Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

butwhatfor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 245 posts

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#111

Post by warkdarrior »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #101
senko wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it, tho? Answering a conventional strike in international waters with a nuclear one (and at different target instead of the original attacker, since you can't really nuke a sub) is crossing the Rubicon, there's no going back from that.

Yes. Sinking an aircraft carrier would likely kill several thousand personnel at once. If that doesn't lead to the use of tactical nukes, nothing will.

Bringing down the Twin Towers in NYC killed several thousand people at once. US did not use nukes against Taliban/Al-Qaeda in response.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#112

Post by AnimalMuppet »

duckfang wrote: post #19
monoideism wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dec 7, 1941 is when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawai'i, an occupied territory. With the end objective of occupying themselves, like they occupied so many countries during WWII. > Note that Japan did not bomb native settlements and cities where civilians and natives lived - only the occupying force. Yes, because those settlements had no military value, so they focused on targets of military importance. W…

I suggest you look up some reading on the subject, and try to shy away from the US propaganda. No Choice but War: The United States Embargo Against Japan and the Eruption of War in the Pacific https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqmp3br Beyond Pearl Harbor: A Pacific History And you'll find out that there was continual and worsening relations with Japan due to US imperialism. Hawai'i was only one such territory colonize…

The US trying to throw spikes against Japan's tires to slow down its destruction of China left Japan "no choice but war"? Only because they were unconditionally committed to their horrifying attack against China.

From Japan's perspective, the US actions may have left them no choice but war. That doesn't make the US actions wrong; it makes the Japanese pre-WWII perspective incredibly skewed and incredibly morally flawed.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#113

Post by AnimalMuppet »

goodcanadian wrote: post #56
duckfang wrote: post #6

Lets remind us our dates. July 4, 1898, the Newlands Resolution was a joint resolution by the United States Congress to annex the independent Republic of Hawaii. In 1900, Congress occupied the Territory of Hawaii, despite the opposition of most native Hawaiians. Dec 7, 1941 is when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawai'i, an occupied territory. August 21, 1959 is when they were forcibly turned into a state, af…

I would point out that 94% of residents voted for statehood.

Fair, but what fraction of the population was natives at that point?

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#114

Post by cpleppert »

fatbird wrote: post #60
tpmx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[1]: > Key Point: Why are we still building aircraft carriers when even Sweden can sink them? Oi. Still a fair question, though.

Because they're the greatest peacetime weapons system ever invented. Until hot war breaks out, which seems increasingly unlikely under the umbrella of nuclear weapons and MAD, they are the premier force projection tool around--in essence, the best bluff a superpower can make, and crucially, it's worked since WW2. That said, while incidents like Sweden "sinking" a carrier have happened and embarassed the Navy, carrier…

The conflicts you mentioned were against non-peer adversaries. The belligerents had no naval or offensive air power to speak of.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#115

Post by ClumsyPilot »

onepointsixC wrote: post #87
jabl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that the Americans were very lucky at Midway indeed, with the dive bombers avoiding running into fighters, and the hangar decks filled with loaded and fuelled bombers waiting to be spotted once the attacks were over. Which made them extremely vulnerable to anything hitting the hangar decks, and even a few hits were enough to doom the ships. Not entirely unsurprising that upon entering the jet age the USN dem…

Midway had it's fortunate moments, but IJN didn't have much of a chance from the get go due to the absurd USN ship production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M

The story is like with USSR, the side thats outproducing is going to win sooner or later.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#116

Post by aloer »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #101
senko wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it, tho? Answering a conventional strike in international waters with a nuclear one (and at different target instead of the original attacker, since you can't really nuke a sub) is crossing the Rubicon, there's no going back from that.

Yes. Sinking an aircraft carrier would likely kill several thousand personnel at once. If that doesn't lead to the use of tactical nukes, nothing will.

> If that doesn't lead to the use of tactical nukes, nothing will.

And that’s exactly how it should be and has been since ww2. You use nukes when someone else uses nukes. No exception. In a perfect world this keeps the balance

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#117

Post by aphextron »

greggyb wrote: post #58
jabl wrote: post #31

Well, in retrospect it's easy to say that air power is the future and battleships are obsolete. But with the information available at the time, I don't think it really was that clear back in 1932. Back then, no capital ship had been sunk let alone been severely damaged(?) by aircraft. Aircraft, and in particular naval aircraft, at the time were flimsy biplanes, with monoplanes slowly entering the scene. Sinking a bat…

> I mean, put yourself into the hypothetical supreme naval planner of, say, the US or Japan at the time. Are you really going to gamble your entire nations (or empires, if you will) capability to project force overseas on the notion that air power is the future and battleships are obsolete? Per the fine article, Japan did devote their preparations to air superiority and carried out exactly the attack forewarned by th…

> So, yes, that seems to have been a good strategy

The point though is that this was a massive gamble on Japan's part in the 1930's. They had no idea if it would actually work.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#118

Post by jvanderbot »

Marazan wrote: post #7
jvanderbot wrote: post #4

This sounds very familiar. You should look up the millennium challenge to see this play out again in modern times. https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-r... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

The Millennium Challenge was a farce but _the Millennium Challenge was completely right_. The point of the millenium challenge was to see if modern advances in C3 could allow a numerically inferior force to the one used in Desert Storm could invade Iraq successfully. What they discovered was against a tenacious and unconventional enemy willing to use elite troops in daring and near suicidal ways then America would ta…

One nations "near suicidal" is another nations drone army/navy.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#119

Post by JackFr »

willhslade wrote: post #107
snakke wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your hunch is correct. There is a quote from a british naval officer that roughly says that -if they were right [on aircraft carriers being the next best thing and battleships being obsolete] they'd win the war. If they were wrong, they'd lose the empire.- The exact quote escapes my google-fu sadly. I'm quite postive I've seen it in either one of Indy Neidell and his team's WW2 week-by-week episode[0] or one of the m…

Just to play devils advocate isn't this happening right now with the US army's dependence on aircraft carriers vs the Chinese and Russian supersonic missiles?

The vulnerability of aircraft carriers to cheaper weapons notwithstanding, there is currently no other platform which does what a carrier group does.

So they’re very expensive and much more vulnerable than they were 30 years ago — what else is available to project power 10000 miles from the US in a robust and flexible way? When that thing exists I think we’ll adapt to it quickly.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#120

Post by fatbird »

cpleppert wrote: post #114
fatbird wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're the greatest peacetime weapons system ever invented. Until hot war breaks out, which seems increasingly unlikely under the umbrella of nuclear weapons and MAD, they are the premier force projection tool around--in essence, the best bluff a superpower can make, and crucially, it's worked since WW2. That said, while incidents like Sweden "sinking" a carrier have happened and embarassed the Navy, carrier…

The conflicts you mentioned were against non-peer adversaries. The belligerents had no naval or offensive air power to speak of.

People here keep citing the wargames with retired Gen. Riper, who sank the USN repeatedly from the perspective of a non-peer adversary using non-technological methods to organize, and disposable, low value swarming assets to overwhelm American defenses. Both Iraq and North Vietnam had patrol boat navies and the wherewithal to invest in attacking a carrier, but didn't.
Post reply on HN