Artur Braun ,

Thanks for your quick reply. When you have a moment, could you please fill in some of the blanks? For one thing, there is no obvious linkage between points 1 and 2 above, at least in terms of U.S.A. military history. Therefore, my quick reply to your quick reply is that the U.S.A. was in Hawai'i for strategic military defense. The flotilla had previously been stationed, in the sense of permanently, in San Diego harbor. I hope that this helps, and I look forward to more detail on your part.

Happy new year and best wishes for good research in 2020!

Artur Braun ,

You are right about the burgeoning influence of Japan in the Pacific, for example, "defending" against the imperial German presence in the Pacific island area.

But I believe that, despite the distance between the Hawaiian Islands and the United States Continental mainland, there was an agreement between the government of Hawaii and the U.S. government, which declared that Hawaii was granted the privileges accorded to its status as a bona fide U.S. Territorial possession. If you think about it, this is why it was relatively easy for the U.S. Naval Fleet stationed at San Diego harbor to be expeditiously ordered to occupy Pearl Harbor in Hawai'i.

Furthermore, Japan was motivated to attack a U.S. port of call because of tariffs imposed by the West, which was no doubt intimidated by the escalation in Japan's buildup of military ground forces, air force, and naval warships.

This debate has rapidly moved from one of pre-emptive strikes to the morality of colonialism and it seems the rights of Japan to retaliate against US economic measures. The Japanese, a colonial power itself, attack on Pearl Harbour was pre-emptive but succeeded only in persauding the US into wars and developing its military. The belief that Japan was tricked into such a measure does not account for previous such Japanese behaviour as a means of resolving differences. If Japan had kept the US out of hostilities and prevented it from interfering with Japanese intentions in the Pacific in what possible sense is that moral? Is not this kind of competitive statesmanship, a hangover from 19th century Europe, itself immoral?

I am reminded that Hitler claimed his attack on Poland was pre-emptive (or retaliatory) and the allies nuclear strike on Japan was in order not to suffer the slaughter of its armed forces. Evidence suggests such a slaughter would have occurred. War does not necessarily ensure morality, merely success.

The matter of pre-emptive strikes is more complex than might appear at first glance, all this owing to what definition (and so justification) one uses. In its "purest" expression, a "pre-emptive strike" is military action taken by one country in response to a threat from another, the objective being to stop the latter from carrying out a threat. That said, much depends on what the threat is or, vitally, is claimed to be. Further, must the threat be exclusively military? The United States had no military intent against Japan prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, for instance, even if it had for long been honing War Plan Orange, 1897–1945, a contingency plan for war in the Pacific. Elsewhere, the attack on Pearl Harbor can hardly be called "pre-emptive" in the sense that Japan knew the gamble would enrage the United States, as Yamamoto had warned quite explicitly. That said, the United States had frozen Japanese assets on July 26, 1941 and, on August 1, 1941, established an embargo on oil and gasoline exports to Japan, which that country deemed very injurious (because of its economic structure and, certainly, imperial ambitions); that side of the story is not often recounted in the West, but many in Japan know of it.

Olivier,

I find it difficult to believe that the Pearl Harbour attack was meant to enrage the US and start a war, unless Japanese data on the US was poor and did not envisage its potential military might. That might be the case, but the Japanese are surely cleverer than that? A gamble? Yes that I can understand in the same way the attack of Germany on Russia was a gamble. Hitler had an otherall plan based on time and the years other countries like the USA would catch up with German power, and he knew if he waited Germany had little chance of success. Did Japan do the same?

For context, I am spending 4 yrs. now researching combat trauma. I am a former ER medic who served during the Vietnam Conflict (1969~1973). So here are some observations and some of my articles. Combat is an exercise in psychosis. I've only encountered 2 combatants who enjoyed killing humans. They are in a decided minority. They are not "ruthless killers" as Trump describes them. When they leave the combat zone, they are for ever changed. Many are in pain at a psychosocial level. I abhor war unless absolutely necessary.

Rich

Richard, i read two but will read the others. My impression? Cultural emphasis to begin with, that the positions concern the USA predominantly. It brought back memories foer some reason of USA TV programmes which concentrated on violence espewcially glamorous violence.

