The tragedy of the carrier Zuikaku

Are you saying they had their bomb bays removed? And the Soviets could have determined that on their radars?

I didn't say the C-130 was a nuclear bomber, or even that it did an overfly.
That C-130 inadvertently strayed into Soviet airspace and paid the price for all the overflies. The Soviets were aware it was a mistake, but had enough of all that bulshit going on so shot it down imidiately.

 

It is also obvious to anyone with even a quarter brain, that the Japanese isn't invading the US with 2 or even 5 tiny subs. Even with torpedoes of the 40's, the futility of such a "first strike" is obvious.

 

How about a shooting war then?

Austin’s aircraft was quickly picked up by a flight of three MiG-15s over Murmansk, but they did not attack. As they approached Arkhangelsk, six hostile MiGs began attacking. The MiGs flew in echelon, with the lead airplane firing then sliding off to be replaced by a wingman. Fortunately for Austin, their aim was poor, with cannon shells flashing above and below his aircraft.
As Austin covered the last of his targets and was about to pass over Finland, one of the MiGs’ 23 mm cannon put multiple holes in the left wing and near the forward fuel tank, knocking out the intercom and damaging the UHF radio so that only the command post frequency was available. One MiG flew in very close and appeared to be threatening to ram the B-47, then banked away. Copilot Holt had fired his tail guns, but they had jammed. Still, the threat kept the MiGs at bay until the RB-47 was in neutral airspace, and Austin returned to Fairford.

 

"Mildly" different scenario...

And war wasn't declared on that basis...

But it is viewed as a hostile act, and no one does anything more than complain about the "needless" loss of life due to armed responses to such "navigational errors".

 

Indeed it is up to the invaded country or more generally the offended party to decide how to react. An act of war is still an act of war however.

More dangerous? Not really, there was no intent to initiate a conflict where all components of the Japanese attack on PH were so intended. A bit of an exaggeration in regards to the "no-warning" strike as well. Note that the Soviets invaded US airspace as well and the US likewise didn't declare war. Situation is not really analogous.

It was a well understood principle of international law at the time. GS explained it pretty well above. That doesn't prevent it from being a violation of the laws of another entity.

Look up the definition of perfidy and then look up the descriptions of the attack on PH. It's quite clear that it was. If you want a source try:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/12/07/commentary/pearl-harbor-the-day-of-infamy-that-wont-go-away/#.WD19rJ67rBQ

That a country should be prepared for war doesn't make an attack without a declaration of war any less of a crime. There's nothing in any of the definitions of "perfidy" that I've seen that restrict it to war time. The conventions do define certain instances of it. Attacking during negotiations is mentioned specifically by the way.

Simply declaring independence doesn't mean that it is recognized by anyone. Without said recognition it was still arguably part of Denmark.

You are wrong in this regard. Indeed one of the diplomatic messages to Iran prior to the invasion arguably was an ultimatum as defined under international law. Likewise Norway had been informed at least to some extent as there was an informal agreement that Norway would not resist the British .

No. There was on intent by Japan to declare war prior to the attack on PH. That was deliberate. Likewise the claim that "the Americans had known for hours that the war was inevitable" is very questionable. The US had known for some time (months) that war was likely. Indeed some of the actions taken in response to the war warnings prior to the attack had some significant impact on it both good and bad from the American stand point. Whether or not a declaration of war prior to the attack would have had some additional impact is difficult to say. In part it would depend a great deal on how much warning was given.

???? Absurd. The consequences of a crime don't change the fact that it's a crime. If the US had been fully prepared and had defeated the attack on PH it would still have been a "sneak" attack.

??? Actually the presence of IJN subs in US territorial waters was an invasion of said water i.e. the US. That the sub by themselves weren't capable of much of a "first strike" is irrelevant.

 

2 or even 5 tiny subs???

Try 25 I-Boat fleet submarines stationed around Pearl Harbor and Oahu.

 

Not to mention the mini subs that it looks like actually made it into PH and/or tried to. The planes count for something as well.

 

Room 11 - Zuikaku
Room 12 - Abuse
Room 12a- Argument Clinic

https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

(could also apply to Anti-Soviet Myths thread)

 

The Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities doesn't mention acts of war so they are irrelevant. It demands that war was declared before, as the title says, opening hostilities.
Hostilities weren't defined at all. Well, they didn't even try to define what war is.

