneak attack. Had the Declaration of War been delivered as planned, then it would've been a Pre-emptive strike and a victory for Japan... but it wasn't so it's not.

And what's the difference?

Look
i tnk that americans make too big a fuss about pearl harbour,
just as bad thiings happened to other countries, its just this one just so happened to be america

You have to understand the shock to the national sense of security that the Pearl Harbor attack was. It knocked out the primary offensive force of the US in the Pacific theater, and severely changed the startegic picture in the region. It was a shock to the American psyche, much as the September 11th attacks were.

And what's the difference?

Pre-emptive strikes are generally considered to be against a force that is preparing to imminently attack you, such as in the event of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

Surprise attacks are against targets that are not doing so.

You have to understand the shock to the national sense of security that the Pearl Harbor attack was. It knocked out the primary offensive force of the US in the Pacific theater, and severely changed the startegic picture in the region. It was a shock to the American psyche, much as the September 11th attacks were.

Actually mot of the main fleet were on 'manouvers' it was the older ships bar 1 which were in pearl harbour at the time, and its debated on both accounts that they were supprise attacks, there is more than ample evidence to suggest that they let pearl harbour happen as a reason to enter the war

9-11 the evidence was there, but im not sure what the full evidence is,

the outcome was the same in both in that it gave them reason to get involved in a war which the american administrations wanted to be in.

And what's the difference?

the same difference that you're trying to distinguish in your op. all the comparasions between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 only touches that fact that both are sneak attacks. you call PH a pre-emptive strike. it wasn't it was a sneak attack, like 9/11.

Actually mot of the main fleet were on 'manouvers' it was the older ships bar 1 which were in pearl harbour at the time, and its debated on both accounts that they were supprise attacks, there is more than ample evidence to suggest that they let pearl harbour happen as a reason to enter the war

9-11 the evidence was there, but im not sure what the full evidence is,

the outcome was the same in both in that it gave them reason to get involved in a war which the american administrations wanted to be in.
Actually most of the PACIFIC FLEET was at Pearl. so was ALL the fuel for the Pacific Fleet. Had one plane bombed those holding tanks (and they came close to it.) that would've done more damage to the fleet than the number of ships lost.

Had we most of our feet, the Pacific theatre wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.

the same difference that you're trying to distinguish in your op. all the comparasions between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 only touches that fact that both are sneak attacks. you call PH a pre-emptive strike. it wasn't it was a sneak attack, like 9/11.

Actually, I would posit that it was a 'retaliation' strike. We had just embargoed an Imperial Japan which was entirely dependant on US/UK stocks of OIL (interestingly enough).

From Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

These Japanese actions led the U.S. to embargo scrap metal and gasoline, and to close the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. The situation worsened, and in 1941 Japan moved into northern Indochina. The U.S. response was to freeze Japan's assets in the U.S. and to declare a complete oil embargo.[1] Oil was probably Japan's most crucial resource; its own supplies were very limited, and 80% of Japan's oil imports came from the U.S. The Imperial Navy relied entirely on imported bunker oil stocks.[2]

Diplomatic negotiations with the US climaxed with the Hull note of November 26, 1941, which Prime Minister Hideki Tojo described to his cabinet as an ultimatum. Japanese leaders felt they had to choose between complying with U.S. and UK demands — thus backing down from its actions in China and surrounding areas — and continuing its expansionism. Concerned about losing status and prestige in the international community if compelled to comply ("loss of face"), and the perceived threat to its national security posed by the Western Powers, the Japanese leadership (under Emperor Hirohito) decided to implement contingency plans, thus choosing war with the United States, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands as a direct response to these embargoes and uncooperation. Having already signed the Axis Pact with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and others, this meant that Japan would be fighting against the Allied Powers.[3]

*Edit - we still weren't expecting it; surprise/pre-emptive are all terms that apply, IMHO

Actually mot of the main fleet were on 'manouvers' it was the older ships bar 1 which were in pearl harbour at the time, and its debated on both accounts that they were supprise attacks, there is more than ample evidence to suggest that they let pearl harbour happen as a reason to enter the war

I believe the problem was that the US didn't think that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor, instead, Roosevelt thought that the Japanese would move against Guam and the Phillipines, but they thought Hawaii was safe. When the Japanese struck at Pearl Harbor, they broke the Battleships, that were considered key to be able to get to the Phillipines to relieve the troops there. The carriers were out on manuevers, and proved to be more important in the end, but prior to the war, the ships sunk at Pearl Harbor proved vital to the war plans.

9-11 the evidence was there, but im not sure what the full evidence is,

the outcome was the same in both in that it gave them reason to get involved in a war which the american administrations wanted to be in.