I then thought of conditions in London when I left and the different kinds of violence and its roots not in your selection.

Gang-black on black kids predominantly and the construction of an alternative culture with a machismo basis established through violence.

Religious violence-long term Islamic converts, new converts caught up in implications of death, those manipulated by older machievellian men. Similarities to the above.

Outsides and vulnerable establishing centred senses of security and masculinity.

In war most of these would probably be killed because of their psychologies.

Read your one on World War II and Vietnam.

I am very interested in why people go to war, especially in the past and before ideas of universal life were developed and their death meant complete annihialaion. Comradeship seems an answer, but not always a rationale.

Stanley and others,

As Jesus points out, "do unto others before they do unto you"!

As humans we compete and cooperate to accrue valued assets. And the more the merrier. Men especially vie for Power, Prestige, and Property. As some say: "You think that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, until you get there and find out it is artificial grass". Or, "he you has the most toys wins".

Rich

While the discussion on the attacked on Pearl Harbor is somewhat interesting, it does not address the question since that attack was not "preemptive" in the usual use of the word. It is true that by December 1941 the US was already outpacing Japan in the production of war materials and naval construction. However the decision to attack was based more on "if we can't defeat them now, we never will" than the threat that the US would in the near future began an offensive war with Japan.

الأمر يتوقف على مدى دقة المعلومات التي تؤكد وجود نوايا ومخططات شريرة من طرف الآخرين والتي تستوجب هجوماً استباقياً مباغتاً.

إذا تأكَّد أن العدو لديه مخططات لضربنا فالمبادرة إلى ضربه ضرورية.

Arben not necessarily. Japan was not stronger than USA for example. It can be a way of getting a genuine advantage without declaring war, and often thereby assuming victimhood.

A good example of a preemptive strike is "Operation Opera/Babylon", the 1981 Israeli attack on an Iraqi nuclear site.

Мы не должны забывать, что военные действия всегда кому то выгодны, а это означает, для того чтобы избежать военного столкновения нужно задействовать серое вещество тем, кто ее развязывает и найти политический компромисс, а не упредительный удар. Наш активный разум способен как создавать конфликты, так и решать их мирными политическими дискуссиями.

Оксана Салата ,

If possible, could you please translate your answer (see below) into English? If you do not know English, but you do know French, German, Spanish, or Latin, could you please answer in one of these languages? I would appreciate it very much!

" Мы не должны забывать, что военные действия всегда кому то выгодны, а это означает, для того чтобы избежать военного столкновения нужно задействовать серое вещество тем, кто ее развязывает и найти политический компромисс, а не упредительный удар. Наш активный разум способен как создавать конфликты, так и решать их мирными политическими дискуссиями. "

Thank you for replying!

With best regards.

We must not forget that military action is always beneficial to someone. Our active mind is able to create conflicts and resolve them through peaceful political discussions.

Оксана Салата ,

Thank you very much! I really appreciate your answer using my native language, which is English. And I greatly respect your knowledge of more than one language.

While I agree with your suggestion that diversity means that there will always be differences in geopolitical and ideological matters, and furthermore, that we all need to try to "resolve (conflicts) through peaceful political discussion," I am not so sure that "military action is always beneficial to someone"!

I value your answer(s), because I seek a diversity of opinions, and, again, I thank you so much for your participation.

Even though I am unable to understand your Non-English reply, I am clicking on "Recommend" with the expectation that it will mean a great deal to any Research Gate member for whom it might mean somewhat less if it were written in English.

Best regards and wishes.

Issam Adwan ,

I would greatly appreciate it if you could possibly translate into English your above reply, which I am taking the liberty of copying below:

"Issam Adwan added a reply January 10, 2020

الأمر يتوقف على مدى دقة المعلومات التي تؤكد وجود نوايا ومخططات شريرة من طرف الآخرين والتي تستوجب هجوماً استباقياً مباغتاً. إذا تأكَّد أن العدو لديه مخططات لضربنا فالمبادرة إلى ضربه ضرورية. "

I thank you nonetheless for your reply and for your kind attention.

With best regards.