Nuklear bomb
 

i ask you 1c for future SOW series PACIFIC have NUKE BOMB?
FAT MAN and LITTLE BOY to b29 ENOLAGAY?
this is second bomb to plutonium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lbpONr2lrE


this is first nuklear bomb little boy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etsMWNUq81A&NR=1

OK, I'll bite....why? Nukes in the 40's meant "game over". Drop one bomb from one aircraft and destroy a city....game over. It's the only reason the Japanese surrendered.

Maybe a final mission with dramatic visual effects? I guess I could see that but....again, why? Not much "game" there. Especially when the Japanese didn't even put much effort into defending against those lone bombers thinking they were recon missions.

Splitter

It would be cool...and useless at the same time.

What exactly is 'cool' about a weapon who's only feasible use is against large civilian populations?

There will no doubt be continuing debate about the legitimacy of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, along with questions about the indiscriminate attacks on civilians on all fronts during WW 2. I don't think that 'cool' is however an appropriate phrase to use about any of them.

[QUOTE=AndyJWest;176250]What exactly is 'cool' about a weapon who's only feasible use is against large civilian populations?

QUOTE]

Probably the exact same thing that makes it "cool" to fly a simulation of aircaft thats only purpose was to carry machine guns, cannons, bombs and rockects that's only purpose were to kill people.

As an aside there were numerous engineering schemes investigated to use nuclear devices for the good of man kind. Such as using them to create a chanel from the Great Australian Bight to Lake Eyre forming a inland sea and turning the arid central regions of Australia into a lush green paradise! Luckily sanity prevailed!

Cheers

[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;176252]Yes, this.

Please, let's not get into a debate about whether or not the US should have dropped the bombs on Japan. Those bombs saved Allied soldier's lives in an all out war and also saved large numbers of Japanese lives No one had "smart weapons" back then and bombing a city was about the only way to knock out the manufacturing capacity based in those cities.

Nukes probably saved the Soviets and Americans from direct confrontation during the Cold War. Nuclear power is also probably the most efficient source of power we have currently. It's not about the technology, it's about how it is used ultimately.

If it was inherently wrong to simulate killing on computers, there really wouldn't be many games to play. Good or bad, that's a fact. I might have killed hundreds of thousands of simulated people in my life but never once have I had to kill a real life person :).

Splitter

I do have to worry about the morality and sanity of people that want to drop nuclear weapons on civilian targets in a game "for fun".

It reminds me of the controversy a few years back where some people wanted horses and other animals included in IL2 so they could fly around and shoot at them.

All I can say is I sincerely hope these same people never get a position of power in the Military or a national Government.

If you don't want to debate something, don't make contentious assertions. This isn't a particularly sensible forum to debate the issue, and I've no particular wish to do so, but I see no reason to allow any old hogwash on side issues (i.e. nuclear power) to pass by without comment.

And by the way, Japanese 'manufacturing capacity' had already been crippled by the US submarine blockade. Military production at that point was more or less insignificant.

A debate on another forum of your choice would be welcomed. Beyond that, I have edited this post.

Splitter

AJ, a study of the invasion of Okinawa, paying close attention to American and the Japanese losses and the response of the civilan population to the arrival of the American troops will give some idea why the bomb was dropped on Japan.
Extrapolate allied and Japanese losses there to the expected ones to be incurred invading the Japanese mainland, (Suggest a number).
To state that the bomb's use didn't save allied and Japanese lives would be somewhat perverse in that light.

I think the bulk of the evidence would suggest that it allowed the Japanese to surrender (gave an excuse). It would have been possible to keep fighting (the Japanese war machine was in such bad straights by this period that the loss of a few more cities would only have made it somewhat worse).

I personally worry about the morality of leaving things like nuclear bombs out. The fact is that we did bomb civilian targets very deliberately (and firebombing had truly horrifying effects even if it required more planes to conduct).

Such bombing may have saved a lot of lives (eg. through disrupting industry), but we must also remember it as a tragedy and an evil (even if it is a lesser one). IMHO, It is something that happened and should be recorded.

[QUOTE=Splitter;176260]Oh my god... :(

Oh my god... :([/QUOTE]

Please elaborate.

Splitter

It is open enough i think.

Not really.

Should we take that to mean that you think it was unnecessary and did not, in fact, ultimately save lives on both sides?

Splitter

1) There were no atomic bombs in 1940

2) Even if it were, or if the SoW:BoB had been a 1945 Pacific sim, I still would not want an atomic bomb included. I don't want a long, boring, unopposed and uneventful mission to destroy a whole city and kill thousands, I want to do daring raids against agaist pinpoint targets.

Let's face it: From a combat flight sim point of view the two atomic bomb missions were extraordinarily boring. They flew too high for being in any real danger from flack or fighters. The aiming of the bombs weren't really that important (though the Hiroshima bomb aimer did a very good job). The flying and navigation was nothing special. The only interesting aspect of the two missions is the immense destructive power of the bombs.

I play this game to fly and occasionally shoot. If I wanted to play God, I'll fire up my old Black & White.

According to Noam Chomsky, the soviets were already involved in peace talks with the japanese and Truman ordered to drop the bombs anyway, sort of warning the USSR that the USA really had the bomb as part of political leverage.

Yes the japanese armies have done unspeakable atrocities to civilians and captured military personnel but that would've never justified to use two of the worst machines of suffering to punish the japanese people who were just like the german people hostages of their own government.

Dropping them are two of humanity's biggest mistakes ever. Actually all bombing of civilians in any case is dreadful and unethical like all wars are. The fact that I fly a military flight sim is because of the fun fighting other planes. I never bomb cities.

Don't forget Oppenheimer's words: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Well said.

"Noam Chomsky". Well, there ya go. He pretty much hates the US.

Just think these few questions:

If the Japanese were ready to capitulate, why did they not surrender after the first bomb was dropped?
If they (or the Nazis) had developed the bomb, would they have used it?
Were the Japanese training civilians, including women and children, to resist invasion forces?
Was the Japanese government indoctrinating its' people as to the brutal treatment they would receive from American soldiers leading many (including women and children) to kill themselves and their families on Okinawa?
What other options did the Allies have?
How many lives would a siege (a blockade) have cost the Japanese? How long would it have taken? Would it have been better to starve the entire population?
In an invasion, how many lives would have been lost on both sides?
If the Empire of Japan had been allowed to remain in existence, would they have remained peaceful?


Would I have wanted to be in the President's shoes and make the call to drop the bomb? No, I am sure that was heart wrenching. Would I fly any simulated mission in a simulated Enola Gay? No.

However, I really think dropping those bombs was the best choice that could have been made at the time with the information on hand.

I know it's cool to hate the US these days, but one has to dig deeper than what "feels good" and see the accompanying realities.

