Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (3564)	2/8/2003 10:42:22 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

The goal was to hit and wipe out the Pacific Fleet, thereby forcing us back to San Diego. I don't think historians truly debate the strategic result the Japanese desired from Pearl. The point I think is debatable is whether the Japanese could credibly perceive the repositioning of the US fleet to Pearl as preparations for our own sneak attack on Japan.. I don't believe the US political leaders of the time had any intentions of initiating hostilities with Japan.. That would be considered a pre-emptive strike... Initiate war FIRST against an adversary who is intent on intiating war against you.. However, Japan's attack is generally perceived as an attempt to get the US fleet out of the way before it could be deployed to defend either it's own territories, or those of other nations... Thus, that makes Pearl an act of war, not pre-emption.. And btw, the Japanese pilots, from what I remember reading, were never told that the US forces in Hawaii had not known about the Japanese declaration of war which had been delivered at the same time. Because any suggestion that this had been a "sneak attack" would have dishonored them as "warriors" don't ambush unsuspecting foes.. At least this is what I seem to remember reading years ago.. Hawk