U.S. Directly Challenges China's Air Defense Zone (Pair of American B-52 Bombers Fly Over)

We should end the income tax and put a 10% tariff on all imported goods. If the government doesn’t have enough money they should budget for their damn income.

Bears repeating, IMHO.

Hence the reason the carriers weren't in port on December 7th 1941. Back then, though, they were much smaller and of course, much easier to hide on that great big ocean. That title has now transferred to our sub fleet. The carriers are bomb magnets. It's the subs that make other powers tremble. Or they would tremble if Reagan were POTUS.

Carriers are still pretty easy to hide on that great big ocean. But hiding them wasn't the reason why the USN's carriers were at sea when Pearl Harbor happened.

At the time the US had three carriers deployed to the Pacific. One (Saratoga) was in San Diego on Dec.7. The other two (Lexington and Enterprise) were on ferry runs, delivering Marine fighters to Midway and Wake Islands, respectively.

In fact, Enterprise was on her way back, was only 200 miles from Pearl when the attack happened. Some of her planes actually flew INTO the attack, like what happened to the USAAF B-17s coming in from the West Coast.

Enterprise was actually due back in Saturday afternoon - her crew was anticipating Saturday night liberty in Honolulu - but was delayed by bad weather. Had she made it back in on schedule she would have been tied up on "Carrier Row" on the opposite side of Ford Island from the battleships. In fact, the Japanese fully expected to find them there - that's why they went after the old USS Utah with such a vengeance, she was parked in what they knew to be a carrier berth (and, as a target ship, she had heavy wood planking on her decks, which may have led to some confusion).

Had the carriers been around at Pearl, it would have been a completely different situation. Standard procedure was to keep 1/2 the battle fleet at sea at all times. So long as there was a carrier out screening them. With all the carriers gone the battleships were pulled back into the "safety" of Pearl Harbor and so the USAAF could provide protective air cover. There's a distinct possibility that with so many ships not there, Nagumo would have either pulled back and left after the first strike or would have gone after the oil farm - which would have been a MUCH bigger problem for the US than losing those battleships.

Certainly the RCS was big enough that they noticed.

Probably why they were used. You can't really do true "Bomber Diplomacy" with a plane like a B-2 that you can only CLAIM has flown down a potential enemy's coastline ...

The longer your responses get, the more BS they contain. Let's get to the nut of your last:

The United States can use tariffs, tax incentives, and other enticements to move more commerce back to the United States. Trashing one or all of them before anyone has even made a detailed suggestion, show massive ignorance on your part.

I shouldn't have to remind you that, on a conservative website, raising taxes to "move" commerce anywhere is a dicey proposition. When an economist makes the argument, "trashing" the idea is par for the course.

You, not an economist, hold yourself immune to such criticism because you claim you are being patriotic.

It's funny how, on a website (for the most part) dedicated to rooting-out governmental fraud, abuse, and corruption, one can see people arguing, "the government must raise your taxes for your own good, and I can say so because I'm a patriot." Apart from such arguments, that really don't deserve any time at all, let's get a little more specific. Obama placed higher tariffs on Chinese tires some time ago (I don't know if the higher tariff has been lifted since then, or not). How many jobs did he save? If no jobs were saved, why weren't they (perhaps some other governmental reason)? If a certain number of jobs were saved, at what cost were they saved?

The very last question sends protectionists into fits. But economics usually does.

100%

Mode C, III and IV were squawking, along with their RCS, even Ray Charles could have seen them.

The Chinese saw them.

Import tariffs are more in line with the founders than an income tax... We should end the income tax and put a 10% tariff on all imported goods. If the government doesn’t have enough money they should budget for their damn income.

We imported $2.4T worth of goods and services in 2012. Federal tax revenues were $2.5T in 2012. The tariff would have to be closer to 100% to eliminate the income tax, and in reality, closer to 200% to account for the reduction in imports resulting from the tariffs. Brazil has import tariffs of 100% on imported Iphones and still has an income tax.

