The attack didn’t make sense to Americans because they knew that Japan believed that the U.S. was stronger, but to the Japanese, Adkison 5 the Pearl Harbor attack probably seemed like their best option at the time. Not only would the attack diminish the American defenses on the West Coast, but it would force the U.S. into a twofront war, one in the Pacific and the other in Europe. Logically, a nation whose military is split between two fronts would be weaker than if its military only needed to worry about fighting on one front. Maybe Japan thought that between its alliance within the Axis powers and the U.S. fighting on two fronts, there was a distinct chance at victory and moving up in the world as a powerful nation. A surprise attack on the fleet could weaken Americans and give the Japanese the power that they craved.
It may even be said that they were suicidal, with their kamikaze pilots and no real hope of defeating the Allied nations. The United States has always, and most likely always will, place a high value on American lives. In order to protect these lives and to ensure that the world is safe for democracy, American leaders had to make a very tough decision, whether or not to drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan. This act would essentially be trading Japanese lives for American lives. The Japanese, who were the aggressors, much like the Germans, were not sympathized with.
What would you do? Or what would you even say to them? Violence is defined as “a rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment.” Meriam-Websters’ Dictionary. I believe that there are many different levels people take to what they think is violent. Another word for violence is dangerous.
This is an example of how Japan originally culturally defied western influence, and did not defy with violence as India did. Western imperialism had a lot of influence and changed the way the world developed. India and Japan eventually gave in to Westernization after they first resisted control. However, India resisted through physical efforts while Japan resisted through cultural
Yamamoto’s leniency in giving Nagumo authority to make crucial decisions was not a good idea. Had Yamamoto headed the actual attack instead of Nagumo, a possible third wave strike could have been unleashed to destroy all missed targets, thus changing the position of the U.S. military to ‘crippled’ after Pearl Harbour. However, Nagumo and the fleet arrived back on Japanese soil after the attack and instead of an expected applause and praise from Yamamoto, he received the opposite as the Americans were not defeated. Yamamoto knew that Japan needed to be in a position of strength in order to negotiate with America and have the upper hand. Nagumo managed to withdraw from Pearl Harbour before securing a complete victory that was so close to his grasp.
The Attack on Pearl Harbor “The Day of Infamy” Prior to 1941, World War II saw little American military intervention. As the nation was just recovering from the Great Depression, with confidence in the horizon the American people really had no desires to involve themselves in foreign wars. However President Franklin Roosevelt was aware of the actions taking place in Europe and Asia, and could anticipate the United States necessary danger to the free world if the United States didn't take a stand in the war. While Americans favored neutrality the United States administration knew that it would only be a matter of time until the United States would enter the war. The convenient timing of Pearl Harbor allowed Roosevelt's open pursuit of his interventionist
People against gun control that want tougher laws on gun related violence will most likely see those added laws overlooked because the tougher laws will most likely be an add-on to current laws. Those add-on laws can be easily bargained away in plea deals. The tougher laws are also less likely to be imposed swiftly. A judge would not want to impose the tougher laws without absolute solid proof the person being prosecuted is guilty. That would be hard to do in cases where there is a chance, no matter how small, the defendant is not guilty.
Depending on the story this could lead to some trouble. People might get scared and panic. This will lead to people doing bad things. It would only make it worse if these actions were taken with wrong information. Another issue would be does a specific media conglomeration have their own separate agenda?
The theme of the story is that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. The author wants to show us that while you are protecting yourself, you may also hurt or even kill somebody, like it happened in our story. The idea of this story is that we need to secure ourselves, but also we don’t need to forget about the others, even if they are not very kind to us. We need to control ourselves, and to try to solve all our problems peacefully, without any physical
Being open-minded means to be receptive to arguments or ideas. There are also some faults in believing that doubt is the key to knowledge because some critics will argue that when doubting all the time it can be deemed hazardous