Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!melpad!osi3b2!james
From: james@osi3b2.UUCP (James R. Van Artsdalen)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: AWACS and Pearl Harbour.
Message-ID: <215@osi3b2.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 01:32:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: osi3b2.215
Posted: Thu Sep 25 01:32:02 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Sep-86 07:23:47 EDT
References: <3399@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <434@inuxm.UUCP> <15779@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Origin Systems Inc.
Lines: 50
Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8695 talk.politics.misc:284


>    How unheard of -- the armed forces blaming politicians instead of
> accepting responsibility for their mistakes!

I agree Roosevelt did not know exactly when the Japanese were to attack,
but the politicians do not escape blame for everything.  Cutting off the
Japanese oil supplies was a major blunder if one assumes that Roosevelt did
not want war then.  My personal opinion is that Roosevelt *did* want the
war then and not later: he had to have been aware of the political realities
of cut off the Japanese oil supply.  That act essentially forced Japan into
war: they had to have fuel.  It would probably have happened eventually
anyway, but my assumption is that Roosevelt wanted to force things to an early
conclusion.  Not that he wanted a war, but he wanted it while Britain was
still afloat, and cutting off Japan's oil supply was the best way of
"innocently" bringing it about.  If this was his line of thought I would agree
with it, although it ultimately proved that the War Department was not ready
for a war, and probably did not realize the impact of the oil cut-off.  He
should have realized that cutting the oil supply would put an end to the
posturings and so forth and given his commanders real reason to believe
that the next "War Warning" wasn't just another cry of "Wolf".  Clearly the
military was at fault, but I would blame all of them together, as they were
all too complacent.  In particular Kimmel should not have been used as the
scapegoat, and he might have saved the men at Wake.  American naval
commanders did not go down with their ships as the Japanese tended to because
they were too valuable to lose, and the same philosophy should have been used
to save Kimmel for a chance to redeem himself.

> might have shown a featureless blur at a range of 50 miles or so, and an
> E-3 AWACS which would identify each and every plane at a substantially
> greater distance.  It is true, however, that it is not clear how much
> would have been gained by the advance warning.  Certainly substantially
> greater damage to the Japanese planes, and reduced American casualties,
> but probably still a Japanese victory.

I'll use this chance to clarify something in my previous message: the reason
I thought that US casualties might have been even higher if the US Fleet
sailed was that the action would have been in deep water, away from shore.
I know nothing about the rescue efforts at the time, but I have to assume that
they were substantially aided by the fact the boats were basically tied up
at the docks.  I'm not sure how much Japanese plane losses would have
increased: there was a second air strike later on that met a hot reception
from the various ships and installations, but there were still few Japanese
losses in spite of the fire (sorry, I don't have references at hand).  There
would have been factors either way...  Now of course, it the new navy ship
"Bunker Hill" were with that AWACS...  :-)

PS. Yes, I realize that the Bunker Hill has an electrically steerable radar
    and probably doesn't need an AWACS to help...
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen    ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james    Live Free or Die