Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJWest
No, it doesn't. It means that you think that 'these threats run much deeper'. Nothing I can or could not answer could possibly make a significant difference to the level of threats posed. The threats exist (or don't exist) regardless of what either of us think. If you want to convince me that a threat is real, you'll have to show that it isn't just hype generated by vested interests.
I'm interested that you write "Nations do go to war over resources, especially when those resources are essential. That's part of the reason Japan chose war". Was Japan justified in going to war for 'essential resources'? Was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor justified in consequence?
|
That question has to go back one step further: Why did Japan need the resources that were being embargoed?
Well, because they were trying to expand their empire. Western powers protested their aggression by refusing to sell them the resources they needed to wage the wars they were fighting.
In turn, the Japanese decided to go south to capture the resources they needed.
So if one looks back only to the embargo, the answer would seem to be "yes", they had to go to war to get the resources needed. But going back just a few years ealier, it becomes apparent that the real cause for war was Japan's perceived "right" to unite Asia under their emperor.
Other countries were taking away their ability to wage war on their neighbors by denying them resources to do so.
Therefore they were not justified in attacking Pearl because their need for resources was mandated by their aggressive effort at expansion. They brought the embargo on themselves.
The situation also shows that embargoes and sanctions usually don't work against a determined foe. Such actions may even push them over the edge into violence.
A different question is whether or not the Japanese were "smart" in attacking Pearl. As it turned out, they "awakened a sleeping giant" and it cost them dearly.
However, if they had caught the carriers in port and followed up their attacks, it might have been years before the US could have put a large enough force at sea to challenge them. It might have been too late by then.
Besides, if they had hit the US hard enough, the US attention would have turned to defending it's own west coast. The US might not have even been motivated enough to do more than assist Australia and other nations in Japan's path.
Here they showed that to win, you actually have to beat the foe and not just wound. They wounded the US Pacific forces, but they did not beat them hard enough to make them quit.
BTW, when a foreign leader declares that destroying other nations is his goal, I tend to believe him. When he goes about acquiring the means to make that threat a reality, he totally convinces me that he is a threat. If he is just full of bluff and bluster then he is playing a dangerous game.
Splitter