We may believe or not if hostilities included inserting some forces into enemy territory just before declaring war. At worst it was a grey area.
But it's not perfidy because perfidy was actually defined and didn't included inserting.

Ruses of war were allowed, including flying an enemy/neutral flag and using its uniforms and insignia so we know that quite large leeway was allowed in this matter. And this looks more like a ruse of war than anything else.

Additionally declaration of war wasn't meant as anti-sneaky-attack measure, it was stated clearly that standard defensive measures should be sufficient in this regard.

Intent is not visible on radars. It's not visible from cockpits of the defending fighters too. These May 6, 1956 bombers could carry up to 12 multi-megaton hydrogen bombs so it wasn't a trifle.
And the convention didn't mention intent, so if the subs was there with intent or not is irrelevant.

It's not a source, it's an opinion piece (OPINION is prominently displayed at the top) of some professor of political economy and social history of modern Japan, with no source given to his one-sentence statement.

It wasn't a part of Denmark, it was a fully sovereign state in personal union with Denmark. They merely severed that union, and declared strict neutrality.

Arguably is not enough. The notes demanded expulsion of German nationalists from Iran. They didn't state that war would be the result of refusal. The note announcing the invasion (but still it wasn't a declaration of war) was delivered actually at dawn of August 25, 1941, parallel with the invasion.

The "there was an intent" is based on claims of a single, self-declared historian Takeo Iguchi (a professor of law and international relations in real life), most Japanese historians disagree with him on this.

 

Good boy! Got it in one!

Are they headed for any likely targets?
Why are they flying high where the Soviets are sure to see them?
Why give the Soviets so much advance notice?

Your the one that posted the picture of an intercepted C-130, to prove your point that US "nuclear bombers" were overflying the Soviet Union?

What possessed you to post such a picture? And when called on it, only then did you offer up an explanation of the photo.

 

Ahh, is this another C-130 nuclear bomber fabrication?

Please explain to the rest of us how a B-47E can carry 12 multi-megaton hydrogen bombs?

If the overflights were not a trifle, then why did the Soviets not exercise more due diligence in shooting the aircraft down?
Despite the great many overflights of the Soviet Union, very few US aircraft were shot down.

Missing from the list is Gary Powers U-2 flight.

 

Weren't B-36's at some time flown over the soviet block? Not sure if they were carrying nukes but they sure as hell can.

 

AFAIK, the reconnaissance variant, the RB-36, did not overfly the Soviet Union from Europe. However, ELINT missions took it very close. Not much has been published or is publicly known about RB-36 missions from the Arctic or Pacific areas, so overflights from these areas is a matter of speculation.

 

No, there were snapping pictures of copulating reindeers in Russian tundra.
Of course there were overflying cities and military installations, because obviously it was reconnaissance missions.
It is quite possible that in real war at least leading bombers would mimic their reconnaissance flight profile to achieve surprise.

The caption says it was a Larry Tart's picture, nothing more, to illustrate it was a shooting war, with victims on both sides, fought inside Soviet airspace.
Just a paragraph above I posted numerous examples published by Walter Boyne in Air Force Magazine, and by Larry Tart in his book The Price of Vigilance, which I actually have so it's not mere guessing what is there.

 

Because they fighters, warning and control systems weren't up to the task. But because of those overflies their rocket design center was put on war footing under direct control of Beria himself, and their management preventively put under arrest till their arrived with A-2 Guideline and similar systems.

As to B-47 I said it was May 6, 1956 incident when six bombers penetrated deep into Soviet airspace simulating a nuclear attack. Each capable of carrying two 3.8 megaton bombs.

 

From Europe the overflies were done by RB-45Cs (from the USAF base at Sculthorpe) at night, in one case they flew very close to Moscow.

 

But these RB45C overflights were in the 50's. Most of them in the early and mid-50's. Already by 1957, it was getting restrictive. Soon, not even the U2 spyplane was overflying the USSR any more either (once Gary Powers fell out of the sky), and the U2 only became operational in that time frame.

 

Thanks for posting Skipper. I've often wondered what my uncles final thoughts were when his Merchant Navy ship was torpedoed by the Germans.

No matter whom they were serving, they would have been mourned somewhere. May they all rest in peace.

 

It's clear you mind is made up on this matter and no amount of logic or fact is going to change it. Continuing to point out the errors in your assumptions and opinons thus serves little purpose so I'll just let it rest for now.

 

I swear all this discussion, would this have even have gone more than a page if the OP had used a different term for the end of the Zuikaku.