Was the attack on Pearl Harbor a terrorist attack?
No, it was an act of war.Soldiers, sailors and airmen of major military powers are not terrorists, they’re uniformed members of their country’s armed forces, and subject to the control of their government. They may be given objectives of foreign conquest that involve terrifying the local inhabitants. That’s not terrorism.This is a good place to remind the questioner that word have actual meanings.A terrorist is a civilian subversive that is trying to bring about a political end that affects their own goals, and uses terror on a populace to do so. The objective is to terrorize said populace to the point that they feel that their own government is unable to guarantee their safety, and that the only way to make the terror end is to give in to the terrorists.Most governments are totally incapable of addressing the issue of terrorism, since the first thing they do is pass regulations and increase their bureaucratic hold on the nation. This achieves nothing except maybe making a stronger case for the terrorist.The other mistake is treating a terrorist like an ordinary decent criminal. Virtually no nation has any statutes on their books that really would work to prevent terrorism. The key is to put the terrorist outside the protection of the law, and then let uniformed professionals take care of the issue.Properly organized terrorists don’t just target the citizenry, but first and foremost the legal system. They kill the family of a judge in a particularly horrific way, and the use that to “remind” judges of what the expected outcome of a trial is supposed to be. They get lots of help from the international press and “human rights” groups. Well organized terrorist groups make money, mostly from narcotics traffic, and can use those funds to buy influence.Please note by this time, that none of this is the way an armed force works.So, the Japanese Imperial Navy struck the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in an act of war - indeed, they had carried out savagery in places like Nanking, China, but the objective was to simply be barbaric; they already held the town and much of the country so there was no reason to be terrorists, since they weren’t trying to subvert anything. They were simply acting like animals.Subvert is the operative word - soldiers fight to conquer or defeat an enemy or to achieve an objective. A terrorist is trying to subvert a political system to their own ends.It’s a big difference.
Would You Consider Pearl Harbor A Terrorist Attack?
I got into a little debate today.. as you the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing is today and someone online mentioned that we remember all terrorist victims today - the Ok bombing, 9/11, and Pearl Harbor. I took issue with Pearl Harbor because I don't think it was a terrorist act. It was one army attacking another army's military base in a war with minor civilian loss. I angered a lot of people because they didn't agree with it. I was wondering what you think?
Could there ever be like, another Pearl Harbor type attack here in America again? Ever?
Sure. Anything that's been done, can be repeated. 9/11 was an example of how an enemy force can attack this nation on our own home turf. But an invading force could very well land on our shores, or launch an attack on a coastal area. It wouldn't be as devastating as Pearl was, and we would have a LOT of warning that it was coming. It's kind of hard to sneak up on us. But IF a nation was to say they were just running maneuvers, and notify us they were doing so, it may get them in close enough to launch a strike. But said strike would be very un-effective. Canada or Mexico could launch an offensive, and Cuba could launch one as well, simply because of their proximity to our borders. And if someone were REALLY sneaky as hell, they may actually be able to launch an air offensive from either of those nations. But it would be hard for them to mobilize the numbers of men and materials required to do so without our knowledge. It would have to be amassed over a long period of time, under stark secrecy, and in a very remote region and with knowledge of our satellite overflights. Possible? Yes. Probable? Not just no, but hell no. And not to beat a dead horse into the ground, but that terrorist sh!t as you put it, WAS an all out attack, in a manner of speaking. There are different types of warfare, and that was simply an example of one. It would be virtually impossible to get an aircraft carrier close enough to our shores to launch an attack. But if the French or the Britts were so inclined, then yeah. They could probably pull it off, simply because as allies, we wouldn't have our guard up as high. They could simply contact the pentagon, arrange joint training exercises, as are done routinely, and then just put it to us. But like I said, the scenario is VERY far fetched. Nobody puts ANYTHING in the sea or the air that we don't know about. Period. We know the location of EVERY SINGLE military ship on the planet, and every plane flying over 50' above sea level. But there is a fanatical South American president that would LOVE to launch an attack on us. He just lacks an army, navy, or air force to do so. IF he had one, and IF he had the secret support of the nations between his border and ours, it COULD be done.