Splitter

You cant be serious we play a simulation of flying and killing now you want to say oh that big bomb is a little to big are you kidding me. lol Cheers:-):-) WAR is a B!tch and then you die, semper fi.

There's nothing like an ad hominem argument to settle things, eh, Splitter?

Still, how about Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Chester W. Nimitz? Did they 'hate the US'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...a_and_Nagasaki

Noam Chomsky is an anarchist. He has disdain for all authority. He is an intellectual elitist. He is anti-capitalist. He has taken every opportunity to criticize American foreign policy that he could. I say consider the source when citing his opinion.

The report you cite assumes that fire bombing would continue. Was fire bombing better? The report was also written after the war when Japanese (who had just been bombed and defeated, btw....they could have been a bit biased I am thinking) officials could be interviewed.

You leave out some facts, however, such as the Japanese plan to meet an invasion on the beach with thousands of kamikazes. And this quote: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.".

Also note that the Soviets had been urged to enter the war for some time, but they refused until after the first bomb had been dropped. Supposedly they had set a date to declare war on Japan. But clearly their objective was to grab a piece of Japanese occupied territory. If, as some believe, the Japanese would have surrendered as soon as the Soviets declared war then those people also have to blame the Soviets for waiting....(not my view, btw).

I understand that it is easier and more popular to believe that the US was and is bloodthirsty and would willingly sacrifice tens of thousands of lives for pure politics. But to come to that conclusion, you have to ignore a lot of facts.

Splitter

No, actually the most common argument you come across (not saying it has any real basis) was that the US dropped the bombs unnecessarily because it was their last chance to test the weapons effects against actual live civilian targets before the war finished.

Personally I am not sure if that is likely. Whilst from the cold war onwards the US may have become arrogant paranoid and defensive and no longer cares about world opinion, the US in WWII had a much better claim to occupying the moral high ground and was far more concerned with "doing the right thing" than it has ever been since.

So am I as it happens. No point in arguing with you then. I'll leave you to your comfortable ignorance of history...

I would never have guessed lol.

Purely out of curiosity and for my own edification, I inquire where you are from and your age.

I am 41 and from the US (Maryland to be exact).

Splitter

LOL! perfect argument for placing Xilon on your ignore list.

Damn! I conservative from the peoples republic of Maryland? I didn't think they made our kind there! LOLS

(BTW I'm from the PRO Connecticut, so I can relate)

I am 53 and from London, England. Now just exactly how is this relevant to anything?

I am old skool conservative.....not like these new fangled Rinos :). I like all that individual rights/Constitution/small government stuff. Down here we call it Marylandistan and it ain't easy living here lol.

Andy: Just my own curiosity as I said. The way the US is viewed around the world is interesting to me. Like you (I am assuming here and you know how that goes) I would like the US to withdraw from world politics for a decade or so with our only demand being free flowing cheap oil. Small price to pay to make the Americans mind their own business, no? The reason I would like to see it probably differs from yours but we could agree to try it and see how it works out :).

PS....I am glad this discussion stayed relatively civil by internet standards.

Splitter

I wasn't aware I was even debating the way the US is seen. I thought we were debating the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. As far as I'm aware, none of the western Allies raised objections at the time, though I'm sure that they were aware of the project - the British were certainly deeply involved. To me the question is about what was done, and why, not about who did it.

Churchill was ecstatic at the news, his adviser Lord Allenbrooke wrote:

“Churchill was enthusiastic, and already saw himself with the ability to eliminate all Russia’s major industrial population centres” (Le Monde Diplomatique, August 1990).

Yes, as far as I know, the western Allies were all aware of the Manhattan project one way or another.

The US flat out told Churchill we had the bomb. The Soviets were not told so specifically, but they knew about the Manhattan project through their spy network in the States. The Communist Party was fairly large here before the war so recruits were easy to come by (nothing against the Soviets on that front, spying was just part of the game). They did not, however, think the US has developed the bomb yet.

(Interestingly and as an aside, the Nazi party was also rather large before the war in the US.)

In all likelihood, the Brits would have been for dropping the bomb ASAP while the Russians would have sought delay. They wanted the opportunity to capture more Japanese holdings before the war ended. The Soviets wanted free access to the Pacific and were hoping Japan would be split much like Germany had been.

I am absolutely positive that future world politics was part of the decision making process for dropping the bomb. But I think the over riding factor for Truman was his responsibility (duty really) to prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives. I also think he saw that a decisive blow, as horrible as it would be, would save Japanese lives and infrastructure in the long run.

As I said earlier, no one in their right minds would volunteer to make a decision like that. Even if it is the right thing, even if there was no other real choice, you would still be signing the death warrant of thousands of people. It's impossible to imagine how much that has to weigh on someone's soul.

Splitter

As I've already pointed out, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Chester W. Nimitz, amongst others, disagreed. The war was already won. These American (and other Allied) lives were never in contention. Possibly Truman didn't realise this at the time, but there were plenty who were trying to get the message across. It would be wrong to hold Truman solely responsible however. He was merely continuing the logic of the western Allies bombing campaign, which had its origins more in gut reactions than in cold hard logic. That is the way of wars however. As I said earlier, what is done is more important than who does it. Understand this, and maybe such tragic events might become less common.

I found this debate quite interesting. I have no problem with or without having the Nuke in game. I only play MP and doubt I would ever see it there anyways.

As far as the RL debate:

I see both sides of the issue as far as the bombs being dropped. The U.S. was caught with it's pants down and a war started on a surprise Japanese military strike at Pearl. I think war is down right disturbing in the 1st place, let alone civilian casualties.

But:

The US asked for a conditional surrender and warned of the consequences. There was no response. A bomb was dropped. The US, again, asked for a conditional surrender. Again, no response was given. Bomb number two was dropped. If I recall correctly, a 3rd bomb was in the air/en-route when the surrender finally came through. I think the loss of life is an utter tragedy, but I also think the American people needed a surrender for the war to be over. We were struck with our pants down, with virtually no warning. The public was in an outrage. And quite honestly, when the public rises up together, the people do speak.

I am in no way shape or form agreeing with the use of a nuke or killing anyone let alone innocent civilians, but I do see both sides of the argument quite well. Unless my study of history is simply "wrong", I don't think the majority of the use of the nuke fell on the hands of the US. I think this falls on the emperor of Japan's shoulders and his pride. We did what we did to finish/end the war. I honestly feel horrible even thinking about it. It's an atrocity, but it was well with a firm warning that could have been stopped.

Just my .02 cents

SoW, on the other hand, is coming along quite nicely. . .

Cheers!

I like to call myself a bomber pilot, still - I fail to see the point in modeling the Nuke.

