Is an embargo of vital resources an act of war? Then doesn't that mean that the US started the war with Japan?

Trade embargo's are not 'acts of war.' And our trade embargo with Japan did not cut them off of all sources of oil - just US sources of oil.

An Japan had many options other than attacking the US. Negotiating in good faith is an example of an option they failed to try.

no because the us instituted those embargoes based on aggressive actions taken by japan, notably a conflict over the phillipines which the us owned, the japanese were blocking shipping lines in the dutch east indies, but an embargo of vital resources is an act of war if it is uncalled for

Some people believe that what the Japanese did in 1987 was an act of war. They sold off huge amounts of bonds in one day in retaliation for the U.S. placing tariffs on memory chips. This caused the infamous stock market crash known as "Black October" in which Trillions (with a"T") of dollars of stock market value went "poof". Instead of going to war we the (U.S.) punished them financially for the next 10

+ years , causing a deep and prolonged recession in Japan. I thought this country had evolved to different forms of non-essential warfare until Iraq was invaded.

wow i am shocked to see this discussed. i had no idea Americans knew about this, yes you are correct. and yes , if this were to happen to America today, surely America would fight back.

this is taught as history where i live, that America economically strangled Japan, committing an act of war.

Is not that the reason why we are in Iraq.