Can the bombing of Pearl Harbor in WW2 be considered a terrorist attack?
No.By US law, terrorism is defined as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." How does the attack on Pearl stack up? Let’s take a look:“premeditated, politically motivated violence”: Premeditated, absolutely. You don’t get a fleet of ships half-way across the Pacific without a lot of advanced planning. Politically motivated, sure. Violence, most definitely.“perpetrated against noncombatant targets”: Battleships and airfields full of military aircraft are about as far from noncombatant targets as you can get.“by subnational groups or clandestine agents”: The Imperial Japanese Navy is not a subnational group. They are essentially an arm of the Japanese government and their actions can be taken as official Japanese policy. Fully nationalized there. And a fleet full of aircraft carriers flying their national flag is about as far from clandestine as you can get.So, then, it may be that the Japanese wanted to shock the United States, but it wasn’t terrorism. It was a straight-up act of war.
Is Pearl Harbor in any danger of being attacked by ISIS?
Probably not. Military targets are probably at the very bottom of their list. Pearl Harbor is potential military target, and as such would be considered a "hardened" target, with a security apparatus that is elaborate and difficult to penetrate. ISIS-sponsored or inspired terrorist attacks do not have a military objective. Their purpose is literally to terrorize--to inflict pain and suffering on the maximum number of people--with no other purpose than to sow confusion, fear, and to deliberately provoke stupid and mindlessly paranoid over-reaction such as those advocated by goofs like Donald Trump--over-reaction plays right into the terrorists hands, because it drives more recruits to them. Thus, they would be more likely to go after defenseless civilian targets that are "softer." A huge mall during the busy holiday shopping season, airliners flying into and out of large airports, a line of cars jammed up at rush hour somewhere on, say, the L.A. or Chicago area freeway systems, just people rushing around Manhattan during the business day--these would be far more likely targets. Large cities are probably more at risk, but part of the terrorists' strategy is to show the world that no place is safe from them, so even small towns here or there are at risk--neighborhood schools, people in church on Sunday, etc. The San Bernadino attack is an example of this.
Would Hawaii have become a state if the Pearl Harbor attack had never occurred?
Most certainly, especially after the Hawaii Democratic Revolution of 1954. By 1954, many younger Hawaiians were US citizens by birth and they wanted and demanded the same rights as the other states. After a lengthy series of strikes and civil protests, the Hawaiian Republican Party was deposed, the Democratic Party was elected and the road to statehood began. Given its strategic importance to the United States and the strength of its pro-statehood effort (which was stymied for nearly a decade by Southern White Congress members who disliked the thought of non-White elected Senators and Congressmen) Hawaii's entrance was virtually guaranteed,
How might the Pearl Harbor attack been different had the US Navy and Army gone on alert when the USS Ward sunk the Japanese midget sub trying to sneak into the harbor?
The Americans had roughly one hour between the time when the USS Ward attacked the Japanese submarine and the air raid.At 03:42 Hawaiian Time, the minesweeper Condor spotted a midget submarine periscope southwest of the Pearl Harbor entrance buoy and alerted the destroyer Ward. … Ward sank another midget submarine at 06:37The attack commenced at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time (18:18 GMT).Mind you, you can’t sound General Alarms each time someone sees “something”. A periscope could “easily be” a drift wood or broom handle.But if the warning had been acted upon, say after the USS Ward had reported their attack, PH would have had less than 60 minutes to respond.Of note would have been Pearl Harbor’s USAAF 100 fighter planes. Historically, 2 - 3 American fighter planes managed to take off and amazingly managed to shoot down several enemy bombers.Obviously, if the USAAF had been alerted earlier, more fighter planes would have greeted the Japanese attacking force.The P-40s would have faced trouble fighting off the 40+ Zero fighter planes, but it would have been a field day dealing with the slow, vulnerable Japanese bombers - full of bombs, fuel, and no armor protection.So the Japanese attack force would have faced much greater losses.