If it was modeled as an AI only weapon it would make for some interesting interception mission. Especially using some of our 1946 Jet fighters for their indended roles.

Cheers!

Just to clarify for those actually reading this thread, I think you meant to say that the Allies were looking for "unconditional" surrender.

The Japanese wanted conditions, such as the retention of the Emperor, no demilitarization, no Allied occupation, and also wanted to keep some of their territorial gains.

The Japanese went to the Soviets (neutral with Japan at the time) to have them act as intermediaries to get the conditions put into the surrender terms. Here again, the Soviets did not want the war to end so quickly so they sort of played both sides against the middle. It didn't matter though because the Allies had agreed that "unconditional surrender" was the only option.

So yes it is true that Japan refused to surrender until after the second bomb and not immediately even then. I just discovered a piece of history I did not know before: elements of the Japanese military tried to stop the surrender with a coup and nearly succeeded.

Splitter

I think we need to get events and dates right here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=16037&page=4
The Japanese surrendered ('conditionally' on the understanding that the Emporor would retain his position) after the Soviet Union declared war. As to what finally led to the surrender, this is the question under debate. All the evidence suggests that they were in no position to continue the fight, as a result of the existing blockade. The attempted coup might have delayed surrender for a few weeks, had it succeded, but it could have had no effect on the outcome of the war. The Japanese were already defeated, as Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz (amongst others) had already concluded.

I agree with those of you saying that it seemed to be the lesser evil under those circumstances. Not a lot was known about the long lasting effects of radiation, so planners thought "invasion of Japan: 5 million dead, atomic bombs:200000 dead...ok, let's drop the bombs".

On the other hand, i can't see what more could Japan have done. They were under a very effective submarine blockade, their industry was mostly destroyed and their cities razed in a way that would make RAF's bomber command jealous (funny how the US was all about precision in the ETO, even to the detriment of their own crews' well being, but had no qualms about using the RAF style of bombing in Japan). Simply leaving them blockaded for a few more months might have done the trick.

However, this snippet here i don't see the problem with

It's what every self-respecting population does when faced with foreign occupation. Just like the elderly and teenagers fighting in the streets of the German cities during the final weeks of the war, were they all Nazis? I doubt it.

It's been so ingrained in the collective mind of the west that we are always the "good guys", that we don't only expect to win every time, but we also expect to be greeted as a godsend by the population of the countries we invade. I can't describe how much i disagree with this train of thought.

It's the duty of every able-bodied individual who wants to be free to resist foreign occupation armies on their soil, no matter if they hate their own government to an equal degree. I had a small diatribe ready on the reasons behind my opinion, but it's taking things a bit too off-topic. Having been used by both "enemies" and "allies" in our history however, there's nothing that jolts the collective subconscious in my country like the threat of a foreign occupation, wether it is overt and outright military in means, or covert and waged by means of economy, diplomacy and behind-the-doors blackmail.

Back on the topic of the A-bombs, reading from the scientists involved in the project would be an eye-opener for many. A few years ago i was reading a book by Richard Feynman, a world-reknowned physicist that was involved in the manhattan project (he was also in the comittee investigating the Challenger space shuttle disaster that identified the problems that caused the fuel leak and explosion).

It wasn't a complete autobiography, more like a series of chapters from his life, but a lot of it centered around science and the moral implications regarding its application. According to this guy, most of the scientists involved in the manhattan project were believing, hoping and downright advocating to use one of the weapons for display purposes.

The idea was to arrange a meeting with a Japanese delegation, drop the first bomb on an uninhabbited atol and tell them that unless they surrender, the rest will be dropped on their cities (Japan didn't know how many bombs the US had in stock). However, the military denied it because they wanted to observe the bomb at work on a live target. That's it, straight from the horse's mouth, the people who built the bombs and asked the authorities to conduct a display drop but had their request denied.

I agree with much of that. I would just say that the indoctrination of the population, and the training of civilians to resist invasion, took the form of kamikaze attacks and mass suicides/murder-suicides on Okinawa. It is one thing to train citizens to resist invasion, it is another to encourage them to blow up their families with grenades to avoid capture.

The only point to that paragraph is to show once again that the Japanese were not going to give up willingly under the terms of the Allies.

The terms of the surrender offer were set forth at the Potsdam Conference. They were pretty straight forward and on re-reading, did not mention the Emperor. The last part of the surrender demand stated that it had to be unconditional and, short of that, Japan would be annihilated.

Japan rejected this and sought conditions to the terms, such as the retention of the Emperor as head of state (basically) among others. Even after two A-bombs and Soviet invasion, the Japanese hierarchy was split on surrender. Some in the military actively resisted.

A very determined people to say the least.

BTW, I have absolutely no doubt that military leaders in the west (the US) wanted to use the bomb as soon as it was deployable. It's what they do: kill people, break things, occupy territory. They are the sharp end of the spear.

I will also say that one can tell a lot about a culture by the way they treat those they have conquered. MacArthur and the Allies treated the Japanese much better than they expected.

Splitter

Do you bother to read other people's posts, Splitter? I've already pointed out twice that Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz (amongst many others) thought the use of the A-Bombs unnecessary. Please stop repeating what you do or don't 'doubt', and deal with the evidence. The question is not whether the Japanese were going to surrender 'willingly', but about whether they had any ability to fight on. All the evidence suggests they didn't.

Ok, I'll bite...

"The question is not whether the Japanese were going to surrender 'willingly', but about whether they had any ability to fight on. All the evidence suggests they didn't. "

So what? Spit out what it is you are trying to say.

Wait....didn't someone just say that to their understanding it was the military that insisted on dropping the bomb on a live target instead of making a demonstration? So....which is it?

I have no doubt (lol) that where was dissension in the military ranks when it came to obliterating thousands of people for whatever reason. But in the end, the military gave it's "ok" to the bombing.

You say they (Japanese) did not have the ability to fight on. I would say they no longer had the ability to "win". They certainly had the manpower (and civilians) to fight a long, drawn out, costly battle. They, the government, were willing to sacrifice millions of lives to bleed the Allies into giving favorable terms for surrender. "Winning" became retaining the Emperor, retaining some of their military gains, and no Allied occupation.

Or we could have starved them into submission. There were already severe food shortages. How many would have died? Wouldn't the weakest have died first?

Or we could have continued to bomb them. They had already lost something like 600,000 people on the mainland to US bombing. In another six months of intensified bombing, how may more would have been lost? Remember, all the while we are starving them too.

Sure, if we (the Allies) had acceded to Japanese demands, the Japanese would have been willing to go ahead and call it a war.

Then we probably would have had to go back and fight them again a few decades later. Our leaders at the time understood that.

Splitter

You believe that?

What about that don't you understand, Jameson? It seems clear enough to me.

