you did not respond substantively to any of the points I raised
in my column
or my first email to you, I am addressing the following questions
directly to you.
asserted that there was no reasonable risk of invasion.
This opinion is supported by modern military experts. You have
written that “the risk of full-scale invasion was low.” Did
this “low” risk alone justify the internment?
number of troops stationed in California, Oregon and Washington
in February 1942 sufficient to deal with Japan's trans-Pacific
troop transport capacity?
figures for 1940 through 1945 show a significant delta between
the United States and Japan. Could sabotage have accounted for
enough damage to, as you suggest, potentially cripple the war
effort, and what percentage of lost production would you describe
potential risk of sabotage alone justify the internment?
potential for cumulative damage from sabotage and spot raids
on the West Coast greater or less than the cumulative damage
to Germany wrought by the Allied bombing campaign of Germany
in 1943 and 1944?
were destroyed at Pearl Harbor. Based on 1940–41 production
figures, how long did it take to replace those planes and how
many planes were left to American forces?
subsequent "spot raids" likely to cause more or less
damage than Pearl Harbor?
that the Japanese lost 29 planes in the Pearl Harbor attack,
what is the probable number of spot raids they could have made
with the three carriers you cite were available to them for
use in such a capacity in 1942?
military production increased 278 percent from 1942 to 1944
while being bombed on a daily and nightly basis, while US production
increased only 206 percent over the same period, is it reasonable
to assume that Japanese spot raids would have slowed US production
or the war effort at all? If your answer is yes, please explain
how and why.
risk of these potential spot raids alone justify internment?
provide clear, specific and unevasive answers to these questions;
you can offer qualifiers, explanations and assertions of whatever
you like in a separate rebuttal.