me and a friend were talking in class and suddenly we got on the topic of whether Pearl harbor was considered a terrorist attack or a battle.

For factual points, I used the fact that It was nation vs. nation and that it was attack on US military. Japan is not a minority group and they didn't attack to impose a message. they attacked so that they could delay the US military and therefore take the pacific islands. Guerrilla warfare usually comes with a terrorist attack, however Pearl harbor was very strategic in it's attack. we may not have been ready for an attack on that exact day, but we already knew Japan was becoming hostile due to advancements to the Malaya area and also being part of the axis powers. also, there's the fact that we actually attempted to defend and managed to fight back a bit. it also lasted 2 hours. terrorist attacks by modern definition usually last a few second or are too quick to react to (explosives, plane crashes).

on the opposition, my friend said it was a terrorist attack just because it was a sneak attack and the fact that he claims war was not formally declared. he also says you have to look at the past definitions. (I disagree)

in the end, we asked our history teachers. they all said it wasn't either terrorism or a battle. we came up with the term "raid"

i'm still dead set on this being a battle considering I find "battle of Pearl harbor" on many history websites and the fact that no one every helps me in an argument and I finally feel comfortable enough with an argument to argue back.

thanks!