|
|
#1
08-21-2010, 03:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
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 this is first nuklear bomb little boy 
|
|
#2
08-22-2010, 03:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#4
08-22-2010, 04:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#5
08-22-2010, 04:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[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
|
|
#6
08-22-2010, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;176252]
Quote:
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
|
|
#7
08-22-2010, 04:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#8
08-22-2010, 05:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#10
08-22-2010, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