The longer your responses get, the more BS they contain. Let's get to the nut of your last: LOL, and you present this as an example of how that doesn't apply to you? You are the moronic contributor that keeps on giving aren't you..

The United States can use tariffs, tax incentives, and other enticements to move more commerce back to the United States. Trashing one or all of them before anyone has even made a detailed suggestion, shows massive ignorance on your part.

I shouldn't have to remind you that, on a conservative website, raising taxes to "move" commerce anywhere is a dicey proposition. When an economist makes the argument, "trashing" the idea is par for the course.

To show how much grasp you have of this topic, raising taxes was not on the table here Sparkey. Tax incentives references reducing taxes to make it more profitable for businesses to conduct busines in the United States. Oh, it's now your take that Conservatives don't approve of that? Really?

You, not an economist, hold yourself immune to such criticism because you claim you are being patriotic.

If you want to address tariffs, I suggest you use the word 'tariffs' and not 'taxes' so folks will know what the heck you're talking about. Oh nevermind, you're an expert on this stuff. Nobody needs to tell you anything. LMAO.

It's funny how, on a website (for the most part) dedicated to rooting-out governmental fraud, abuse, and corruption, one can see people arguing, "the government must raise your taxes for your own good, and I can say so because I'm a patriot."

Please link me to where I mentioned raising taxes. Thanks.

Apart from such arguments, that really don't deserve any time at all, let's get a little more specific.

Hmmm, would that go double when they weren't made in the first place...

Obama placed higher tariffs on Chinese tires some time ago (I don't know if the higher tariff has been lifted since then, or not).

Since I haven't advocated tariffs on this thread, I don't actually give a rip. Why don't you have that conversation with yourself, since you're the only one harping on it.

Once again, no mention of 40% Chinese tariffs on our goods. That is the tariff that makes it very hard for anything made in the United States, to make it's way into China. Which nation's people lose jobs because of that? Tell me Sparkey! Chinese nationals or United States nationals? And here you are humping the U. S. tariff subject as if it is costing U. S. jobs. You don't have the slightest grasp of this subject. And on and on you prattle, completely oblivious to the fact you're ripping yourself to shreds here.

Who brought up the issue of tariffs here? You? Me? It was you Sparkey. I didn't address them until after you ranted on about the evils of them. None the less, our Founding Fathers supported tariffs as a way to finance the federal government. I didn't. When you wax on about tariffs, you're not trashing me. You're trashing our Founding Fathers.

We didn't have the income tax until the 20th century. Tell me, is our nation better off now that tariffs aren't used to finance the federal government? The income stream to the government allowed it to federalize all sorts of programs. Are we better off?

The Founders of our Nation were some very learned men. They weren't union bosses, Marxists, Communists, Socialists, or anything of the sort. So when you trash me, you're trashing them. I haven't advocated tariffs on this thread. I have merely stated that they can be used. Our Founding Fathers agreed. There are merits to their use. There isn't a single merit to individual and business income taxes.

The question is, which is a better way to keep the government in check? Which is the better way to have a free economy? Which is the most limiting way to keep the federal government small?

How many jobs did he save?

Link me to one place on this thread where I actually advocated for using tariffs. Look for it. Link me to it. I said they can be used. I did not advocate for it. Are you functionally literate enough to understand the difference?

If no jobs were saved, why weren't they (perhaps some other governmental reason)? If a certain number of jobs were saved, at what cost were they saved?

This is a conversation you need to have with yourself. I haven't advocated for tariffs on this thread.

The very last question sends protectionists into fits. But economics usually does.

As if you would know...

If you want to address tariffs, I suggest you use the word 'tariffs' and not 'taxes' so folks will know what the heck you're talking about.

Didn't read any more, was laughing too hard. As I said near the beginning, hands off my wallet, King George.

Why don't the Brits make televisions?
Because they couldn't figure out how to make them leak oil.

