Yamatothink

>>3085393
Nah, they just wanted the American fleet to not be a factor when invading the DEI for that sweet oil

>>3085393
Wouldn't what's happening on your pic be more comparable to the dolittle raid but with nukes?

But did they seriously think if they destroyed the US fleet that there would not be serious retaliation? Or did they actually hope to destroy the US fighting capability?

Honestly, that pic could easily apply to any number of leaders throughout history who decide to make war.

>>3085613
Well the plan was;
BTFO America
Take a bunch of islands and build airfields on them
???
Win

>>3085613
They banked on the notion that however many ships the U.S. laid down, it would take one and a half to two years to finish any of them. They hoped/planned that in that time they'd be able to negotiate a peace with honor with the Americans, and not have to face the new vessels at all.

>>3085613
Two points:
Japan (and other right-wing powers at the time) thought that democratic nations and especially America were degenerate and could not keep absorbing casualties due to public resistance to the war. This was obviously not the case, quite the opposite in fact.

Yamamoto's plan banked on crippling US carriers so they would have free reign for one or two years and negotiating a peace afterwards. Too bad the carriers were not in port on the day of the attack, and it wouldn't have changed the end result anyway.

>>3085622
Strangely makes me think of a movie I watched last night... Taken 2. Bad movie but oddly poignant message perhaps relevant to this.

Basically, Liam Neeson kills a bunch of sex traffickers in Taken 1. Premise of 2 is the relatives of the nameless goons go after Liam Neeson for revenge. (Stupidest premise for a movie... imagine if every nameless goon killed in a Bond movie sought revenge and they made a sequel about it).

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that in Taken 2 the Big Bad Guy (BBG) catches Liam and is like "we're gonna kill you and your family for killing my son".
And Liam is like "I only killed your son because he kidnapped my daughter."
So they end up fighting it out and Liam of course kills all the BBG's doods and is about to kill BBG but he says, "you have more sons right? If I kill you they will just come after me right?"
So Liam is like "i won't kill you so let's just end this now cause I'm tired of fighting".

Anyway I don't want to spoil the thrilling conclusion of this top notch movie. But your analysis makes me think if Japan was pissed at America and their response was like, "Okay, we'll fuck you up and then hopefully we can you'll get over it and we can be cool later".
How does that really end?

Throughout history when nations or groups make war, however they feel it is justified, the one whom they attack is going to want to strike back. How does the cycle of violence end?

Japan's economy was almost completely tied up in war and expansion. Once they ran out of easy targets, it was inevitable that they had to overreach.

>>3085729
>Throughout history when nations or groups make war, however they feel it is justified, the one whom they attack is going to want to strike back. How does the cycle of violence end?
Usually because either

A) Something more important comes up in the meantime
B) One or both parties are too damn exhausted to keep fighting
C) The fighting of the last war at least removes the cause of contention between parties
D)Outside parties to both of them intervene and make further enmity untenable
E) It's politically or economically unfeasible or unprofitable to keep fighting.

Remember, unlike individuals, even the most autocratic of nations are collections of people, many of whom will disagree on courses of policy. For any given war, you'll always have some group of people who are for it, and other groups of people who are opposed to it. If the peace parties are the ones who rise to prominence, it will usually avert future conflicts.

>If the peace parties are the ones who rise to prominence, it will usually avert future conflicts.
It sucks this does not happen often enough.

The worst sort of retaliation is when you have ethnic groups fighting. I'm thinking of the Serbian/Yugoslavian conflicts, but there are many other examples. There is like a generational memory and when there is fighting it seems like people can always find a reason to justify another attack. Sometimes it feels like there can never be an end to the fighting in these sort of situations.

I'm starting to think of the Israel/Palestine dispute but probably there are additional factors there that make it more complex than simply "this land belongs to my group... no! this land belongs to my group!"