> ...which calls for "A New Pearl Harbor":

Reading through your link, I don't see how one can say it "calls for a "A New Pearl Harbor":

>...Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.

...

>...Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.

▲

timschmidt 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

You may not see this as calling for a new Pearl Harbor, but it's incredibly conspicuous considering that it's exactly what an administration made of PNAC alums got, predicted a year in advance, via nationals of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_Club states with connections to intelligence services: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_Sept...

▲

opo 5 days ago | parent [-]

While conspiracy theories about 9/11 being some sort of an inside job are widespread, they are not supported by evidence.

	▲	timschmidt 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's a funny response to well-sourced facts and a document outlining strategy which was later enacted by the same folks who wrote it. Plenty of actual conspiracies throughout history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_conspiracies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conspiracies The existence of modern conspiracies should hardly be surprising. And are precisely the business of intelligence services such as those with established links to the attackers. The attack itself was, by definition, a conspiracy. There's a great deal of conjecture about who exactly was involved in that conspiracy besides the attackers themselves, and a great deal of evidence both concrete and circumstantial. Too much for a single HN comment. But I've made no claims about that beyond "Rebuilding America's Defenses" being conspicuously prescient. Which it demonstrably was.