4 ms·

"I hear that a lot, but the truth is that the next Perl Harbour has already happened. It was a surprise aerial attack on a strategic port city back in 2001. Alm

"I hear that a lot, but the truth is that the next Perl Harbour has already happened. It was a surprise aerial attack on a strategic port city back in 2001. Almost 3,000 people were killed." The Pearl Harbour attack was an attempt by a government to cripple an enemy's capability to project power in the Pacific ocean, with the attacker's intent to then establish dominance in that region. What you describe was nothing of the sort and to call it another Pearl Harbour is simply wrong.

simonh 14y ago
Fair point, I stand corrected. I think the rest of my point in the second paragraph stands though.
- holychiz 14y ago
  this is why i love HN where reasonable people are willing to consider different perspectives and make their choices of conviction. thanks for the conversation.
yk 14y ago
If you define Pearl Harbour as a military attack, then yes. But if you look at the cultural and political impact of 9/11 and Pearl Harbour, then they are quite similar. Both did change US policy and politics, have both generated treatment in movies and books and perhaps most strikingly are used in a phrase like "The next ..."
- EliRivers 14y ago
  The Pearl Harbour attack forced a nation that was reticent into an actual, real war against a serious foe that presented a genuine threat; a war that would dictate cultural and economic supremacy over the Pacific region for the next half-century. It also pushed the US into the genuine battle for national existence raging over the other half of the planet in which millions of people were already under the yoke of an invader. The ensuing economic activity towards the war effort created the situation post-war in which the U.S. dominated the world whilst at the same time providing massive, massive increases in living standards for the U.S. population and also in large parts of Europe via the Marshall Plan. The echoes continue to ring today. Comparing this to 9/11 is like comparing a tank to a soap box racer. I might as well say that the price of pork belly futures is the next Pearl Harbour as that also affects US policy.
  - mhaas12 14y ago
    Well, hold on there. Think about the comparison: The 9/11 attacks DID force a nation into an actual, real war (two, actually, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three if you want to count the generic "War on Terror" that was stepped up dramatically after the attack). The war in Afghanistan has become the longest in United States history, and those wars together HAVE clearly helped set in motion a series of events that will dictate the balance of power in the Middle East for a generation to come, from the deposition and removal of dictators by force to the Arab Spring to the ongoing civil war in Syria. Though there was no contiguous threat in the Middle East to rival Nazi Germany, the Middle East was and is still characterized by a number of oppressive dictatorships. Did post-9/11 have the same economic effects for the US as the post-WWII era? No, but that's not really the effect of any particular difference between the events that precipitated WWII and the wars of the last decade. And, if anything, the post-9/11 landscape HAS seen a dramatic shift in the global balance of power, specifically in challenges to US supremacy and an internal reconsideration of how we project the power we do have. The point to be made here, which I think backs up the whole "digital attack as next Pearl Harbor" argument, is that unconventional warfare is the new conventional warfare. We're less likely to see a direct military challenge along the lines of Pearl Harbor, and much more likely to see indirect challenges to US supremacy through digital or terrorist attacks. There are a lot of parallels to be drawn here, and you made many of them yourself.
    - EliRivers 14y ago
      "The 9/11 attacks DID force a nation into an actual, real war (two, actually, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three if you want to count the generic "War on Terror" that was stepped up dramatically after the attack). " The US was not forced into those wars. Iraq posed no threat to the US. Afghanistan posed no threat to the US. Pearl Harbour was an act of war by a nation; Japan had serious intent to dominate the Pacific and become the regional economic and military power, and was prepared to do serious damage to the US in order to achieve those aims. 9/11 was an act of terrorism by non-national actors. Iraq and Afghanistan were no threat; the US was not pushed into those wars. The US chose them.
      - 14y ago
- vorg 14y ago
  The 10-year prelude to each was similar also. The U.S. blockaded trade with Japan from about 1930 so Japan had almost run out of oil by 1941. The U.S. and allies ran a no-fly-zone over Iraq from 1991 onwards.
  - EliRivers 14y ago
    With somewhat different results, though. Japan blockade - Japan starts a war to secure the natural resources it needs. Iraq blockade - Iraq poses no threat and gets invaded anyway.

