Nuklear bomb

[katdogfizzow]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

And what exactly have I 'made up'? Can you provide any evidence of this, or is this you ranting?

You literally made this up:

"The term (brainwashed) amounts to little more than cold war propaganda anyway - it certainly isn't recognised by most psychologists." --AndyJWest

[Dozer_EAF19]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Quick note: A certain religion apparently argued to have the term "brainwashing" removed from the DSM IV because it was associated with the word "cult". That implies it had it's own category in the DSM III. Now it is referred to, but not mentioned specifically (which makes no sense).

Splitter

The word 'cult' is referred to, or the religion? Is this the religion that the underbelly of the Internet goes on anonymous mass protests about? Or is it the University of Chicago's economics department - I hear they could be regarded as a cult...

right, I really should be in bed, judging by that last paragraph.;..

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Splitter, your last post makes no sense. I made no analogy. You did.

BTW, Would Iranians consider a mushroom cloud over Tehran 'an attempt at genocide'? By your logic, it would seem that nuclear weapons are weapons of genocidal intent by definition. In which case, I'd have to ask why the Israelis introduced them into the middle east.

To the first part....you saw an analogy that was not being made so it now belongs to you .

Israel has nukes because their neighbors hate them, have attacked them multiple times, and many routinely speak of wiping them off the face of the earth. They have been attacked many times, but have never used nuclear weapons which they possess. I would say that speaks to their restraint and a mushroom cloud over Tehran is not going to happen unless it is a retaliatory strike.

C'mon, you know this. If Israel was going to use nukes offensively they would have done so by now. It doesn't fit your arguments, but you know it to be true (at least I hope you do).

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

I think you've quoted the wrong posting from me, Splitter (in post #160). Thanks for finding the 'brainwashing' reference in the DSM though, it clears that up anyway. Katdogfizzow's claim that brainwashing is "recognised" by the American Psychiatric Association doesn't bear up. It is an undefined phrase used once in passing, not a diagnostic term at all.

[AndyJWest]

Katdogfizzow, you suggest I made this up:

The term (brainwashed) amounts to little more than cold war propaganda anyway - it certainly isn't recognised by most psychologists.

Prove it. I've shown that the term isn't 'recognised' in the context you alleged it was - just used once, undefined, in passing. I've given a reference to it's cold-war origins. What other evidence do you need?

[Madfish]

Originally Posted by Dozer_EAF19

[...]

A life is a life. A German, Japanese or whatever isn't worth less than an American or French. For that matter a Jew obviously isn't worth less either. Being German myself I have a ton of friends in France, America and other countries. I see them as equal and they see me as equal as well. People who don't are dangerous and of the very same mindset Hitler himself had (amongst a TON of other people, historical as well as recent).

The book you quoted is, to say it nicely, worthless. First of all Adam Tooze, being a brit, certainly is highly motivated to stay neutral, right?
Further there is no excuse to counter something cruel with something even more cruel. That'd be like if the native americans now literally blow up the whole US to get their revenge. You will probably agree that this is not how intelligent humans should act. Also it just creates more pain and thus gives birth to terror (something the brits also adopted and developed during the 2nd world war, read up on it if you like).

This also reminds me of the killing of tons of stingrays by fans of "crocodile hunter" Steve Irvin. Even if something tragic happens this isn't your free ticket to cause even more tragedy to "seemingly" solve the problem.
No one really knows what's best. Not for the world, not for humankind, not for himself even. I am VERY sure of that.
We don't know if it would've been better for the Germans to never exist, for the now Americans to never travel to their continent and killing every native they could find, we don't know if it was a good idea to re-establish Isreal in the middle of an islam part of the world etc. We don't even know if it's good for humans to exist in the first place, given what they've done to the earth.

Also, why you make it your policy to judge Germany over what happened to the jews in an airplane simulator to me is a mystery and I can only assume you have reasons that are beyond logic.
Would you make the same statements if Hitler would've embraced the jews and integrated them into the army? Most of them would've fought for him as well. There have been many jews in the military, even in leading positions! What if it would have been "just a plain war"?
Killing innocents is always a crime and it is NOT excusable at all. That's implied by the term "innocent" alone. Babies, children, women, elderly people, people that are in resistance groups or just "bearing with it" while not believing into some goals... you really must have an easy life if you can judge everyone that easily and only see the numbers. Yes, killing the jews was a bad thing and quelling political opposition as well. But if you look at modern scenarios or even the cold war and all that angst the americans had... it's scary, yes, humans are scary, but I see parallels and we all have fear within us sometimes. This is not an excuse for cruelties against civilians and innocents though. You can't kill countless innocent people just to bring down a single person you may dislike, even if s/he's a criminal!

