what's up with surprise attacks

I mean, there’s the attack on pearl harbor, and other stuff like that, i mean its not like an armys going to send a message saying:" hey, do you mind if we attack you and blow up a bunch of your ships next week kthnxbai"

please debate

I think the shock with Pearl Harbor was that the Japanese attacked a “neutral” power without provocation. The case could be made that we were backing what would later become the Allied powers, but we really weren’t officially engaged in the conflict. The problem isn’t how the attack was made, but who it was against.

The president knew in advance…

The element of surprise is valuable on a battlefield.

The problem isn’t how the attack was made, but who it was against.

Yup, hypocrisy at its best.

I don’t want to divert the topic, but does anyone know if there were any existing, legal channels that Japan could have used to dispute the America’s neutrality?

Not really, because we were breaking our own neutrality act and the Allies were in control of the League of Nations.

They would essentially have to get us to admit we were breaking our own laws and have us punish ourselves.

League of Nations, exactly what I was thinking of!

They would essentially have to get us to admit we were breaking our own laws and have us punish ourselves.

I can see how that might be a problem…

Surprise attacks can be devastating, that is why they are popular.

Originally posted by 38383838:

please debate

Debate what?

Originally posted by JohnRulz:

The element of surprise is valuable on a battlefield.

We weren’t on the battlefield. We were home, sipping a nice cup of hot tea, then all of a sudden, bombs land in your backyard. Amazingly, we took out japan despite our navy getting crippled.

We weren’t on the battlefield.

When you supply only one side of the fight in complete violation of your own neutrality act, people get a tad bit upset.

We were home, sipping a nice cup of hot tea…

…and supplying only the allied side with heavy weaponry and other supplies when…

But did they have to go and kill people? All because we gave them guns? Meanies. You do make a point though.

Originally posted by Aaron_:

League of Nations, exactly what I was thinking of!

They would essentially have to get us to admit we were breaking our own laws and have us punish ourselves.

I can see how that might be a problem…

League of Nations was a poorly designed group that couldn’t do crap. Look at how well they prevented WWII!

Originally posted by nomogoodnames:

Originally posted by JohnRulz:

The element of surprise is valuable on a battlefield.

We weren’t on the battlefield. We were home, sipping a nice cup of hot tea, then all of a sudden, bombs land in your backyard. Amazingly, we took out japan despite our navy getting crippled.

A. Our navy wasn’t that badly crippled. They missed the factories, the fuel, the supply depots, and the carriers (which are far more important than a battleship).
B. We had placed a fuel embargo on Japan. They were not happy about it.
C. We were supplying weapons and equipment to the Allies.

Amazingly, we took out japan despite our navy getting crippled.

You mean you dropped nukes?

But did they have to go and kill people? All because we gave them guns? Meanies.

Actually, I think it was a rather stupid decision. Axis might have “won” or at least held out much longer if they didn’t involve America in it. The more enemies you have, the less chance you’re going to win. Same counts for Germany attacking the Soviet Union.

I remember on some obscure History Channel documentary about Pearl Harbor that the commander ordered a warning be sent x minutes beforehand, but for some reason it wasn’t sent. I can’t cite my source, but just putting this out there.