Nuklear bomb

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Hunden

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.

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.

[Hunden]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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.

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

[winny]

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.

[Furio]

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.

[zauii]

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.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Furio

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.

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.

[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