Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 2,000 mile anti-tank ditch between Hawaii and Tokyo didn't seem to stop them.
Oh, for Cripes' sake. I will state the obvious: Hawaii wasn't invaded. It was subject to a combined air and submarine attack, and civilians with firearms made f.ck-all of a difference there.
I wonder why the Japanese didn't have an invasion force to take over and hold the Hawaiian Islands after they bombed the Pacific Fleet? Seems to me that even if they could have held them for a few months they would have set back the US power in the Pacific for a couple of years longer. They could have destroyed what was left of Pearl Harbor and sacked Honolulu and the rest of Hawaii before withdrawing.
I think it was mentioned, but the Japanese idea was to deal the US Fleet such a devastating blow that the US government would enter into an agreement to make them not do it again and resume shipping oil and other raw materials to Japan.
I wonder why the Japanese didn't have an invasion force to take over and hold the Hawaiian Islands after they bombed the Pacific Fleet? Seems to me that even if they could have held them for a few months they would have set back the US power in the Pacific for a couple of years longer. They could have destroyed what was left of Pearl Harbor and sacked Honolulu and the rest of Hawaii before withdrawing.
I'm guessing Japan figured it was too risky since we still had military and lots of guns on Hawaii. Too, word was the supply lines would've been too long. By the time Japan DID take out Hawaii; we might've been able to do some real damage 1st since we still had our carriers out to sea and they had airplanes.
well if the mideast is any example yes.
it has been hard invading them.
remember we are #1 and they only have soviet surplus weapons and look they had stood off greatest nation on earth for 12 years.
what happens when u disarm the people?? gee i dont know lets ask the croatians.
the anti gun people dont want to disarm everybody, just u.
I wonder why the Japanese didn't have an invasion force to take over and hold the Hawaiian Islands after they bombed the Pacific Fleet? Seems to me that even if they could have held them for a few months they would have set back the US power in the Pacific for a couple of years longer. They could have destroyed what was left of Pearl Harbor and sacked Honolulu and the rest of Hawaii before withdrawing.
Pearl Harbor was fortified like nobody's business, and the ground forces were mainly intact. Landing would have been extremely costly, and keeping an occupying force supplied impossible without taking a seaport intact, which wasn't going to happen. Not that it matters, because Japan didn't want or need Pearl Harbor. They wanted the US Navy out of the picture for a while, giving them a free hand in the Pacific, and sinking it at its moorings would have done the job admirably.
No. The fact that we are separated from any potential invader by oceans and we have a military budget bigger than the next ten other countries makes it hard to invade us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Such as the World Trade Center? 