It may be clear enough to you AJ, but you haven't said whether you approved or disapproved of the use of the bomb. And if you are, in this context, please state why?
Your answers imply that you do not approve but you don't actually say so. I find it hard to work out where you are coming from.
The Americans dropped two bombs on Japan and it ended the Second World War. I am curious to know and have you explain an alternative scenario, that would have concluded the war quickly, if you think that what happened should not have done. You seem to be seeking some kind of scapegoat for those events at this late date and from a position of 65 years hindsight. Either you think Trueman was a mass murderer who had no need to use the bomb, or there is some other reason not yet touched upon which would explain why he did. Which is it?

I don't have to explain anything. If you can't understand my position from my postings, that's your problem, not mine. And please don't put words into my mouth. You aren't a mind reader. Actually, you barely seem to be any sort of reader at all, given that you've failed to understand what I've already written about Truman.

I am not sure which part of the quote you are talking about.

The Japanese did want to end the war, but on their terms. They were putting out feelers through Russia who until the last days were "neutral" with Japan.

As for having to go back and fight them again later on...that's what usually happens when you leave the job half finished.

The way to win a war is to completely destroy the other side's way of life (harsh, huh?). If you do not destroy their mindset, they rebuild and come back again. We see this time and again through history.

We have the same debate concerning the US Civil War. A general named Sherman marched across the south cutting railways and destroying. Then he turned north and did the same thing, just not as brutally. Could the south have won the war? No. Would they ever have stopped fighting had their heart not been cut out? No.

We went to war with Iraq and left their leader in power. Then we had to go back again.

We left Germany wounded and bitter after WWI, then had to go back 20 some years later.

How many wars and battles did France and England fight? Plenty because neither could destroy the other.

The US won every major military engagement in Vietnam and lost the war because the the North was never truly conquered.

Korea is brewing again because they were never defeated and their way of life was never destroyed.

It's one of the reasons no one should EVER invade Russia lol. Their people are brave and their spirit is unconquerable.

The Empire of Japan, at the time, was starved for resources. Much like the German government, they believed themselves to be superior. Their focus was on expansion. Unless those mindsets were destroyed, they would have come back eventually and caused future problems.

That's sort of the problem with playing nicely with dictators and other people with bad intent in the world: they bide their time and come back unless you destroy their way of life and show them that their mindset is untenable.

Splitter

"I don't have to explain anything."

You haven't, which was my point.

Other people don't seem to have trouble understanding me. :roll: Do you want it translated to baby-talk?

Fair points made all around, which i have no problem conceding. Reasonable debate? On my internets? Unbelievable! :grin:

Hmm, I may have to do some more reading to refresh my memory.

But:

I thought the US basically gave an ultimatum that entailed: "surrender or you will be viciously attacked on your homeland." In other wards, the actions, or in this case, lack of actions of the emperor led to the 1st and 2nd bomb drop. I also thought any sort of negotiations to the terms of the conditional/unconditional surrender didn't even take place until Japan finally responded back well after the 2nd bomb had been dropped. Of course, I may be wrong, but I thought that's how I studied it.

In any case, Japan's emperor had the power to stop the attack at any time and knew full well of the consequences of not responding or not surrendering.

Such a tragic loss of life in any case.

Cheers!

Also,

As Blackdog previously stated. Very nice calm debate on this one. I've enjoyed it!

Thanks!

To the best of my knowledge, the terms for surrender were negotiated amongst the Allies days before the bomb was dropped at the Potsdam conference. The bomb was tested early on during the conference and Truman was informed of the success. He told Churchill and hinted about it to Stalin, but Stalin didn't think the Manhattan project would come to fruition that quickly.

At the end of the conference, they put out a joint declaration (it took some convincing for Stalin to sign off on it). The declaration contained the terms for surrender with the last sentence speaking of "unconditional" and total destruction. It was also decided that none of the Allies would make a separate peace.

Good info here from what I remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

Japan ignored the declaration but kept up diplomatic efforts to get the Soviets to intervene and get them better terms. Then time ran out.

To the best of my recollection.

Splitter

EDIT: I just repeated myself, sorry.

Generally the scientists involved had a far different view of the weapons to the politicians. In fact one of the motivations for the various spies leaking sensitive Manhattan material to the Soviets was a belief that US and British politicians could not be trust with a first strike capability. In that sense they showed great insight.

For those who would actually like to gain an understanding of why the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan: World At War - The Bomb. Those involved at the time explain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8pjb...eature=related

Yes I understand and realize the negotiations took place, days prior, between the allies. But what I'm saying is it took the 2nd bomb to actually get the emperor to the negotiating table. In other words, he ignored everything and didn't respond until the 2nd nuke had been dropped. Is that correct?

If so, that was my point. He could have stopped it and was well warned of the consequences of his choice or lack there of. That's why I say the US should not have the majority of the blame placed on them for the drops. The emperor knew and was well warned of what would happen "IF" he didn't surrender or respond. But if we want to go back to cause and effect, we could also go back as far as what started the war in the 1st place.

Again, I could be wrong, but that's how I thought I remembered studying the strike.. Gonna watch the youtube video that was posted..

Cheers!

Ah, understood. My understanding is the same.

Splitter

I don't see the point of the discussion of the moral correctness of the A-bomb as used on Japan in the second war.

Why? Even counting delayed death to radiation related causes, I think many, many more people were killed in conventional (fire) bombing of cities across Japan. If they didn't drop the A-bombs, they probably would have continued the large-scale bombing raids to the same effect, just over a longer time.

IMO, a discussion more relevant to human suffering would be about the mass bombing of civilian population, regardless of the weapon type. That's not to say that A-bombs aren't worth talking about, I am just puzzled as to why they're talked about as the cruellest thing the west did to Japan, when the numbers say otherwise.

Willing to discuss, of course :)

And that's ok - since this bomb had the name of a different city already painted on it...

That wasn't really the point of the discussion. It was brought up because of talk of the availability or lack there of for the nuke in-game.

The cruelest thing that happened in the war is what started it. Those chain of events, leading up to the present, led to the US being the biggest military on the planet, spending more in defense/military than almost every other country in the world combined. Before the war, we did have a military, of course, but were very content with staying on our own continent and living the "dream." After Pearl we built up and industrialized a huge invasion force/fleet/planes/tanks/ etc., and fought in both the east and west.

Does anyone think how the world would be if WW2 never took place? Or think about what caused the way things are today? I would give anything to have the US of the early 40's again. Now we are spending out of control and our number 1 export is weapons. I have remorse for those innocently killed and, as far as I'm concerned, anyone that dies from any military power.

But I'm far more concerned with the after effects of the world from those few people in power that control millions.

The invasion of Poland?

