|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| 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 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:22 am Post subject: Re: If you had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor . . . |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
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? |
|
Is that the whole question? You would need a bit more situational information to answer such a hypothetical:
When? At what point in time before the attack does the President gain this pre-knowledge?
There were no ICBMs then, and no Intercontinental jets, so the actual launching of this attack was a bit of a slow-motion operation compared to today and the Japanese plan was formulated and depended on secrecy ... so, at what point in time does the President become aware?
1) If it's prior to the sailing of the Japanese Fleet, or if the Fleet is not yet in attack position, then no problem. The President mobilizes the fleet to take defensive action, leaving Pearl Harbor.
Then President notifies Congress, the media and the American people of the pending attack. The Congress begins the debate regarding the declaration of war as per the Constitution. The Japanese surprise attack is blown and they either back down or, since Japan had already secretly declared war prior to the attack but the President has this foreknowledge, the Congress declares war. Then the appropriate military response can be mounted.
2) If the Japanese Fleet is within hours of attack or the attack has all but begun, then the military must begin its best defensive battle posture and fight defensively and offensively against the invading fleet.
Then the President can proceed as in (1) above, notifying everyone and seeking an immediate Declaration of War as the battle rages.
There is nothing, however, in this hypothetical that justifies a pre-emptive attack on Japan. It is either not possible or not necessary, depending on the timing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Upon further consideration, I don't think attacking Japanese soil would have really made sense. Pearl Harbor was a risky move on the part of the Japanese; as such, if the attacking fleet had merely been ambushed, Japan's ability to wage war would have been vastly diminished. Didn't they send every carrier they had to Hawaii? Had they been ambushed and lost of few of those ships, it would have essentially been Midway but at the beginning of the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:17 am Post subject: Re: If you had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor . . . |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
2) If the Japanese Fleet is within hours of attack or the attack has all but begun, then the military must begin its best defensive battle posture and fight defensively and offensively against the invading fleet.
Then the President can proceed as in (1) above, notifying everyone and seeking an immediate Declaration of War as the battle rages.
There is nothing, however, in this hypothetical that justifies a pre-emptive attack on Japan. It is either not possible or not necessary, depending on the timing. |
I think that is true of 1941. Navies couldn't span the Pacific so quickly, and the US would be tied down meeting Japanese forces.
But in 2012? A viable strategy would be a direct attack on command and control. The distinction between defense and offense has been blurred by modern technology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:52 am Post subject: Re: If you had pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor . . . |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
2) If the Japanese Fleet is within hours of attack or the attack has all but begun, then the military must begin its best defensive battle posture and fight defensively and offensively against the invading fleet.
Then the President can proceed as in (1) above, notifying everyone and seeking an immediate Declaration of War as the battle rages.
There is nothing, however, in this hypothetical that justifies a pre-emptive attack on Japan. It is either not possible or not necessary, depending on the timing. |
I think that is true of 1941. Navies couldn't span the Pacific so quickly, and the US would be tied down meeting Japanese forces.
But in 2012? A viable strategy would be a direct attack on command and control. The distinction between defense and offense has been blurred by modern technology. |
This is the problem with hypotheticals.
In 2012: Same conditions: the President is forewarned?
Which nation state?
Few have any means of direct attack upon the US without considerable lead time. Those few are likely still deterred by MAD. Further, would it make since to initiate the attack and face MAD in reverse?
Any others that might choose to attack would not require a pre-emptive strike by the US, as there would be adequate time to declare war.