The full evidence is that the CIA had some inkling that something was going on, but they didn't know exactly what. They did not transmit these worries to the FBI, nor did they transmit these worries to the President.

Actually, I would posit that it was a 'retaliation' strike. We had just embargoed an Imperial Japan which was entirely dependant on US/UK stocks of OIL (interestingly enough).

From Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

These Japanese actions led the U.S. to embargo scrap metal and gasoline, and to close the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. The situation worsened, and in 1941 Japan moved into northern Indochina. The U.S. response was to freeze Japan's assets in the U.S. and to declare a complete oil embargo.[1] Oil was probably Japan's most crucial resource; its own supplies were very limited, and 80% of Japan's oil imports came from the U.S. The Imperial Navy relied entirely on imported bunker oil stocks.[2]

Diplomatic negotiations with the US climaxed with the Hull note of November 26, 1941, which Prime Minister Hideki Tojo described to his cabinet as an ultimatum. Japanese leaders felt they had to choose between complying with U.S. and UK demands — thus backing down from its actions in China and surrounding areas — and continuing its expansionism. Concerned about losing status and prestige in the international community if compelled to comply ("loss of face"), and the perceived threat to its national security posed by the Western Powers, the Japanese leadership (under Emperor Hirohito) decided to implement contingency plans, thus choosing war with the United States, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands as a direct response to these embargoes and uncooperation. Having already signed the Axis Pact with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and others, this meant that Japan would be fighting against the Allied Powers.[3]

*Edit - we still weren't expecting it; surprise/pre-emptive are all terms that apply, IMHOnope, Pre-emptive doesn't apply. Because we, The USA, was not at WAR with Japan. the declaration of war was delivered to the Ambassador in Tokyo 10 HOURS after the attack.

it wasn't a pre-emptive strike, it was a sneak attack. it most definately was not a retalitory strike since the USA did nothing militarily to them, so a military retaliation is escallation on their part... if a formal declaration of War was done.

nope, Pre-emptive doesn't apply. Because we, The USA, was not at WAR with Japan. the declaration of war was delivered to the Ambassador in Tokyo 10 HOURS after the attack.

it wasn't a pre-emptive strike, it was a sneak attack. it most definately was not a retalitory strike since the USA did nothing militarily to them, so a military retaliation is escallation on their part... if a formal declaration of War was done.

So because the 'formal declaration of war' wasnt' delivered until 10 hours after the attack, it's not retalitory? They retaliated against the embargoes, and the perceived threat to national security that resulted from the loss of the earl they needed to power their military. The declaration was delivered late to gain a strategic advantage; do you think it got lost in the mail?

It was a retaliation against the embargoes.

It was pre-emptive, because they needed to use the earl they had in the most effective manner. They had already decided to go to war with us.

It was certainly a surprise.

They all seem valid to me. I think you're just splitting hairs with the semantics.

So because the 'formal declaration of war' wasnt' delivered until 10 hours after the attack, it's not retalitory? They retaliated against the embargoes, and the perceived threat to national security that resulted from the loss of the earl they needed to power their military. The declaration was delivered late to gain a strategic advantage; do you think it got lost in the mail?

It was a retaliation against the embargoes.

It was pre-emptive, because they needed to use the earl they had in the most effective manner. They had already decided to go to war with us.

It was certainly a surprise.

They all seem valid to me. I think you're just splitting hairs with the semantics.

He's right but for the wrong reasons. A pre-emptive attack is a strike against a force that will be imminently attacking you; an attack to protect your own forces about to be destroyed. A surprise attack is an attack against an enemy that does not know there are hostilities. That's the difference. With a pre-emptive attack both sides are aware that war is imminent and one side simply strikes first. With a surprise attack one side knows there's about to be a war and the other side has no idea.

So because the 'formal declaration of war' wasnt' delivered until 10 hours after the attack, it's not retalitory? yep.
They retaliated against the embargoes, and the perceived threat to national security that resulted from the loss of the earl they needed to power their military.Assuming you meant fuel. and what were they doing with their Military?
The declaration was delivered late to gain a strategic advantage; do you think it got lost in the mail?the Declaration wasn't even written till after the attack.

It was a retaliation against the embargoes.which were in place due to the Japanese actions in China.

It was pre-emptive, because they needed to use the earl they had in the most effective manner. They had already decided to go to war with us.and because they didn't formally declare it, it was a sneak attack.

They all seem valid to me. I think you're just splitting hairs with the semantics.funny you seem to be ignoring all the actions Japan, the US and the rest of the League of Nations took before the embargos and trade limitations.