The deaths of about 5,000 at Pearl Harbour? Wikipedia says less than that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Pearl Harbour was unexpected, and the Japanese made a complete mess of their Declaration of War that was supposed to precede it, but in actuality was completed after the raid, but there's no way that's the worst thing that happened in WW2.

Where are you people from? There aren't any real people [civilians] in this simulation. So you can't drop a pretend bomb on a pretend city but its ok to shoot down a pretend aircraft and watch the pretend pilot burn to death. I can't get away from you flaming liberals even in a war simulator. Don't you have something to protest somewhere. Cheers:-)

You complain about this not being the sensible forum to debate the issue, but you are the one in your first post on the first page to spew out your own Hogwash. And you have no particular wish to , BS You started this crap. Cheers:-)

I seem to recall that they had to divert on one of the runs due to weather and the target being obscured...was that the first or second?

Julian: It is one of those misguided things about the war. Both sides thought, at times, that bombing civilians would would weaken their resolve and weaken the enemy's will to make war. I don't think that was ever successful.

Bombing industries was obviously a legitimate exercise and just as obviously worked. The problem was accuracy even when they were going after industrial targets. Factories were close to populations and a LOT of bombs missed. They pretty much had to carpet bomb areas to take out their targets. As usual, civilians paid a heavy price.

I agree with you, Bliss. I wish we would pull back and not be the policemen of the world. Just secure our interests around the world (oil, allies), secure our borders, and let the rest of the world deal with the evil people in power around the globe. I would never want us to get weak again militarily as our "weakness" had been viewed as "opportunity" for aggressors in the past (like Pearl).

We should bring our troops from all around the world home and put out the warning to leave us absolutely alone or else. Trade would be done fairly, no foreign aid. We would make it known that attacks on our shortened list of real allies would be viewed as an attack on the country itself. We would save a ton of money and erase our debt in no time.

The problem is....we would be called back into world politics within a decade or two. China has to go to war with someone sometime soon and there are plenty of other aggressive regimes that would soon get out of control when left to their own devices.

The good news for us would be that once again we would be invited back into world politics like WWI and WWII instead of being seen as "aggressors" as we are now. Face it, no one wants us until they need us.

Splitter

No, if you really get off on making big explosions and killing things ( and presumably also flying weird non historical Nazi UFO's and boasting about how elite you are online ) you are not playing a simulation you are just playing Quake/Halo in 3D. Or maybe Microsoft Explosion Simulator :D

There is no facility in the game to actual fight a tactical campaign using nuclear weapons. If there was then people wouldn't object so much, the nukes would have a point and using them effectively will be a challenge. Nor are their any historically accurate nuclear weapons, the modded nukes just make a bigger bang.

Therefore the only point in including nuclear weapons in the game seems to be so immature prats can get their rocks off imagining blowing stuff up like they see in the movies.


... and as far as Politics goes, this whole US fascination with the liberal/hippy versus fascist/christian/patriot argument that they like to bore the rest of the world with on forums is stupid ... from an outside perspective its easy to see their is no difference they are all flavors of the same species "American Politician" . Don't get uptight about politics it will just give you heartburn.


Yep the original purpose of the allied strategic bombing on Germany (as proposed by Churchill) was to destroy the moral of the German people. Once it became clear it was not working and if anything increasing German resolve to fight on, the emphasize changed to bombing industry communications and transport to weaken German industry and the war effort. the second latter approach was more costly but much more effective.

A more recent example of the ineffectiveness of general bombing is the costly and totally ineffectual 7th Air Force Operation Rolling Thunder conducted between March 1965 and November 1968.

I am not sure where you are from or how much you know of American history, but there is a theory held by some (many?) that we knew about the attack on Pearl ahead of time. In the theory, that's why the carriers weren't there.

The theory stems from the fact that the US was very isolationist between the wars. Many Americans did not want to get involved in a European or Asian war. This is exemplified by our reluctance to aid England. The theory goes that Roosevelt needed something to "jump start" Americans into being willing to go to war and used the Pearl attack as the impetus.

I think most of us here (US) do not believe it for a second. It is logical to assume that the US knew Japan was contemplating such a move, but not the time and place or method.

An above poster may have been talking about the sanctions imposed on Japan as what sparked the war for Japan, but I am not sure. Or maybe the restrictions that had been placed on Germany after WWI. Or both (or neither I guess, I am not sure lol).

Splitter

Which is where I entered this discussion, with some halfwit saying it would be 'cool'. I didn't expect a mature debate, and in a way I'm surprised that it has been as rational as it has. Nobody seems to have changed their position though, so ultimately it achieved little. Or maybe it has. At least some visitors to the forum might realise we aren't all so engrossed in out fantasy world that relaity passes us by...

You're right about US 'politics' too, Galway - to outsiders the whole thing seems infantile. Not that it is much better elsewhere.

The good news for us would be that once again we would be invited back into world politics like WWI and WWII instead of being seen as "aggressors" as we are now. Face it, no one wants us until they need us.

Splitter[/QUOTE]

And for how long would they view us in a positive way 10 years? A generation ? The United States liberated Europe and they hate us, how long did that take? some people have the attention span of a rock. I say we pull back secure our own country and let the rest have at it. Cheers:-)

Weren't you listening? Until they don't need us anymore! :)

You do realize that we just confirmed every stereotype of the arrogant American some others may have, right? lol. History is a stern master though.

For those commenting on US politics, it's ok. We don't like our politicians either :). There is change in the wind though. If those changes do not occur then just leave us alone and we will tear ourselves apart....we do that when left to our own devices. Then we get attacked and unite for a little while....then back to our bickering.

On Rolling Thunder: Not effective (thank Mr. Johnson). Linebacker(s) was effective but was halted due to politics. Here again....don't go to war unless you go all out and mean to win.

But really, this thread is about history.

Splitter

haha ... well our Australian politics has gone beyond infantile to the point of being a hilarious Monty Python spoof at the moment. I do not think Britain is doing much better from what I hear. i think Aussies at present would accept a sheep as leader if it got the politicians (of all persuasions) off the television.

Well, I didn't like to say, but I've got the impression that it was getting a little farcical down under. And yes, UK politics is laughable too. Or it would be if these clowns didn't have so much power - including in our case, access to nuclear weapons, though with the way the economy is going, we'll probably be flogging these off to the Chinese in a few years...

Originally, Fat Man was built to force the other party to capitulate.
The fast end oft the war in Europe came faster than expected, consequently the bomb was rescheduled.

It was ment to hit the Führer's party capitol - Nürnberg.

[QUOTE=WTE_Galway;176801


Therefore the only point in including nuclear weapons in the game seems to be so immature prats can get their rocks off imagining blowing stuff up like they see in the movies.

