Nuclear and wind power costs next to nothing - after you spend $£€billions on building the plant... Oil isn't running out. There's enough to last for centuries in places like the Athabasca tar sands; it just costs about $100/barrel to refine it. What is running out is oil that costs $10/barrel :-P

Hitler didn't respect anyone's sovereignty - he was prepared to kill millions of eastern Europeans to ensure the 'survival of the German race'; I don't think international law was pressing strongly on his mind. Because he feared France, he attacked them before they could rearm (or receive American aid) and be stronger than Germany.

In his paranoid crazy mind, there was an International Jewish-Bolshevik-Liberal Conspiracy with Roosevelt at its head, operating in Washington, London and Paris, that would ensure that Germany would never become as prosperous as the United States. If Germany was to become powerful, it would become a threat to the British Empire and to the USA, and they would act to suppress Germany either economically or militarily. So, it was necessary for Germany to expand eastwards, driving out the 'racially inferior' indigenous people as had happened in the Americas and Australia, to create a greater Germany that could match up to the USA and to the British Empire - that was Hitler's thinking. He had to act to contain the threat he perceived from the USA, Britain, and France.

He deliberately started a world war in 1939, because that was the point when Germany had the greatest advantage over the Western allies in the rearmament race. He had to act before France received much American aid. Germany was expecting to fight World War 1.5 in France, and cut all the rearmament programmes in 1939 in order to use all their scarce resources to produce the vast amount of ammunition needed for trench warfare. The speed which France fell was a huge surprise to everyone, especially the German leaders. It wasn't anything to do with 'Blitzkreig', Stukas or Panzers - that was a propaganda lie that suited both sides to believe. The defeat of France was classic Napoleonic concentration-of-force. The Allied battle line formed, the Germans feinted an attack at the north end. The Allies dutifully moved the bulk of the centre of the line to the north, to reinforce, and a massed force of the German army moved through the 'impassable' Ardennes to overwhelm the Allied centre and encircle the bulk of the Allied forces at the north of their lines. It only worked because the Germans advanced only a short way to do this, 100km or so, and didn't overstretch their horse-drawn supply lines. But the result was that Hitler believed that the Werhmarcht were invincible and could easily defeat the Red Army in a short campaign. And that France would drain coal, oil and animal feed from the German economy in exchange for very little usable war material for the rest of the war :-D

Hitler was never able to invade Britain. In his mind, there was an inevitable air war with Britain and the USA which he had to prepare for. He thought he had to take out the USSR, before the USA could get its rearmament programme into gear, to get the oilfields of Romania and the grain of the Ukraine (incidentally, deliberately starving to death the 30 million civilians in Leningrad and Moscow who relied on Ukrainian grain), to sustain the German economy for war with the USA.

In short, WW2 began because Hitler was a racist ****head who thought he could build his own USA or British Empire between the Rhine and the Urals, wiping out the 'racially inferior' people who thought they had a right to live there. He thought that if he didn't, Germany would forever end up as a second-rate sweatshop on the periphery of the USA's economy and suffer 'race death', whatever that means. He perceived that the democracies would prevent him doing this, so he acted in 1939 because he thought that was his best or only chance of success. He did fear the democracies, which is exactly why he attacked them - to eliminate them - and attacked his neighbours - to take their resources, to defeat the democracies.

Incidentally, his plan to defeat Britain - such as it was - wasn't to invade. I think Operation Sealion was more for propaganda purposes than anything else, more pressure on Britain to seek peace. With 80 Royal Navy destroyers defending the British coast, the German surface navy all sunk by Norway, and the ineffectiveness of the Luftwaffe against RAF-defended ships, there was no way to bring an invasion force to Britain. The plan to defeat Britain was to conquer enough of Russia and Eastern Europe to have the resources to defeat the RAF and eventually the USAAF and make the defeat of Germany by the Allies impossible, therefore bringing peace.

edit - I don't know much at all about the Pacific side of things!