ROFLOL+!

That’s good stuff. I read that years ago.

Didn't read any more, was laughing too hard. As I said near the beginning, hands off my wallet, King George.

Zinc sulfate and copper...

There, that addresses you response better than your response did mine.

Thanks

I only posted the pics since, I too was shocked that someone hadn’t done so already.

That's fascinating, I didn't know all of that, except about the tank farms being a potential logistical nightmare if they'd been taken out. I thought the carriers had been ordered out of the harbor and away from the area for their own protection, much as had the aircraft been ordered into tight groups on the tarmac so they could be better secured from the possibility of sabotage. As it turned out they were just lining them up as perfect targets. A few of the aircraft were dispersed to secondary strips and they were the ones into the air and making sure the game that day wasn't a total shutout.

I'm glad you gave me this info, since as a history teacher I want to be sure my students get the best info possible. This year I'm teaching the first half of World History so it won't be so important, this specific stuff. We might barely get to the time of Christ this year. They'll finish the course in another grade. Then later on they'll get the second half of American History and that's where this info will become important. I'll pass this along to the social studies teachers in my district who teach that level. Have you got any links to a primary source that will confirm that? My bosses will ask.

Glad to have helped!

There's (obviously) a LOT of material out there on Pearl Harbor. I've only read a small chunk of it, but enough that I can't recall specific sources for particular material off the top of my head.

Good place to start would be the report of the Hart Inquiry. Yes, this is an official investigation and one that took place in wartime so might be considered somewhat suspect. A decent contemporary summary, with citations of Hart, can be found here.

For the information about half the battleships being kept in harbor when the carriers were absent, you can look here, as a start. I've read that multiple places, so just conducted a quick couple google searches until I found what I was looking for:

Ironically, Kimmel preferred to keep the Pacific Fleet's battleships in harbor due to the unavailability of fleet carriers to provide air cover. The carrier Enterprise was between Wake and Oahu, the carrier Lexington was out near Midway and the carrier Saratoga was on the west coast of the American mainland. Kimmel instead left the battleships at Pearl Harbor, where they could be protected from enemy air attack by large contingents of local army aircraft. Unfortunately Lt. General Short had decided that sabotage was the most likely threat, and he had ordered that all aircraft ammunition be locked away, and for aircraft to be arrayed in neat rows for observation. The fact that the senior Navy and Army commanders for the most important American installations in the Pacific implemented somewhat conflicting policies apparently did not occur to anyone. So as the hours ticked by, and the alerts and warnings piled up, the bulk of the US Pacific Fleet remained in Pearl Harbor and took its usual weekend off.

Of a little interest is the nugget in the Hart Report saying that three battleships (Nevada, Oklahoma and Arizona) were sent out of Pearl when Enterprise left in order not to raise suspicions. Just another group of BBs heading out, as normal, under a carrier's watchful protection, right?

One more quick thing ... there's been some pretty good research recently, although I can't recall the source at all, about why Nagumo didn't go for the third strike. Which would have (allegedly) gone after the oil farm and machine/repair shops. The accepted wisdom is that, knowing that the three US Pacific carriers were absent, and thinking that they might be in the neighborhood somewhere, he decided to skedaddle.

The added wrinkles to that are 1.) that other Japanese carrier operations showed a pattern of two big strikes being followed by a pull-back to replenish. And 2.) that Japan had limited replenishment capability meaning Kido Butai was already operating at its the extreme operational limit.

This would seem to show that, rather than being a nervous nellie (as he's been portrayed), Nagumo actually acted pretty sensibly in deciding to forgo a third strike, since it might have negatively impacted his ability to get his force home. It also shows the folly of the suggestions that Kido Butai would have been better aimed not at Pearl, but at the US West Coast or the Panama Canal. Put simply, the Imperial Japanese Navy lacked the capability to operate that far out - even assuming that they would do so unopposed.