I could take the nuke or leave it thats not my point. Are you trying to tell me you don't like blowing things up, if you didn't you would be playing another simulator that had no guns or bombs what so ever. So man up and admit what every man likes to do, BLOW things up. For Gods sake were men we just can't do it in real life anymore without getting arrested.:-)
[QUOTE=WTE_Galway]
... and as far as Politics goes, this whole US fascination with the liberal/hippy versus fascist/christian/patriot argument that they like to bore the rest of the world with on forums is stupid ... from an outside perspective its easy to see their is no difference they are all flavors of the same species "American Politician" . Don't get uptight about politics it will just give you heartbu

You being a liberal has nothing to do with politics its simply who you are accept it and be happy with it. I'm simply saying I can't escape your war protesting type even in a war simulator and this is a war simulator.:-)

Actually it isn't. This is an internet forum. The forum is real, even if the topic under discussion is a simulation. Which is why describing the use of nuclear weapons as 'cool' is going to be controversial. While you play IL-2 you may be in a fantasy world, but as soon as you start discussing it with others, you are in reality. If you don't understand the distinction, you should probably find another hobby.

I think your lost in your thinking, we would not actualy be using any nuclear weapons, Im not sure if you knew that or not. The reality is we do not have access to real nuclear weapons. So your disscussion with others in your real world about the use of nuclear weapons in a simulator is not based in reality. Hate to be the one to inform you of that. I feel like I just told my kids the truth about santa.:-) One more thing discussing a fantasy does not make it a reality unless you act upon it. Does anyone have a nuke here , I didnt think so. So yes we are all in our little fantasy world. Maybe you need to get out more.

Speak for yourself.

In case you hadn't noticed, a considerable proportion of the postings in this thread have been about reality, and about the reasoning behind the actual use of nuclear weapons. Most of the contributors seem able to understand why 'fantasy' and 'reality' cannot be so easily separated. If you can't, I'd suggest that maybe you need to get educated more.

Eh, enough bickering, gents. Whaddya think?

One thing that has not been answered is what the Allies (US in this case) should have done instead of dropping the bomb. This goes out to the people who think it was not needed.

It's one thing to think that nukes are bad, it's another to propose an alternative that would accomplish the same end to the war with fewer deaths.

BTW, what everyone danced around in this thread was the question of whether dropping the bomb was right and moral. The answer to that question is the most important and ties into the question about alternatives.

Splitter

Are you not on this forum to read about a simulator. This post did not start out talking about the reasoning behind the actual use of nuclear weapons. It started out with a question of would they be modeled. I think you need to take your medicine now. You twisted this tread because you have nothing better to do. Read your first Post:-), You started this arguement.

Hunden, are you completely incapable of understanding why this debate arose? Or are you just too comfortable in your fantasy world to look outside? If I 'twisted this thread' then so did all the others who entered the debate on the A-bombings of Japan. Xilon proposed that the A-bombs should be modelled because they were actually dropped on Japan. This is what makes IL-2 a simulator, rather than just a fantasy game. A simulation of war needs to reflect reality, not ignore it. If you find this uncomfortable, play World of Warcraft instead.

To be honest whilst I did fly online with a squad back around 2000 - 2002 I have not "played" Il2 for years. I have not been online since the game was hacked and the mods came out. I occasionally fire up an offline game and pootle about taking pot shots at things in an Emil, Avia or '38 Hurri - but that is like once a month at most, really these days I mainly just upload skin packs for offline campaign builders and write missions.

My point exactly, it happened so it should be modelled. You have proven my point. Based on your previous post you would like to ignore it. Now your saying what, based on this post, I think you need to make up your mind. I think your uncomfortable in your own skin. You seem to have some type insult for everyone you respond to. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost:-)

Whilst it may be 'cool' to see a computer simulation of an A-bomb (in the same way that it's 'cool' to nuke everyone in MW2) I think it would be in bad taste.

It's just too touchy a subject to even bother with and I don't think any developer would touch it.

Just because it happened dosn't mean it should be included in a computer game.

We should ask ourselves: why A-bomb is a “touchy subject”? It’s not for the number of deaths. “Conventional” bombing killed much more people, and I don’t see as useful a debate on the worst ways to be killed.

Fact is that A bomb was different from any other weapon used before. It paved the way to the H bomb and to the prospect of a war that will not simply kill people, but all of the humankind and – perhaps – all life forms on our small planet. Even a simple “regional” nuclear war could be devastating on a global scale. A nuclear war between Pakistan and India would precipitate our world into an endless winter, and all of us pacifically debating here would probably die from cold, plagues and famine.


Nobody, I hope, will ever make a sim on Auschwitz and extermination camps. By the same token, let’s stop our WWII flight sim calendar with August 5th, 1945.

If we want to go ahead into 1946 “what ifs”, we must suppose that Manhattan program failed and no A bomb were ever dropped on Japan.

My opinion.

It's still a game, i wouldn't mind if it was gory and gritty as well. At least we in the sim community should be mature enough to realize that it's sure a simulator but still a game/virtual reality..
in my opinion having moral standards there is just pathetic. I do enjoy violent games overall, blood and gore.. it sells and it entertains.. yet in reality i would never even consider hurting anyone unless it was my last resort. Media is a sad center peice that paints gamers as violent due to the games, which have already been proven, has about 0% effect on how you behave, it's all within your genes and childhood and how you were raised, not in a game like GTA.

I think it's touchy because of the intent. It's the fact of it being designed to kill civillians on such a large scale using one bomb. It's a little bit of a low point in human history. I make no judgement as to the rights and wrongs as it was something the Americans felt they had to do. But, right or wrong, it was an awful thing that happend, in a time full of equally awful things happening.

I think it's just a little too specific to be included in a sim. There were only 2 A-Bombs dropped and both had names so you'd need to simulate that fact and once they dropped them that was that, or would you like an unlimited ammount of A-bombs? In which case it's not realistic.

Having said that I see no reason you couldn't have a good 'Race to the A-Bomb' Camaign in a sim where you have to destroy/defend production facilities etc, and whoever gets to a certain level first gets to try to nuke the other side. That'd be ok because it never happened.

You obviously didn't understand the point I was trying to make. The whole world completely changed because of WWII. Please re-read what I said and try to understand I was not talking about the loss of life, but the still present after effects to everything my government/world governments has done, consequence, directly from WWII, and how much different the world would be right now if it hadn't happened. Hence, why I said the cruelest thing that happened was what started the war. It led my government down the path it has to be in currently, policing the world of tyrants for instance.

They call the WWII generation the "Best Generation". I couldn't agree more. These were people that lived through the depression, fought a global war, and rebuilt countries that attacked them. Their greatness is why many are drawn to WWII games/simulations.

