3 ms·

Are you really going to suggest an attack that killed 2,403 Americans, sunk five U.S. battleships & damaged 4 others ships, and destroyed 188 aircraft, is not a

by juve1996 3y ago

Are you really going to suggest an attack that killed 2,403 Americans, sunk five U.S. battleships & damaged 4 others ships, and destroyed 188 aircraft, is not a proper attack? because it wasn't on the "mainland?"

mrguyorama 3y ago
An attack made with the explicit purpose to prevent the US from putting up a fight as Japan took internationally recognized US territory.
cubefox 3y ago
The point is that the US war against Japan wasn't a purely defensive war.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  But it absolutely was, and the idea that an attack isn’t an attack and responding to it isn’t defense if it isn't on the “mainland” is ludicrous. (Also, Japan attacked the US mainland during WWII, and did so before any US attacks on Japan proper, so you’ll need to move the goalposts farther.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Of course one can argue about the semantics of "defensive war", but as far as I understand, there was basically zero chance Japan would have conquered the US, or any American territory for an extended period of time, without the US invading Japan. So in this sense the war wasn't purely defensive. It was nothing remotely like the defensive war of France against Germany during WW2.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > > so you’ll need to move the goalposts farther. > […] there was basically zero chance Japan would have conquered the US, or any American territory for an extended period of time, without the US invading Japan. So in this sense the war wasn’t purely defensive. War is only defensive if the attacker is likely to conquer and hold territory for an extended period of time? Well, there go the goalposts as expected, though I could not have predicted that that was where they would go.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        The OP talked about "defensive wars". If X tries to steal Y's pocket, and Y prevents X from stealing it, and additionally gives X a kick in the ass, then that might be justified, but it's not just an act of self-defense.
        juve1996 3y ago
        Japan stole quite a bit, from quite a few people, in the Pacific theater. The war doesn't end when the US gets back what was stolen - it ends when all of its allies get back, what was stolen.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        That's hardly a universal truth. Nations, the US included, don't wait until War every time another country is wronged. They don't continue until every wrong has been righted. It is far from clear that the us would have entered the Pacific War simply to to defend other countries, even if us strategists wanted to.
        juve1996 3y ago
        We aren't arguing universal truths. This was a fought war with context. No claim of universal truth was made. > They don't continue until every wrong has been righted. It is far from clear that the us would have entered the Pacific War simply to to defend other countries, even if us strategists wanted to. Once the US entered the war and thus entered into deeper agreements with allies it was inevitable. The war was never ending once the US righted its own wrongs. It made promises to allies.
- StanislavPetrov 3y ago
  I think the greater point is people can have a reasonable debate over that, since Americans were actually attacked on American soil. There is no reasonable debate over the other 100+ wars and invasions we've been involved in over the last two centuries where all of the hostilities, from start to finish, took place outside of our own borders.

mrguyorama 3y ago

An attack made with the explicit purpose to prevent the US from putting up a fight as Japan took internationally recognized US territory.

cubefox 3y ago

The point is that the US war against Japan wasn't a purely defensive war.

dragonwriter 3y ago
But it absolutely was, and the idea that an attack isn’t an attack and responding to it isn’t defense if it isn't on the “mainland” is ludicrous. (Also, Japan attacked the US mainland during WWII, and did so before any US attacks on Japan proper, so you’ll need to move the goalposts farther.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood
- cubefox 3y ago
  Of course one can argue about the semantics of "defensive war", but as far as I understand, there was basically zero chance Japan would have conquered the US, or any American territory for an extended period of time, without the US invading Japan. So in this sense the war wasn't purely defensive. It was nothing remotely like the defensive war of France against Germany during WW2.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > > so you’ll need to move the goalposts farther. > […] there was basically zero chance Japan would have conquered the US, or any American territory for an extended period of time, without the US invading Japan. So in this sense the war wasn’t purely defensive. War is only defensive if the attacker is likely to conquer and hold territory for an extended period of time? Well, there go the goalposts as expected, though I could not have predicted that that was where they would go.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      The OP talked about "defensive wars". If X tries to steal Y's pocket, and Y prevents X from stealing it, and additionally gives X a kick in the ass, then that might be justified, but it's not just an act of self-defense.
      - juve1996 3y ago
        Japan stole quite a bit, from quite a few people, in the Pacific theater. The war doesn't end when the US gets back what was stolen - it ends when all of its allies get back, what was stolen.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        That's hardly a universal truth. Nations, the US included, don't wait until War every time another country is wronged. They don't continue until every wrong has been righted. It is far from clear that the us would have entered the Pacific War simply to to defend other countries, even if us strategists wanted to.
        juve1996 3y ago
        We aren't arguing universal truths. This was a fought war with context. No claim of universal truth was made. > They don't continue until every wrong has been righted. It is far from clear that the us would have entered the Pacific War simply to to defend other countries, even if us strategists wanted to. Once the US entered the war and thus entered into deeper agreements with allies it was inevitable. The war was never ending once the US righted its own wrongs. It made promises to allies.
StanislavPetrov 3y ago
I think the greater point is people can have a reasonable debate over that, since Americans were actually attacked on American soil. There is no reasonable debate over the other 100+ wars and invasions we've been involved in over the last two centuries where all of the hostilities, from start to finish, took place outside of our own borders.