Blackdog just posted a very well thought and argued piece on what we defend. I would just like to ad my 2 pennies as it were:

People will fight (or seek radicalism, it fairly much boil down to the same thing) when they have more to gain by fighting than they stand to loose by fighting. This is why radicalism find fertile ground among the poor. They have very little to loose, and while the radical ideas may not offer them much, they offer more than they perceive themselves risking.

By threatening poor people with with "armed response" or some vague threats like "those who are not my friend is my enemy", you effectively signal that what little they have may not be secure. As unsecured property has less value than secure property, you effectively lower the value of their current life. In effect you lower their barrier to embrace any radical notion that promises to help them in their struggle to protect whet little they have.

Threatening peoples homes, livelihood and social structure really only works if people have something to loose. Thus, if you level the same threats at e.g my country (Norway), it will be much more effective. Threaten poor Afghanis, who own a goat and a robe and an AK-47, and they find they are better of fighting.

The other half of the equation, the carrots, do work exceptionally well with poor people. However, in the Neo-Con world, carrots are not commonly handed out. This is the reverse condition from the post-war period, where the US did not throw threats around to the same degree, but was rather round handed with their Marshal-help program. All through the 50ies and 60ies, the Western European population remained thankful allies of the US, much to the economic and political benefit of the Americans. The governments still remained US allies through the century.

With the "stick without carrot" politics of the Busc Jr. era, support for the US in the general population in Western Europe fell to the degree that governments had to follow suit. Many nations refused to back the Iraqi war, and in my native Norway (which used to be among the most pro-US states in WE) the relationship has now deteriorated to the point were the government actively promote things like ban on land mines and cluster ammunition and has initiated a de fact boycott of Israel. Now, Western nations have a lot to loose, and they still did not take kindly to the new American "all stick" foreign policy. What do you think that same policy do to 3rd world nations?

If you want to stop people from embracing radicalism and and shy away from attacking the US, you need to give them something to loose. Taknig away what little they have and then threaten to bomb their goats to Kingdom Come is not going to cut it.

The Allies suffered about 50K casualties on Okinawa. Japanese soldiers 100K. Civilians 100K.

Now extrapolate that to an invasion of the mainland.

Japan didn't have the means to fight on Okinawa either, but they did, sometimes with sticks. Of course, in that number of civilian casualties is the large number of suicides.

The last A-bomb fell on the 9th, they surrendered on the 15th....but they were ready to surrender :rolleyes:. The only thing that saved them was an Emperor who finally made a decision despite a cabinet that was still split after the second bomb.

Splitter

No. Why should I? I've already shown why it wasn't applicable.

If the Japanese weren't 'ready to surrender', why did they approach the Soviets with an offer which was essentially the same as the one eventually agreed?

Repeating the same tired arguments doesn't make them any more valid. This 'saving of lives' argument may have seemed plausible at the time, but more recent historical research, (partly assisted by access to previously-classified material) has shown how little real evidence there is to support it.

The fact is that neither of us can know for sure what the outcome would have been without the A-Bombings of Japan, but this doesn't prevent us looking at what we do know about the situation, and making an informed guess. This needs to be based on evidence, not repeated assertions.

Incidentally, a significant proportion of the civilian 'suicides' on Okinawa were actually murders, carried out on military orders by the Japanese forces, on a population they considered 'inferior', and possibly untrustworthy. This would have been unlikely to occur on the mainland, even if they had been in a position to continue fighting. Not that they were...

This pretty much sums up everything that happened in this thread very well. It's always surprising to see people state questionable things as if they were facts. Like that guy a few posts above that seemingly knows perfectly what Hitler was or wanted. This is ridiculous because it's history and much of it is clouded, misty and no one really knows everything. On top of that history was twisted and tweaked on many occasions.
There have been war crimes on any side and even before 2nd World War ethnical cleansing was common. Especially the USA is a good example for that when it comes to literally eradicating native life completely.

But the point really is that no one really knows what would have happend if the bombs didn't fall. Not to mention that no one knows what would've happened if Hitler actually used them. Same for the V1 or the jet engine fighters etc. - so much technological advance came through the war, even blood infusions and stuff like rubber! We can only accept these little "facts" we know of. The second world war shouldn't be turned into fantasy.




