| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| If you had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor, would you (as President) have attacked Japan? |
| Absolutely |
|
15% |
[ 2 ] |
| Yes, if the intelligence were reasonably reliable |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Yes, but only if the threat was certain and imminent |
|
15% |
[ 2 ] |
| No, I would have only authorized the defense of the continental US |
|
38% |
[ 5 ] |
| No (other) |
|
30% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:45 am Post subject: If you had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor . . . |
 |
|
This is a question that Piers Morgan posed to Ron Paul on February 3, 2012. I think it would be fun for CE forum members to answer it.
| Piers Morgan wrote: |
| If you had knowledge, and you were President [of the United States] when Pearl Harbor happened, if you had pre-knowledge, would you have attacked Japan? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A much more interesting question would have been: "As President, would you have supported the 1941 oil embargo on Japan that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor?"
But getting to your question... If it's only suspected, the President should take all his info to Congress and give them the opportunity to declare war (in secret), then attack.
If an attack is certain and imminent, a war is effectively in progress already... though Congress should still officially declare war in their next session. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, because any attack launched would be much more ineffective compared to the damage that could be achieved by ambushing the Japanese in particular, especially say, when their planes were already en route to bomb Pearl.
What kind of attack would I do? Bomb Okinawa? Send a few B-17Ds over Japanese territory from the Philippines and watch them get shot down? Have a few submarines fire off some torpedos at some merchant shipping? Steam my carriers across the Pacific for 30 seconds over Tokyo?
The big thing I'd do is make sure the petrol stored there was moved to decentralized locations and get my modern aircraft away from there, as well as skilled personnel. Something that could be done relatively quietly and secretly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the most important question is "would you as president have waged total war against the Japanese people and demanded an unconditional surrender?"
Waging a war against the Japanese military is perfectly just in the event of an attack. Firebombing cities and dropping two atomic bombs killing hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children was a barbarous war crime and an atrocity for the ages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
I think the most important question is "would you as president have waged total war against the Japanese people and demanded an unconditional surrender?"
Waging a war against the Japanese military is perfectly just in the event of an attack. Firebombing cities and dropping two atomic bombs killing hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children was a barbarous war crime and an atrocity for the ages. |
When the outcome of the war became apparent, why didn't the Japanese bother to surrender? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| radcon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
I think the most important question is "would you as president have waged total war against the Japanese people and demanded an unconditional surrender?"
Waging a war against the Japanese military is perfectly just in the event of an attack. Firebombing cities and dropping two atomic bombs killing hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children was a barbarous war crime and an atrocity for the ages. |
When the outcome of the war became apparent, why didn't the Japanese bother to surrender? |
Who? The Japanese people?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| radcon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
I think the most important question is "would you as president have waged total war against the Japanese people and demanded an unconditional surrender?"
Waging a war against the Japanese military is perfectly just in the event of an attack. Firebombing cities and dropping two atomic bombs killing hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children was a barbarous war crime and an atrocity for the ages. |
When the outcome of the war became apparent, why didn't the Japanese bother to surrender? |
Who? The Japanese people?? |
Let's start with the thousands of kamikaze pilots and then go from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Waging a war against the Japanese military is perfectly just in the event of an attack. Firebombing cities and dropping two atomic bombs killing hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children was a barbarous war crime and an atrocity for the ages. |
What adorable modern sensibilities you have. Anyway, I know this has been hashed out in other threads, so maybe we can not derail this one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Waging a war against the Japanese military is perfectly just in the event of an attack. Firebombing cities and dropping two atomic bombs killing hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children was a barbarous war crime and an atrocity for the ages. |
What adorable modern sensibilities you have. Anyway, I know this has been hashed out in other threads, so maybe we can not derail this one? |
Who's derailing the thread?  If you have nothing of substance to offer, then don't bother replying to my posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| radcon wrote: |
| Let's start with the thousands of kamikaze pilots and then go from there. |
Right... So shooting at kamikaze pilots is the moral equivalent of firebombing cities full of women and children? Or the existence of the former the justification of doing the latter? Sorry if I'm not following your logic... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
A much more interesting question would have been: "As President, would you have supported the 1941 oil embargo on Japan that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor?"
But getting to your question... If it's only suspected, the President should take all his info to Congress and give them the opportunity to declare war (in secret), then attack.
If an attack is certain and imminent, a war is effectively in progress already... though Congress should still officially declare war in their next session. |
Piers Morgan asked the question to Ron Paul in support of the proposition of preemptive war. And Ron Paul gave his answer: that if we saw the planes coming overhead, and an attack was imminent, only then could war be declared. I thought the same thing comm said, a certain and imminent attack means war is already in progress. So Ron Paul basically was saying that, no, preemptive war could never be constitutional.
But what about reasonably reliable intelligence of an attack? I'm not talking about developing WMDs. Obviously, the justifications for the war in Iraq and a hypothetical war in Iran are insufficient. I mean a reasonably reliable assessment that the American homeland would be attacked. The Constitution should not require the United States to wait until the planes are overhead, or the missiles are in the air, before the nation can move to its defense. Although I appreciate his motives, more than ever, Ron Paul's distinction between defense and militarism becomes fuzzier. A good offensive strike is sometimes the best defense. Paralyzing command and control could potentially save many American lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Constitution should not require the United States to wait until the planes are overhead, or the missiles are in the air, before the nation can move to its defense. |
It doesn't. But it does leave that decision to the Congress, rather than the President. A preemptive or straight-up offensive war isn't unconstitutional, but it can only declared by Congress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Constitution should not require the United States to wait until the planes are overhead, or the missiles are in the air, before the nation can move to its defense. |
It doesn't. But it does leave that decision to the Congress, rather than the President. A preemptive or straight-up offensive war isn't unconstitutional, but it can only declared by Congress. |
That's what I'm getting at. Waiting for congressional permission ties the President down in an emergency. I'm beginning to truly appreciate the wisdom of the War Powers Act. Although I think the period should be 30 days, not 90. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No, as it would have been unviable politically to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| That's what I'm getting at. Waiting for congressional permission ties the President down in an emergency. I'm beginning to truly appreciate the wisdom of the War Powers Act. Although I think the period should be 30 days, not 90. |
But the idea is that the President shouldn't be able to commit American lives to a cause without either an imminent threat or the approval of more elected officials. If (after examining all of the intelligence) most of Congress believes military force is a bad idea, then they can prevent the President from marching them out. There's no reason that we should leave that decision to one person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
