Nuklear bomb

[AndyJWest]

That is an archaic use of the terms.

'Archaic', as in no longer compatable with the 'truth' you are trying to project. Words mean whatever you want them to mean, at the time you use them. If later you decide they meant something else, then that is what they always meant. Newspeak "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

[Xilon_x]

blablablablabla mosth comment politic comment my post is request the first NUKE BOMB for SOW PACIFIC SCENARY.
FIRST NUKE BOMB is important the mission is very dangerous start from island TINIAN and GO TO JAPAN whit B29.
THE FIRST NUKE BOMB yes FIRST IMPORTANT EVENT i not IGNORE THIS EVENT FROM WW2 this is HYSTORY.
ENOLA GAY BLOK STAR uaooooooooo LITTLE BOY AND FAT MAN.

[Hunden]

Originally Posted by Xilon_x

blablablablabla mosth comment politic comment my post is request the first NUKE BOMB for SOW PACIFIC SCENARY.
FIRST NUKE BOMB is important the mission is very dangerous start from island TINIAN and GO TO JAPAN whit B29.
THE FIRST NUKE BOMB yes FIRST IMPORTANT EVENT i not IGNORE THIS EVENT FROM WW2 this is HYSTORY.
ENOLA GAY BLOK STAR uaooooooooo LITTLE BOY AND FAT MAN.

Yea you tell um................ what ever it was you said !!!

[AndyJWest]

At least Xilon isn't trying to project history backwards from the present agenda of some crackpot quasi-religious cult, like some on this thread.

Xilon, I'll accept the A-Bomb - equipped B-29 takeoffs were dangerous (though from the point of view of the crew, possibly less dangerous than a conventionally-armed bomber), but the rest of the historical mission would be downright boring. If you want to simulate the missions, buy yourself a copy of FSX, start your B-29 (or any suitable substitute) from half way down the Tinian runway to simulate the dangers of takeoff, then fly to Japan and back. This will be no less realistic than a proper simulation done in IL-2 or SoW.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Splitter

We swung about as far left as we have ever been thanks to Bush's second term and are pretty far down the road to socialism.

Interesting you should mention Bush second term. The leftmost mainstream newspaper here in Norway, the Klassekampen ("the class struggle", yeah, they are really leftists) usually run some in-depth analysis of world events. What they surprisingly pointed out was that Bush Jr. ran unprecedented social reforms in his second term, actually putting him "left" of Clinton on many domestic issues (to the degree that left and right has any meaning in US politics). This surprised me, who (like most Europeans) viewed Bush Jr. as barely able to stand and talk at the same time and thoroughly in the pockets of big capital interests. It only goes to show that the world looks very different when seen from the other side of the US borders.

As for "pretty far down the road to socialism", I think a bit of travelling would do you good. I would say if Obamas administration has moved the US an inch or so closer to socialism, there are still a good couple of yards to go before you are there. Take a stroll here in Europe, and you will discover the wide ranges of social democracies that lies on the long lines from an American style corporate capitalism to actual Socialist countries. Not that there are any real socialist countries left here. Beer's on me should you visit!

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Hunden

Wow!!! you are beyond hope if you believe that. You are a product of the sixties, to many drugs and not enough hugs?

Would you care to back that up with some kind of credible sources?

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Splitter

We have a group here in American that we call the "Blame America First" brigade. Some of you would love them . Carter is pretty close to the top of that list.
...
Even the recipients have no loyalty and, as you all have pointed out, it will never be enough to change the impression of the US in some parts of the world. We are beyond broke anyway.

Carter may not have been a splendid president, but in this case (the US as stingy) the cold numbers do bear him out. Yes, Northern European states generally give from 10 to 30 times as much foreign aid per capita. Not liking Carter is not a valid reason for brushing his argument aside.

