naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29553 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
Starting the war with the US in the first place tests that theory to the limit.
No, it really doesn't. First of all, the US being a juggernaut of any sort is 20-20 hindsight. Second, the amount of "sensible" it takes to be convinced by two atomic bombs is quite low.
The Japanese were explicitly aware of US industrial capability.
[A]s we have a high prospect of winning in the initial stage of the war, we are convinced that we have an advantage in maintaining and reinforcing that national strength by utilizing that assured result compared to a waiting strategy until the enemy starts to oppress us.
Teiichi Suzuki, 5 November, 1941.
Japan’s strategy relied on exploiting China and the Dutch Indies to get enough industrial resources, especially steel and oil. The initial steps in this process had already antagonized the US, as seen in the Hull note. Since they expected the US to jump in any month, they decided to make it happen on their terms, snatch every resource and base possible, and hope for the best. Ideally, either the American will to fight would crumple, or the Axis would gain enough leverage to make intervention unappealing.
First of all, the US being a juggernaut of any sort is 20-20 hindsight.
How ? In WWI they were the decisive factor. In the washington naval treaties they commanded first rank (nominally equal to britain, but everyone knew, industrially far superior) . Major european power france accepted a 1,75 to 5 ratio to the US fleet, it's a huge disparity, making any serious contest impossible. And they couldn't even build that much. No one was treating the US as a lightweight.
Certainly the japanese understood they were screwed in case of a long attritional war against the US.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, it really doesn't. First of all, the US being a juggernaut of any sort is 20-20 hindsight. Second, the amount of "sensible" it takes to be convinced by two atomic bombs is quite low.
The Japanese were explicitly aware of US industrial capability.
Teiichi Suzuki, 5 November, 1941.
Japan’s strategy relied on exploiting China and the Dutch Indies to get enough industrial resources, especially steel and oil. The initial steps in this process had already antagonized the US, as seen in the Hull note. Since they expected the US to jump in any month, they decided to make it happen on their terms, snatch every resource and base possible, and hope for the best. Ideally, either the American will to fight would crumple, or the Axis would gain enough leverage to make intervention unappealing.
Always have an exit strategy.
http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/event/forum/pdf/2011/17.pdf
More options
Context Copy link
Why you think so?
More options
Context Copy link
How ? In WWI they were the decisive factor. In the washington naval treaties they commanded first rank (nominally equal to britain, but everyone knew, industrially far superior) . Major european power france accepted a 1,75 to 5 ratio to the US fleet, it's a huge disparity, making any serious contest impossible. And they couldn't even build that much. No one was treating the US as a lightweight.
Certainly the japanese understood they were screwed in case of a long attritional war against the US.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link