He's right but for the wrong reasons. A pre-emptive attack is a strike against a force that will be imminently attacking you; an attack to protect your own forces about to be destroyed. A surprise attack is an attack against an enemy that does not know there are hostilities. That's the difference. With a pre-emptive attack both sides are aware that war is imminent and one side simply strikes first. With a surprise attack one side knows there's about to be a war and the other side has no idea.


Fair enough. We didn't have troops in position, nor did we know/expect it. Pre-emptive may be a bit of a stretch given that defintion. However, they knew about it, and knew what the formal declaration would do (awaken the sleeping dragon).

Given the bolded definiton, it can certainly be argued that it wasn't 'pre-emptive'. However, I still think that it was, in the sense that they knew they needed to buy time, what with the oil shortages that would be affecting them.

[QUOTE=JuNii;11897912]

Assuming you meant fuel.
Yes, that's what I meant.

and what were they doing with their Military?
You answered that yourself, i.e. China.

the Declaration wasn't even written till after the attack.
Yet they had already decided to go to war.

which were in place due to the Japanese actions in China.
Yep.

and because they didn't formally declare it, it was a sneak attack.
I answered that in my last post; yes, I could be stretching the standard definition of 'pre-emptive' a bit. Fair enough.

funny you seem to be ignoring all the actions Japan, the US and the rest of the League of Nations took before the embargos and trade limitations
How is that funny? I'm not trying to give a comprehensive history lesson here, only explain my thoughts on the subject. I'm certainly willing to listen to others.

EDIT: I haven't yet taken the time learn the multiple quote function. My apologies; I'll get there, eventually.

If you really want to compare 9/11 to a horrible tragedy of World War 2, how about dropping a nuclear device on a city full of civilians, didn’t seem to bother your consciences why do you think terrorist would even think twice about doing what they did.

No, not the movie. No! No, this is just something that's occured to me. Peral Harbor was a military installation. The Japanese attacked military forces. Sure, they hadn't declared war force, but that's for a simple reason.

Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike. Duh. It's just that I'm tired of people comparing Pearl Harbor to 9-11. Not really an equivilance between uniformed official military forces attacking a military base, and terrorists flying hijacked planes into a civilian target. What do you think?

Pearl Harbor was accompanied by an actual Declaration of War as well. It came a few hours late.

However, the targeting of the Twin Towers, as it should, overshadows that.

if we're going to justify killing people - the financial machine represented by the twin towers was just as exploitive and violent as any military target. if it's justifiable to attack a military installment, it's justifiable to attack a financial one. I don't think either is justifiable, but if you believe in violence, then in terms of raw exploitation, not much is more agressive and harmful than the kind of capitalism symbolically opposed by attacking the towers.

again, let me be crystal clear here - I am a pacifist, I don't think any of it is justifiable...but if you make the case for one, you make the case for the other. just because you're in the military doesn't mean you have a moral license to kill another human being. if it did, though, just because you're a civilian doesn't mean that violent "justice" should ignore you, if you're exploiting others.

EDIT: I haven't yet taken the time learn the multiple quote function. My apologies; I'll get there, eventually.
cut, copy, then paste the quote tags and you can break it down. ;)

cut, copy, then paste the quote tags and you can break it down. ;)

Thanks:)

The need had never really arisen before...thanks for breaking my cherry...they say you always remember your first...:p

If you really want to compare 9/11 to a horrible tragedy of World War 2, how about dropping a nuclear device on a city full of civilians, didn’t seem to bother your consciences why do you think terrorist would even think twice about doing what they did.

Actually, it did bother the american conscience. The decision was not taken lightly.

The nukes were dropped on Nagasaki & Hiroshima after it became apparent that the Japanese military would not surrender, effectively fighting until the last man. Iwo Jima showed us that. 22,000 Japanese soldiers defending a mostly worthless island; 20,000 killed in its defense. If they were going to defend Iwo Jima at that cost, imagine how they'd defend their Mainland.

For all the deaths that the nukes caused, and all the havoc that followed (i.e. the cancer, et.al.), the carnage would have been worse with a 'proper' invasion of the Japanese homeland. Just as many (if not more) *edit-it would have been much more* Japanese casualities; and the US casualties at Iwo Jima outnumbered the Japanese, so the US casualties would have been just as bad, if not worse. *edit-would have been much worse*

While disgusting from a pacifist point of view (as I suppose all conflict is), the nukes saved lives. And I don't think that the Japanese gave us much of a choice. They didn't even surrender after the first nuke; it took a second to show them that it wasn't a one trick pony.

Oh, and by the way, I'm under no illusion that the terrorists would hesitate for a second to nuke as many infidels as they could.