Could a surprise-attack like that at Pearl Harbor happen again against the US? Could the US lose track of an entire fleet in the Pacific/Atlantic?
Could a surprise-attack like that at Pearl Harbor happen again against the US? Could the US lose track of an entire fleet in the Pacific/Atlantic?No. Clearly not. If you are talking about a Naval attack with carriers, no.Japan attacked Pearl Harbor with SIX AIRCRAFT CARRIERS! That clearly could not happen today.At the moment, only the USA has more than two aircraft carriers in service.List of aircraft carriers - WikipediaHow on earth are you going to build four or five aircraft carriers without anyone noticing?Keep in mind that when Russia sent a fairly decrepit carrier into the med, it was covered EVERYWHERE. Then it kinda sank in dry dock and that hit the web also, but that’s another story.So, step one, you build a bunch of carriers. The USA is gonna notice that.Step two. You are being watched. You gather a bunch of ships together in one place. Again, this will be noticed. It’s not just the six carriers. You need a bunch of support ships. The USA routinely tracked Russian “boomers” which are way harder to track than surface combatants like carriers.Step three. You send those ships across the Atlantic. The USA is watching you do this. Anybody with six carriers is going to be watched.Step four. The USA escorts your ships to see what the heck you are doing. Most likely overflights with P-8’s. If you keep coming, an Aegis destroyer. You get too close, a full on Carrier Strike Group. Closer still, land based aircraft. See where this is going?IMAGE: Royal Navy escorting Russian carrier.Step five…. Ooops. No sneak attack.So, no. Just no.Setting aside the “like Pearl Harbor” part of the question, can you commit a sneak attack on american soil? Yes, certainly. Just look at 9/11. Unfortunately, if you really want to blow some shit up, you can. You may not survive the experience though.
Do you think Disneyland will ever be attacked by terrorists?
I hope not, but I hope we don't have any more terrorist attacks. We really aren't safe anywhere we go, but we can't live our lives in fear. Sometimes you just have to take your chances. There is the possiblity something could happen anywhere I go, but it's not going to stop me. Disney takes a lot of precautions to make sure everything is safe. And I feel confident they are doing everything they can to prevent something from happening.
What if Japan attacked Pearl Harbor now? Would the U.S. declare war on Japan again?
In responding to your question, I am asking myself, "what is the writer of this question REALLY trying to get at?" On one level, the question is nonsensical - the US and Japan have been close allies and trading partners for 70 years now; Japan would have no conceivable reason to attack the US. In addition, any historian (Japanese, American, or Martian) could tell you then attacking Pearl Harbor was the worst mistake Japan ever made (or could possibly have ever made). Japan has a relatively strong military now (or self-defense force) but in proportion to the US, it is relatively weaker than it was in 1941. Japan has no real aircraft carriers, and its naval offensive capability is much less than that of one carrier group (of which the US has 11). Which leads to the fundamental problem with the question: it is not 1941. The bulk of the US Pacific Fleet no longer resides in Pearl Harbor, but is spread out among Hawaii, Puget Sound, and San Diego, and rough 1/2 of the fleet is out of port and at sea. There is no real possibility of a surprise attack 'crippling' the US fleet - if successful, the attackers could do a lot of damage, kill some civilians, and maybe damage some US ships in port - but 90% of the US fleet would be unaffected by the attack. In any case, the attack wouldn't be successful, since any fleet large enough to attack Pearl Harbor would have to sail from Asia to Hawaii - it would easily be spotted long before coming into range of Hawaii. But, to answer your question - sure. If a nation state attacked a major US naval base, it wouldn't take long for Congress to declare war on that nation. The question would make slightly more sense if it were "what if China were to attack Pearl Harbor now?" However, the same answer would apply - it would not be successful in the foreseeable future, but yeah, sure, an attack on the US would certainly be met by a declaration of war.