Nuklear bomb

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by julian265

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

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.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

The cruelest thing that happened in the war is what started it.

The invasion of Poland?

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

2,402 personnel were killed[9] and 1,282 were wounded.

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.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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 Harbuor 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.

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

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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.

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.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

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

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Splitter

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.

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?

[Xilon_x]

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_flyer]

Originally Posted by Xilon_x

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?

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.

I ask only one repplica historical and 'important.EVENT
This is an important historical event that changed the way of war.

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.

[Splitter]

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

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Splitter

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.