In the case of a state sponsored terrorist attack or sneak attack, no attack on that nation's homeland would thwart the delivery of the attack. We would have to seek out the weapon(s) being deployed. This would be defensive and could and should be undertaken while securing the proper declaration of war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I find it extremely curious that 37% of those who have voted so far, have chosen the 4th option. You have knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, but you are only authorizing defense of the continental U.S.? and not authorizing defense of Pearl Harbor? Very strange. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| I find it extremely curious that 37% of those who have voted so far, have chosen the 4th option. You have knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, but you are only authorizing defense of the continental U.S.? and not authorizing defense of Pearl Harbor? Very strange. |
I totally agree. But I put the option in there because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| I find it extremely curious that 37% of those who have voted so far, have chosen the 4th option. You have knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, but you are only authorizing defense of the continental U.S.? and not authorizing defense of Pearl Harbor? Very strange. |
I totally agree. But I put the option in there because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory. |
So because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory, the President might not want to defend U.S. territory and its major military base at Pearl Harbor? Still very strange. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| I find it extremely curious that 37% of those who have voted so far, have chosen the 4th option. You have knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, but you are only authorizing defense of the continental U.S.? and not authorizing defense of Pearl Harbor? Very strange. |
I totally agree. But I put the option in there because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory. |
So because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory, the President might not want to defend U.S. territory and its major military base at Pearl Harbor? Still very strange. |
I don't understand. Are you criticizing just the responses or the fact that I put the option there? I assure you I haven't voted yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I don't understand. Are you criticizing just the responses or the fact that I put the option there? I assure you I haven't voted yet. |
I think he means that a good choice to include would have been:
"No, I would have prepared to defend Hawaii but would not have attacked Japan until we were attacked first."
But I'm glad you included the option you did, since I also think it's a strange position for people to hold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| I find it extremely curious that 37% of those who have voted so far, have chosen the 4th option. You have knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, but you are only authorizing defense of the continental U.S.? and not authorizing defense of Pearl Harbor? Very strange. |
I totally agree. But I put the option in there because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory. |
So because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory, the President might not want to defend U.S. territory and its major military base at Pearl Harbor? Still very strange. |
I don't understand. Are you criticizing just the responses or the fact that I put the option there? I assure you I haven't voted yet. |
I do think it's a little strange that you would even think to offer that option, but I think it's far stranger that anyone would actually chose that option. I suppose that if I'm being critical it is not so much that you gave that option, but rather that you gave that option instead of the more obvious and natural choice of preparing the defenses at Pearl Harbor and possibly ambushing the "surprise" attack as they did at Midway, where thanks to codebreakers, the U.S. did have advance knowledge of the attack. Of course at Pearl Harbor, they were not yet at war, so rather than asking about an attack on Japan, the more relevant question would be at what point would the U.S. launch an attack on the approaching Japanese fleet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I don't understand. Are you criticizing just the responses or the fact that I put the option there? I assure you I haven't voted yet. |
I think he means that a good choice to include would have been:
"No, I would have prepared to defend Hawaii but would not have attacked Japan until we were attacked first."
But I'm glad you included the option you did, since I also think it's a strange position for people to hold. |
As I, and you, have said, I think that option is already included in "yes, if attack were certain and imminent." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Also depends on who is president in this hypothetical scenario. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find the title a bit strange as opposed to the actual content.
If one had pre-knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor then that means that one knew that an attack is 100% certain of happening. In other words it's not just a possibility it's a fact. Given that I don't see how any option other than absolutely is viable here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
| Also depends on who is president in this hypothetical scenario. |
uh, you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| I find it extremely curious that 37% of those who have voted so far, have chosen the 4th option. You have knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, but you are only authorizing defense of the continental U.S.? and not authorizing defense of Pearl Harbor? Very strange. |
I totally agree. But I put the option in there because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory. |
So because of the history of Hawaii and the fact that it was only a territory, the President might not want to defend U.S. territory and its major military base at Pearl Harbor? Still very strange. |
I don't understand. Are you criticizing just the responses or the fact that I put the option there? I assure you I haven't voted yet. |
Actually, I thought the wording mentioning the "continental US" was a bit odd as well. I wasn't sure if you really meant that you would defend the mainland but not territories such as Hawaii was a the time, or if it was a mistake and you actually meant the US homeland including the territories.
I would guess that some people may have chosen this option assuming that you really meant to include Hawaii and US territories in choice 3 since excluding them would be bizarre, especially since Hawaii was where the attack took place and large portion of the Pacific fleet was based there.
Based on that, I would have to lump answer 3 and 4 together when looking at the results of the poll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