So I really, strongly, wonder if these bombs could even bring anything of value to the game.
They are far to powerful and are actually rendering the game itself useless. Air combat isn't about mass destruction of civillian life, heck, no game should be about it. That is like making a game about rape of women - it's a crime and shouldn't be the selling point of any game out there.

To me, air combat always was the cleanest side of the war. But the very same thing Hitler was despised for, taking innocent lives over his cause, happened in these days of the first RAF bombing runs or the two atomic bombs etc.
If the bombs really do get added people will mod them. You can imagine the scenarios people will come up with for such a weapon, can't you? I'm unsure if the game should allow such mass destruction. There was and is absolutely NO reasonable target for the use of such bombs. And remembering 9/11 makes clear that it doesn't even take an atomic bomb to turn a whole country into hell - I don't think these weapons do belong into the realm of modern developed society as they are a weapon of inferiority and cruelty and not a weapon of reason and logic.

The war cabinet

It IS entirely true whether you choose to believe it or not. See Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima. The Japanese fought to the last man in virtually every engagement, regardless of the odds, which was shocking and intimidating to the U.S. troops.

It was the fierce defense of Okinawa that convinced army planners that an invasion would be too costly.

There's no argument to be had.


As a matter of fact it is "recognized". The DSM-IV-TR (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that is published by* the American Psychiatric Association and provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders) describes this dissociative disorder as "states of disassociation" that occur in individuals that have been subjected to periods of prolonged and intense coercive persuasion and occurs largely in the setting of political reform....)


Iran attacked Iraqi machine gun nests armed with BOOKS in the Iran/Irag War. The will to fight on "means" everything. Brainwashed individuals/groups are the biggest threat to human society and must be stopped by any means necessary if they choose to advance.

For the record, I am of course against all nuclear war and do see your point. You're just not understanding history/facts/reality. I was bored and thought I'd help you.


Oh yeah, Im against the bomb in game too....

On "carrot and stick": The US gives more in foreign aid than any other country. As a matter of fact, losing a war to the US ensures a large amount of aid for many years to come lol.

But I guess we are not giving enough. We are still evil and tantamount to Nazis in the eyes of many in the world. I mean, Bono says we're not giving enough so it must be true.

Let me also ask;
Do you think Iran is seeking nuclear power simply to supply their own energy needs?
Do you think Iran will use their nuclear capability to develop weapons?
Once they develop nuclear weapons, do you think they will use them to threaten their neighbors or the world's oil supply?
Do you think they would make good on their threats to bomb Tel-Aviv?
Does it appear sanction are working?

Or is Iran just misunderstood? Is their leadership just striving for world peace?

Iran is now a nuclear power. The short estimate is that it would take about three months to develop weapons. It is highly likely that Israel will "de-nuke" Iran some time before the end of this year.

The US will not back Israel, our present leader is no friend of Israel (that should make some of you rejoice). Russia and China will seek to condemn Israel, but the US will still block any serious repercussions with it's veto power in the Security Council.

Or does Israel need to wait to be bombed and retaliate? Maybe they should just wait until it is confirmed that Iran has nuclear weapons?

Maybe Israel should give the Palestinians everything they want....do you think that would solve the problem?

I wonder if the Israelis realize that they have been abandoned.....again. So much for "never again" lol.

Splitter

I don't have access to DSM-IV-TR, and nor do I have the training to use it to make diagnoses. I'd draw your attention to this (from Wikipedia, but apparently paraphrasing DSM-IV-TR):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...ntal_Disorders

"the DSM contains no information regarding treatment or cause". Or to put it another way, it isn't any use for ascribing the mental state of the Japanese population in the latter stages of WW2.

Can I ask, if you have access to DSM-IV-TR, to let us know if it actually uses the term 'brainwashing' at all?

Splitter, that is a truly repulsive analogy. If you can't distinguish between the Holocaust and opposition to Israeli belligerence, I pity you...

Um, no you haven't Nostradamus, but you have shown why it isn't applicable in your own mind:


To mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese.