After the Japanese early IC vs. transports only debate, it seems the 2nd Japanese controversy is whether or not Japan should attack Hawaii in turn 1. Let’s break it down pro and con:
JAPAN - PRO
1. Sends a powerful fleet in range of the US west coast.
2. Destroys the US carrier needed in Europe and threatens the remaining US Pacific fleet.
3. May force the US to take energy away from attacking Germany (temporarily).
4. May scare the US with a hidden strategy (could be used as a bluff or to try an advanced strategy).
JAPAN - CON
1. Takes badly needed aircraft away from the Asian battles.
2. Leaves your transports unprotected in Japan (if their not with the fleet).
3. US counter-attacks may destroy or reduce your fleet to 1 or 2 battleships. Japan can’t afford to replace their fleet which could be better used intact elsewhere.
4. The US may control the Pacific and seriously harm your efforts without your fleet protection.
US - With Counter-Attack
1. The US will lose all or most of it’s remaining fleet and aircraft which are badly needed in Europe.
2. Forces the UK to provide the US with more fleet protection in the Atlantic.
3. May give more strength to a “Japan First” option.
US - Without Counter-Attack
1. The US may lose the remaining 2 ships anyway depending on Japan’s intentions.
2. The US could lose time regaining lost territory from Japanese West Coast attacks.
Overall, Japan is taking a gamble on what the US may do. It could cost the Allies an un-needed delay or totally backfire on Japan.
OPINIONS…