simonh 14y ago

Fair point, I stand corrected. I think the rest of my point in the second paragraph stands though.

holychiz 14y ago
this is why i love HN where reasonable people are willing to consider different perspectives and make their choices of conviction. thanks for the conversation.

yk 14y ago

If you define Pearl Harbour as a military attack, then yes. But if you look at the cultural and political impact of 9/11 and Pearl Harbour, then they are quite similar. Both did change US policy and politics, have both generated treatment in movies and books and perhaps most strikingly are used in a phrase like "The next ..."

EliRivers 14y ago
The Pearl Harbour attack forced a nation that was reticent into an actual, real war against a serious foe that presented a genuine threat; a war that would dictate cultural and economic supremacy over the Pacific region for the next half-century. It also pushed the US into the genuine battle for national existence raging over the other half of the planet in which millions of people were already under the yoke of an invader. The ensuing economic activity towards the war effort created the situation post-war in which the U.S. dominated the world whilst at the same time providing massive, massive increases in living standards for the U.S. population and also in large parts of Europe via the Marshall Plan. The echoes continue to ring today. Comparing this to 9/11 is like comparing a tank to a soap box racer. I might as well say that the price of pork belly futures is the next Pearl Harbour as that also affects US policy.
- mhaas12 14y ago
  Well, hold on there. Think about the comparison: The 9/11 attacks DID force a nation into an actual, real war (two, actually, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three if you want to count the generic "War on Terror" that was stepped up dramatically after the attack). The war in Afghanistan has become the longest in United States history, and those wars together HAVE clearly helped set in motion a series of events that will dictate the balance of power in the Middle East for a generation to come, from the deposition and removal of dictators by force to the Arab Spring to the ongoing civil war in Syria. Though there was no contiguous threat in the Middle East to rival Nazi Germany, the Middle East was and is still characterized by a number of oppressive dictatorships. Did post-9/11 have the same economic effects for the US as the post-WWII era? No, but that's not really the effect of any particular difference between the events that precipitated WWII and the wars of the last decade. And, if anything, the post-9/11 landscape HAS seen a dramatic shift in the global balance of power, specifically in challenges to US supremacy and an internal reconsideration of how we project the power we do have. The point to be made here, which I think backs up the whole "digital attack as next Pearl Harbor" argument, is that unconventional warfare is the new conventional warfare. We're less likely to see a direct military challenge along the lines of Pearl Harbor, and much more likely to see indirect challenges to US supremacy through digital or terrorist attacks. There are a lot of parallels to be drawn here, and you made many of them yourself.
  - EliRivers 14y ago
    "The 9/11 attacks DID force a nation into an actual, real war (two, actually, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three if you want to count the generic "War on Terror" that was stepped up dramatically after the attack). " The US was not forced into those wars. Iraq posed no threat to the US. Afghanistan posed no threat to the US. Pearl Harbour was an act of war by a nation; Japan had serious intent to dominate the Pacific and become the regional economic and military power, and was prepared to do serious damage to the US in order to achieve those aims. 9/11 was an act of terrorism by non-national actors. Iraq and Afghanistan were no threat; the US was not pushed into those wars. The US chose them.
    - 14y ago
vorg 14y ago
The 10-year prelude to each was similar also. The U.S. blockaded trade with Japan from about 1930 so Japan had almost run out of oil by 1941. The U.S. and allies ran a no-fly-zone over Iraq from 1991 onwards.
- EliRivers 14y ago
  With somewhat different results, though. Japan blockade - Japan starts a war to secure the natural resources it needs. Iraq blockade - Iraq poses no threat and gets invaded anyway.