Day of Infamy Options

[cupcake]

65 years ago, on this day, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

When the Dec. 7, 1941, onslaught was over, there were 2,403 dead and thousands others wounded.

Besides the mass causalities in the two waves of attacks that lasted less than two hours, the Japanese also had sunk or damaged 18 ships and destroyed more than 180 aircraft.

It was, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt would declare, "a day of infamy."

The next day, America was at war.

Although it was a day of great tragedy, it was also a day that revived our national pride and strengthened our determination as a nation.

This spirit of unity and reborn patriotism had "awakened the sleeping giant" and ultimately led us to victory and the end of World War II.

I have a really hard time believing that if that happened today, America would have the mettle to carry out an all-out offensive on two geographic fronts, be able to accept the mass casualties (ours and collateral), indiscriminate carpet bombing, and eventual use of atomic bombs. The media would have none of that. The politicians would be talking out both sides of their mouths. The "call to arms" would fall on deaf ears.

We would have lost WWII had it been fought in the 21st century. No doubt in my mind.

[Hartmann]

I was just about to post something about this and I completely agree with your post.


Just a quick bit of trivia. Japan did not fire the first shots... We did.

[Seeker]

Roosevelt knew that Japan planned to attack Pearl Harbor 30 min before the attack happened (saw it on the History Channel this morning while getting ready for work). He declined to warn Pearl Harbor and save lives because he wanted America thrust into the war.

[Hartmann]

Roosevelt knew that Japan planned to attack Pearl Harbor 30 min before the attack happened (saw it on the History Channel this morning while getting ready for work). He declined to warn Pearl Harbor and save lives because he wanted America thrust into the war.

I believe you are referring to the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories show...

There was no way to know of an impending attack, even with the radar station on the island.

[Seeker]

Nope, it wasn't a conspiracy show. The Japanese did not believe in surprise attacks, it is samurai custom to wake your enemy from sleep and give him a sword to defend himself before you fight. The Japanese ambassador delivered a letter to Roosevelt 30 minutes prior to the attack, but Roosevelt had known about it even earlier because the U.S. had intercepted the information in the letter way earlier. The U.S. typically intercepted communications from Japan to the Ambassador before the Ambassador even got it. Nevertheless, the letter was still delivered to Roosevelt 30 minutes prior.

The show was on the History Channel around 8 this morning. It wasn't a conspiracy show, check tvguide.com or Yahoo TV.

[The Fanatic]

Lance is right

[Hartmann]

Nope, it wasn't a conspiracy show. The Japanese did not believe in surprise attacks, it is samurai custom to wake your enemy from sleep and give him a sword to defend himself before you fight. The Japanese ambassador delivered a letter to Roosevelt 30 minutes prior to the attack, but Roosevelt had known about it even earlier because the U.S. had intercepted the information in the letter way earlier. The U.S. typically intercepted communications from Japan to the Ambassador before the Ambassador even got it. Nevertheless, the letter was still delivered to Roosevelt 30 minutes prior.

The show was on the History Channel around 8 this morning. It wasn't a conspiracy show, check tvguide.com or Yahoo TV.

I have heard this as well and don't deny it. My conspiracy comment was in regards to your "Roosevelt refused to alert Pearl Harbor" comments.

So what was Roosevelt supposed to do in those 30 minutes? Single handedly shoot down the entire Japanese Navy's attack force? Pearl Harbor was warned several times about a potential attack that morning. However, scrambling aircraft and readying guns, etc. was impossible to do, especially in 30 minutes. Even more of an undertaking would have been to get the fleet "under way" and out of the harbor. The Nevada attempted to exit the harbor but that was scrubbed and she was beached to avoid her being sunk in the entrance.

Talk to someone who was there. They could have known hours in advance and still not been able to prevent (or significantly mitigate) destruction of the fleet.

I would almost venture to say that a 30 minute warning could have done more harm than good. Ships could have been in the harbor entrance at the time of the attack and sunk there. That would delay our response and movement into the Pacific Theater for who knows how long.

[Seeker]

They would at least have had time to wake up and get the antiaircraft guns ready.

[Hartmann]

They would at least have had time to wake up and get the antiaircraft guns ready.

I am reading an account of that morning and there it states that at 6:30am Hawaii time, a full "Be on Alert" is issued for every Pacific base because though Roosevelt was "warned" of attack, he was not told exactly where. This warning was not received until 7:33am Hawaii time. 22 minutes later the attack was underway.