Face it, 4000 dead was often a good DAY in WWII. Now we freak out about such numbers over periods of years. The sacrifices of that generation are to date, unmatched.

In my mind, the world had been in decline ever since. Yes, we had the Cold War, but our willingness to fight and do right have declined steadily.

We are turning into wimps. I look at laws passed in the US, Britain, Australia and other countries and just shake my head. We have lived too long in peace it seems.

One of the best sayings is that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Look around the world....are tyrants becoming more powerful and bold? Do they thumb their noses at the world? Are coalitions bent on expansion and destruction being formed?

Wars erupt when nations get weak. Take a look at your own nations and see where their strength is. All of the former allies are getting weaker. The weaker we all get and the less willing we are to fight, the more danger we are in.

People want there to be a "new world" where nations do not fight and we all get along. History shows us that cannot be so for long. WWII is a great example of what happens when tyrants are allowed to grow strong while the rest of the world plays "wait and see'.

To me, that's the lesson of WWII: don't get weak.

Splitter

They do not only call them the "Best Generation, they also call the WWII the "Last Good War", because what was right and what was wrong was very visible. No-one disagree that a world lead by a Nazi/Fascist leadership would be a hellish place. The Axis powers was very clearly the aggressors and the Bad Guys. The Allies was equally much the defending Good Guys (with the possible exception of the Soviet, who had attacked Poland in 1939).

The limited availability of media communication back then made sure that picture was maintained. Despite the horrors brought by the firebombing and questionable conduct by troops in Europe and the Pacific, the Allies remained the good guys for their populace. That is, until the nuclear bomb. The nuclear bomb was too big to brush under the carpet like the Kathyn masacre and the firebombing of Dresden. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was already controversial when it happened.

The problem with all later wars the US has fought is that they have not been "good wars". The US has not been attacked (with the exception of 9/11, but that is hardly a proper war). The wars have been fought on foreign soil for obscure reasons, against poorly armed but highly motivated opposition. Most of them have also been a good deal longer than the three years the US fought in WWII, the US engagement in Vietnam lasted 14 years, the war in Afghanistan is in it's 10th. I think you will find that the national resolve to accept heavy casualty would have been dramatically different if an industrial nation had attacked US territory.

That will never happen again though. The nuclear bomb has seen to that war on industrial scale between industrial nations won't happen again. No nation in their right mind will attack the US, Britain, France, Russia etc today. The most they will do is to attack interests abroad, particularly in areas where the nations mentioned have thrown their weight around. Modern media is sure to bring bout side of the story now. American know this, and their will to support wars and accept deaths is accordingly.

To yearn for a world where the US would rally behind their president and go to war with mounting casualties is to yearn for a world where the press prints what the Dep. of Foreign Affairs and the army tell them to, where the US would actually have to fight to survive, where occupation of US soil would be a possibility. Do you really want that?

ok guys just a wonder a simple weapon.
a simple a nuclear weapon.
in SOW there will be many weapons are horrible as the atomic bomb.
What is the difference 'between one thousand conventional bombs used in ww2 and a ONE simple atomic bomb?
the destructive power remains the same.
Why do you dispute?
I ask only one repplica historical and 'important.EVENT
This is an important historical event that changed the way of war.
it is still not a game simulated reality '.
because then we hide the truth?
reality show 'no hiding the facts do well to understand.
EXAMPLE a violent game like Grand Theft Auto helps young people to let off steam in a virtual world and not in a real world.
This helps to understand that if you do actually there are consequences.
and remember ONE important tings this is WW2 game simulation ok? this is a GAME.
but you have a confusion from a WW2 game simulation and PEACE PACIFIC GAME SIMULATION ONLY FROM FLIGHT.
this is not FSX this is SOW

Friendly,

I would just point out that North Vietnam attacked the South. North Korea attacked the South. Those wars were against Communist expansion and the US was not alone in Korea as it was a UN operation. Later wars have similar causes, but it is a matter of one's perspective. It's is true the issues were not as black and white.

BTW, while we may not lose in Afghanistan, we will not win either. Oh, we have the capability, just not the backbone.

My point was mainly that weakness breeds contempt. Contempt leads to attack. As "we", meaning the former Allies, get weaker and weaker, the tyrants get more bold. They won't attack directly and conventionally, but they will attack our allies and unconventionally. Add their acquisition of nukes to the equation and you see the danger.

The weaknesses our countries are experiencing are not military. The weakness is a degradation of moral fiber, of the willingness to step up and make sacrifices. Instead of defeating an enemy, we put off the fight. We make concessions and worry whether or not we are being too harsh.

Neville Chamberlain should have taught us the lesson, but we have short memories. As I said, what we lack these days is backbone. We don't remember we have a backbone until times are desperate. That applies to all of the western Allies.

We are all repeating the mistakes that lead to WWII.

Splitter

Regarding the national willingness to fight, 'moral fiber', and back-bone - these are all things which were used by you-know-who to get the German nation to war. Clearly that nation was so willing to fight that it bought the government's rhetoric, and became the 'bad guy', so I don't think you can say that it's always a good thing... Especially as the information that the government and large parts of the media gives the poplulation, is their version of events.

yes well .. this is what Göring had to say on the matter:


In reality this whole thread is totally pointless.

1. There are ALREADY nuclear weapons available in IL2 for anyone who can be bothered to Google around and find the download.

2. As SOW is based around the Battle of Britain its totally the wrong time period for SOW.

Its a mod, so why is it relevant to the original product?
Anyway you're correct regarding he 2nd point tho, no need for nukes i BOB.

But the moral debate is just ridiculous , accept it as a game no matter what. I never understood the controversy surrounding MW2 and the Airport scene, the game barley has blood effects... yet that mission blossomed up in media like hell for killing civilians...

I quite agree that North Vietnam was the agressors, though anyone knowing a bit of Vietnam history will know why. Did you know that Ho Chi Min wrote a constitution that was almost a blueprint of the US constitution and tried to get the US to back a peaceful resolution of the French colonial rule in the 1950ies? The US asked him to sod off and solve his own problems.

No matter how clearly the South Vietnamese was the victim of aggression, the Vietnam war very quickly turned into a dark jungle hike, shooting at targets you didn't quite see and hope they were the enemy. Vietnam was not a "good war" in any way. The objectives were vague, friends and enemies likewise. And then came the pictures of My Lai. If you compare that to the fight in Europe in 1944/45 it is no wonder the US public was willing to accept high death rates in one war but not in the other.

And no, the coalition do not have the capability to win the Afghan war. The only way the can do that with firepower, is to bomb and bomb and bomb, and for every bomb, the coalition will get more enemies. To win then, they will have to bomb Afghanistan until there's nothing left, not even goats or trees. I don't think you can really call leaving a country a barren wasteland of broken and charred rock a victory. Whatever chance the coalition had at winning the war is gone now. Remember, the Soviet tried for 10 years, and they did not have any qualms about accepting losses. They still had to withdraw in the end. It has nothing to do with "moral fiber".