Some of the problem with US aid is the context in which it is given. Often it is given to one side over another. While the recipients may turn friendly, the other side will hate you doubly, thus (at least partially) negating the diplomatic gain from the aid. Some aid is given all too clearly to buy support or compliance (here, take these X million dollars and look the other way while we screw you over). The aid given is very often in the form of money or weapons, non of which are suited to establish a civilian infrastructure that the civilian population will fear loosing. Finally, the much stick/little carrot politics destroys much of the potential gains from the aid. Saying "here, take these dollars/weapons and support us while we beat up your neighbour, or get targeted yourself" will not buy you friends. People generally do not like to be told what to do, 3rd World countries are no different from the US in that regard, and they have a lot less to loose.

Doing away with all foreign aid would certainly be an interesting move (I suppose you exclude the military aid for Israel and Egypt from that?). I think you would discover that the aid you give actually do have an effect.

[Madfish]

Originally Posted by Hunden

Are you kidding me, I would hate to have you in a fox hole next me crying this is not fair or stop i need a time out. War has nothing to do with sports. LMAO

Look, his remark about dropping bombs meaning not being a good sport might go beyond what you perceive as modern sports. Aviation is very objective and mission based.

The point is that these weapons are dangerous. They aren't weapons at all to be honest.
What's the next step? Blowing up a whole continent? Destroying Earth? There are science fiction writings about that and in fact we DO have the technology.

Only crazy people fucked up beyond all hope would seriously embrace atomic, chemical, biological, nano or even genetical warfare.

If you have a discussion you need someone to discuss with.
If you have a fight you need someone to actually have a fight with.
If you fight a war you need an enemy to have a war with.
In other words, you need a target, it's no good to blindly kill things. Destroying random targets, plants, animals, civillians, their property etc. or even more; maybe a whole area, a country, a continent, earth. Only totally stupid mindless zombie brains would ever consider something like that.


We are gamers. We shouldn't be talking about stuff like that and have endless political debates over topics that have been researched, forgotten and twisted.
If you really believe in the crap some people here are saying then go out there, get a plane and kill innocent people just because of some "digital opinions".
The point is that this will make you nothing but a murderer and aviation was and is NOT about murdering. These cases are sad, gladly rather rare (although we see more of it in the Irak and Afghanistan again from the US) and should be avoided were possible.

I wouldn't want to play a game where I need to slaughter and kill innocent people, babies, women, elderly people even. This shouldn't be a simulation for criminals but one for people who love flying and seek the competition.

As such I wouldn't like seeing the atomic bombs being used on civilian targets. I don't think there is any excuse for these murderous weapons that could potentially turn earth into a place where no life can exist.
It wouldn't be smart to put them into the game either. This would cause a huge uproar in the media. A game where your objective is to slaughter civillian life would also be banned here in Germany anyways, for good reasons actually.

Just because mass murder, rape and other cruelties happend in wars it doesn't mean they are legitimate.

[lobosrul]

Wow, what a mess of an off topic thread this has become, I'm surprised it hasn't been locked.

Back to the original topic. No, I don't really think the atomic bombings of Japan should be modeled, because well they'd be very boring missions. Fly your B-29 for a few hours over the center of a city, then push a button. Gee thats sounds fun.

However, I find the moral objections about it very strange indeed. Its OK to model conventional strategic bombing of cities in IL-2 but nuclear ones are off limits? Yes industrial parks were targeted (by the US, UK indiscriminately bombed Germany at night) but bombs very often missed, and even if they hit their targets, civilian works were killed. So essentially your saying its OK that strategic bombing is in the game, as long as were only killing civilians a few at a time. And just forget about the fact that several times more civilians were killed by conventional bombs than nuclear. And that at least 200 times more civilians were killed by means other than nuclear bombs.

[Friendly_flyer]

The objection is that with conventional bombs you can make it a challenge to aim as precisely as possible, destroying your assigned targets and avoid unnecessary bloodshed. With a nuclear bomb there is no accuracy challenge (as long as you are withing a mile or so) and the only real target is a civilian city. I trust you ca see the difference.