Pearl Harbor did not have an intricate communications network, most ships were contacted one by one or by light signaling. It wasn't like you could pick up a phone and turn on a giant siren that people below deck could hear

[Trespass]

I am reading an account of that morning and there it states that at 6:30am Hawaii time, a full "Be on Alert" is issued for every Pacific base because though Roosevelt was "warned" of attack, he was not told exactly where. This warning was not received until 7:33am Hawaii time. 22 minutes later the attack was underway.

Pearl Harbor did not have an intricate communications network, most ships were contacted one by one or by light signaling. It wasn't like you could pick up a phone and turn on a giant siren that people below deck could here

Hartman, stop your logic this minute, we are trying to hate the government damn it!

Oh and i completely agree with Cupcake... sadly

[impala454]

I have a really hard time believing that if that happened today, America would have the mettle to carry out an all-out offensive on two geographic fronts, be able to accept the mass casualties (ours and collateral), indiscriminate carpet bombing, and eventual use of atomic bombs. The media would have none of that. The politicians would be talking out both sides of their mouths. The "call to arms" would fall on deaf ears.

We would have lost WWII had it been fought in the 21st century. No doubt in my mind.

this is impossible to speculate... i dunno why you would even try, it makes no sense. today's american society was molded by those wars, if they hadn't happened we'd live in a completely different society.

even if you thought society would have no change, there is no force from any country existing today that has the ability to wage any kind of conventional war on us. and imho the general feelings about collateral damage & nuclear weapons use in other countries far away would change drastically if someone was to actually start dropping bombs on us. remember the fire lit under the american population after 9/11? we wanted nothing more than to do the worst to those responsible. i'd bet that if we'd caught osama a week after 9/11 and he was supposedly "tortured" while in custody, you'd have had DVDs being sold of it rather than people investigating it.

[FORSAKENR320]

this is impossible to speculate... i dunno why you would even try, it makes no sense. today's american society was molded by those wars, if they hadn't happened we'd live in a completely different society.

even if you thought society would have no change, there is no force from any country existing today that has the ability to wage any kind of conventional war on us. and imho the general feelings about collateral damage & nuclear weapons use in other countries far away would change drastically if someone was to actually start dropping bombs on us. remember the fire lit under the american population after 9/11? we wanted nothing more than to do the worst to those responsible. i'd bet that if we'd caught osama a week after 9/11 and he was supposedly "tortured" while in custody, you'd have had DVDs being sold of it rather than people investigating it.

for once i actually agree with you. american history has always shown we are quick to mobilize for war, but usually we as americans tire of it really quickly. the thing i agree with you the most is about the 9/11 incident. yes, it lit a fire under our asses and got us lashing out, but imagine what the response would have been if it were a legitimate bombing attack from a country, similar to pearl harbor. i believe that americans would have taken it to such an extreme that the attacking country either wouldn't exist, or would be so torn apart that it couldn't easily recover, (risking another situation like world war 2)

[cupcake]

live in your utopian 'americans are the end-all badasses' dreamworld...and I'll live in reality. I'm sure yours is much more palatable and cozy. I bet you sleep well.

modern-day americans* are pampered snots who would rather pick apart every little flaw a leader, decision, action makes, be interested in conspiracy theories, etc... than actually pull their boots up and endure the hardships to do what needs to be done.

this isn't a political party thing. this is an american thing. the reps talk out both sides of their mouths, led us into an ill-advised situation, and never fully committed to stomping a mudhole in anyone; whereas the dems just whined and poked at the policy, thus weakening us further, and now they have the motherloving GALL to suggest diplomacy AFTER we already created our enemies. and rest assured, the guys we are fighting right now are not the same guys who wanted us dead in 2001.

Diplomacy...FUCK YEAH!

americans today do not have the patience to wait for their hotpocket to finish nuking, nor do they have the stomach or fortitude to endure a battle of attrition. If we cannot deal with it in Iraq (where we've lost 3000 men over 3 years), HOW IN THE HELL can you justify that we'd be cool with the slaughterous nature of the big WWII battles? We couldn't...

there's no way in hell we could deal with the threat of the (equivalent of) axis powers today. like say if china, russia and NK decided fuck it, let's get it on! heaven help us.

*disclaimer...as with all things there are anomalies. there are still americans who are of the 'hardman' mindset and will, but definately not the popular majority...nor in the political corps.

[Hartmann]

I agree completely. Our way of life has changed a lot since WWII and the hard times that this country was experiencing before the war. "Work" has changed meanings. It used to mean being out in the field, working on a highrise building, or some other manual labor. Now it means sitting in a cube, eating McD's for lunch, and going home to watch TV. We're the epitome of lazy though we would staunchly deny it with our 8 hour "work"days.

[Divergent Realit...]

remember, not everyone can sit on the bridge of a star destroyer, they need people to fill those storm trooper helmets.





the empire needs you.