And speaking of numbers, as an economist (oh yeah, we know that these guys really do know their stuff right? ) you only see the numbers. But numbers aren't everything. Nature never thought of numbers but if you'd be strict and apply numerical logic it'd mean we are WAY too many humans anyways. Imagine 7 billion people living the modern lives we live, it's just not possible. But what solution is there? Dangerous mindset right there...
So let's not just see the numbers - instead let's only see this as a simulation game and be responsible of what can be done with it and what shouldn't be done with it.

Personally I see no benefit in missions that have the aim to slaughter many thousands of civillians and cripple them for genererations, eventually even for eternity unless their families genes get repaired by science in the future somehow.



This said I'm sure this whole topic is useless. People shouldn't argue about the freaking war anymore (unless you're like 90 years old). It's history.

Atomic weaponry is stupid and unnecessary. It polutes the world, kills everything but the target (unless your target are civillians which makes you not better than Hitler) and could in fact destroy the world. The same goes for biological weapons and chemical weapons. How anyone sane can find excuses for using these is a mystery to me and in fact reminds me of someone who's name started with H who also found a number of excuses for a witchhunt on a "race" he disliked.

To me there are no races, only animals. We are not better than a whale or a snail or a jew, colored people, white people or whatever. The war sure was different but that is no excuse for brainwashing the new generations and justifying something as atomic, biological and chemical weapons.



In the end it's all up to the devs anyways. I'm just saying that embedding a weapon like an atomic bomb should be a decision the developers should really think about VERY carefully.
Not only will it cause a huge media uprise, no, it'll turn the game into something despicable. What's next to the use of atomic weapons? Gas? chemical bombs? Biological warfare? I don't like it.
And if you're really willing to kill off a whole civilian city just to win a war I suggest you visit a doctor as soon as possible. If all the global leaders of today had that mindset, given our modern weapon technology we, the whole earths population, would be gone in less than a month.

[Hunden]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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...

Just thinking out loud.
When someone kicks in your back door, when your sleeping and kills one of your family ( Pearl Harbor), do you chase them down just so they can be arrested ( Battle of the Pacific) .Or do you crush there skull in when you catch them so they will never ever do that again (NUKE THEM !!!!). Just my 2 cents.

[WTE_Galway]

There is a lot of revisionists and apologists around concerning the motives of the allied bombing campaign. It makes it more comfortable when we look back at WWII if we can pretend it was a tactical military bombing campaign that just happened to go on for 5 years.

The allied leaders at the time had no illusions as to what its purpose was, first and foremost destroy the moral of the German people. They felt it was justified at the time, but changed their mind later in the war. This is Winston on the topic:

Winston Churchill memorandum to the British Chiefs of Staff, 28th march 1945:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land…

The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.

[Madfish]

Originally Posted by Hunden

Just thinking out loud.
When someone kicks in your back door, when your sleeping and kills one of your family ( Pearl Harbor), do you chase them down just so they can be arrested ( Battle of the Pacific) .Or do you crush there skull in when you catch them so they will never ever do that again (NUKE THEM !!!!). Just my 2 cents.

If you're a criminal of the same level as the attacker you crush his/her skull. If you're a sane person you just get them arrested.
If you kill the attacker his family might crush your skull which then provokes your family to crush one of theirs etcetera. I think this is a silly act as best and sometimes people need to control their actions if they don't want to lower themselves.

Ever heard of Kant's categorical imperative? Interesting read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

What you're proposing leads to the extinction of mankind and probably the annihilation of earth.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Hunden

Just thinking out loud.
When someone kicks in your back door, when your sleeping and kills one of your family ( Pearl Harbor), do you chase them down just so they can be arrested ( Battle of the Pacific) .Or do you crush there skull in when you catch them so they will never ever do that again (NUKE THEM !!!!). Just my 2 cents.

Double tap or Mozambique depending on their physical constitution

True answer is you render them incapable of attacking you again.

....which is why the Allies did not accept the conditions for surrender proposed by Japan. They were going to be occupied and they were going to give up the land they had taken. Nothing less and rightly so.

Splitter