The "degradation of moral fiber" you talk about is an illusion. If mainland US was attacked today by an enemy capable of taking and holding large parts of the US, Americans would rise as one, and accept losses in their thousands, just like any other nation. That Americans are unwilling to unquestionable support faraway wars with unclear objectives fought for obscure reasons is not a sign of moral degradation. It is a sign of people taking moral standpoints.

There are historians who will tell you the Byzantine Empire fell because of "moral degradation", that the richness somehow made them unable to fight. If so, you would expect the richest of them all, the emperor, to bug off when the Muslim hordes invaded the city. He did not, he donned his armour and fell defending the walls with his soldiers. Do you think your countrymen would do any less?

I more or less agree, but that goes both ways and as Julian said, it can lead to negative outcomes as much as positive ones.

For example, the same rhetoric can be applied to the population of a middle eastern nation: "The western allies attacked Iraq on the pretext of WMDs, which has been proven false, hence we're suspicious that it was done for other reasons. How long should we sit idly by and watch while they compartmentalize the invasion of neighboring friendly states in easy-to-chew-off chunks and how long before it's our turn? Maybe we should all strike back at once if we want to have a chance at overwhelming them and stopping it?"

Of course, this is usually presented with videos featuring traditional music, civilian victims and kamikaze attacks supposedly punishing those responsible for the aforementioned civilian deaths, but that is just the propaganda topping on the plate. It has to carry the local flavor to attract willing participants, just like the western equivalent features the allure of continuing the good guy tradition standing up against tyranny since the two world wars. Colonialist opression and post-WWII violence from the "good guys" against much of Africa and Asia is conveniently brushed aside, just like the middle eastern guys do with their own wrong-doings against others. However, the underlying theme in both cases is the above example part in quotes, which is surprisingly common regardless of who it comes from. People are scared of each other, in many cases with good reason. Too much complacency can bite one in the behind, as much as too much paranoia can get one in uneccessary trouble. The hard part is balancing these insticts in a way that ensures one's survival without going overboard with pre-emptive bloodshed that usually earns one enemies for entire generations.

As you have correctly stated, it's always much more complicated than black and white ;)

On the topic of the Korean war, it was indeed a UN sanctioned operation. As for Vietnam however, i think i have a slightly different reading of the situation. From what i've read, the Vietcong problem was a local insurgency. It relied a lot on the freedom of moving supplies through North Vietnam and neighboring states sympathetic to their cause but it was not an invasion, it was south Vietnamese locals turned guerrillas.

Much like it was during the civil war in my country (45-49, right after WWII) between communist guerrillas and the official Greek government forces returning from exile as part of the allied forces in the N.Africa, the rebels received safe haven and supply routes from neighboring communist states like Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Had the Greek government army attacked these countries, it's safe to assume that the situation would have escalated.
Instead, they focused strictly on COIN operations and relocating the rural population to metropolitan areas under government control, which denied the guerrilas their source of support in the countryside (supplies, food and recruits, either from willing sympathisers or by force). This cut off the guerrilla's lifeline inside the country to such an extent that outside help was a non-issue, especially since the states helping them preferred to stay covert than get actively mixed-up and risk all out war.

The American strategy in Vietnam did follow along these routes as far as operations within S.Vietnam were concerned, with the added benefit of mobile air-lifted armies. In fact, i think the US tactically won every single major engagement they fought, or most of them. Where they went wrong was that they attacked the neighboring VC sympathisers, effectively dragging them into more actively supporting the VC and broadening the pool of enemies. This is a bad move if the other guy is willing to bleed more than you do and as history has shown, you can win the battles on the tactical level, come ahead in the body-count contest and yet still lose the war on the whole. That's essentially what's happening in the current wars as well, where instead of isolating the problem into easy to tackle, set-piece situations, there is an overwhelming urge to go overkill on any kind of opposition all at once, which only serves to lengthen the list of people with an axe to grind. A recent example were the battles in Faluja, where a city that was governed by an openly pro-American council turned into a hotbed of anti-occupation activity, mainly due to ignorance of the local customs and socially accepted practices.

It might sound funny or hard to juggle, but in COIN situations it's things like that that count the most: knowing how the locals think and what is likely to get on their nerves and turn them into raving fanatics overnight is far more beneficial to knowing how to call a fire support mission, not to mention far less costly in lives on both sides.

It's pretty interesting how the British were always better versed in this type of warfare, in fact it's due to them being the main advisors of the Greek army during most of the civil war that the local guerrillas were defeated.

Talking of who attacked whom much depends when you start counting. For example, Poland invaded Czechoslovakia alongside Germany, even if on a small scale, in 1938.


Anyway, I don’t feel this debate is meaningless. It is enlightening to see how the simple proposition of an A-bomb modelled in our beloved game prompted a far-reaching debate. Now, think of the general public and newspaper headlines: “HIROSHIMA BECOMES A GAME!”

So. Who's on your list of Tyrants that need stopping? Who do we need to show our backbone and moral fibre to?

You really don't get it, do you? A one ton conventional bomb can be used against a ship, a factory, a depot. The smallest atomic bomb (Little Boy) had a blast force 15000 times greater than the 1 ton "Blockbuster". It had a destruction radius of more than 3 kilometres. What target are you going to use it for? How accurately do you need to aim?

The blast radius of an atomic bomb makes it useless as a tactical weapon. It is a strategic weapon, it's only use is to take out whole industrial areas or cities with one bang. The only purely military target possible would be an armada at sea, and even then it would be a strategic rather than a tactical strike.

There were a lot of atrocities in WWII. I do not want to play a concentration camp sim or a Gulag sim, neither do I wish to play a sim bombing Dresden. And I do not wish to play a sim where I am expected to kill a 100.000 civilians with one blast.

If you are to treat this from a purely historical point of view, your only targets are two Japanese cities. The mission itself will be dead boring (very high altitude, no opposition). The only thing spectacular is the blast. If you really, really feel the need to drop nuclear bombs, there is a game called "Defcon: Strategic Nuclear War" that might interest you.

Julian, Blackdog, and Friendly....truly intellectual postings. Much respect.

This thread started with the "request" for an A-bomb in SoW. It evolved into a discussion of the morality of using the A-bomb and then into a discussion on how wars are started and fought.

I seriously have not had the chance to formulate an appropriate response worthy of the responses above and the thread itself. I shall, I promise, my focus is just elsewhere at the moment.

I do know this....I now need to go research the Greek civil war...I had no idea there was such a thing.

Splitter