Nuklear bomb

[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]

Julian, Blackdog, and Friendly....truly intellectual postings. Much respect.

This thread started with the "request" for an A-bomb in SoW. It evolved into a discussion of the morality of using the A-bomb and then into a discussion on how wars are started and fought.

I seriously have not had the chance to formulate an appropriate response worthy of the responses above and the thread itself. I shall, I promise, my focus is just elsewhere at the moment.

I do know this....I now need to go research the Greek civil war...I had no idea there was such a thing.

Splitter

[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.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by julian265

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.

yes well .. this is what Göring had to say on the matter:

Originally Posted by Interview during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

Göring:
Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Interviewer: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

In reality this whole thread is totally pointless.

1. There are ALREADY nuclear weapons available in IL2 for anyone who can be bothered to Google around and find the download.

2. As SOW is based around the Battle of Britain its totally the wrong time period for SOW.

[zauii]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

yes well .. this is what Göring had to say on the matter:




In reality this whole thread is totally pointless.

1. There are ALREADY nuclear weapons available in IL2 for anyone who can be bothered to Google around and find the download.

2. As SOW is based around the Battle of Britain its totally the wrong time period for SOW.

Its a mod, so why is it relevant to the original product?
Anyway you're correct regarding he 2nd point tho, no need for nukes i BOB.

But the moral debate is just ridiculous , accept it as a game no matter what. I never understood the controversy surrounding MW2 and the Airport scene, the game barley has blood effects... yet that mission blossomed up in media like hell for killing civilians...

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Splitter

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.

...

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.

I quite agree that North Vietnam was the agressors, though anyone knowing a bit of Vietnam history will know why. Did you know that Ho Chi Min wrote a constitution that was almost a blueprint of the US constitution and tried to get the US to back a peaceful resolution of the French colonial rule in the 1950ies? The US asked him to sod off and solve his own problems.

No matter how clearly the South Vietnamese was the victim of aggression, the Vietnam war very quickly turned into a dark jungle hike, shooting at targets you didn't quite see and hope they were the enemy. Vietnam was not a "good war" in any way. The objectives were vague, friends and enemies likewise. And then came the pictures of My Lai. If you compare that to the fight in Europe in 1944/45 it is no wonder the US public was willing to accept high death rates in one war but not in the other.

And no, the coalition do not have the capability to win the Afghan war. The only way the can do that with firepower, is to bomb and bomb and bomb, and for every bomb, the coalition will get more enemies. To win then, they will have to bomb Afghanistan until there's nothing left, not even goats or trees. I don't think you can really call leaving a country a barren wasteland of broken and charred rock a victory. Whatever chance the coalition had at winning the war is gone now. Remember, the Soviet tried for 10 years, and they did not have any qualms about accepting losses. They still had to withdraw in the end. It has nothing to do with "moral fiber".

The "degradation of moral fiber" you talk about is an illusion. If mainland US was attacked today by an enemy capable of taking and holding large parts of the US, Americans would rise as one, and accept losses in their thousands, just like any other nation. That Americans are unwilling to unquestionable support faraway wars with unclear objectives fought for obscure reasons is not a sign of moral degradation. It is a sign of people taking moral standpoints.

There are historians who will tell you the Byzantine Empire fell because of "moral degradation", that the richness somehow made them unable to fight. If so, you would expect the richest of them all, the emperor, to bug off when the Muslim hordes invaded the city. He did not, he donned his armour and fell defending the walls with his soldiers. Do you think your countrymen would do any less?

[Blackdog_kt]

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

I more or less agree, but that goes both ways and as Julian said, it can lead to negative outcomes as much as positive ones.

For example, the same rhetoric can be applied to the population of a middle eastern nation: "The western allies attacked Iraq on the pretext of WMDs, which has been proven false, hence we're suspicious that it was done for other reasons. How long should we sit idly by and watch while they compartmentalize the invasion of neighboring friendly states in easy-to-chew-off chunks and how long before it's our turn? Maybe we should all strike back at once if we want to have a chance at overwhelming them and stopping it?"

Of course, this is usually presented with videos featuring traditional music, civilian victims and kamikaze attacks supposedly punishing those responsible for the aforementioned civilian deaths, but that is just the propaganda topping on the plate. It has to carry the local flavor to attract willing participants, just like the western equivalent features the allure of continuing the good guy tradition standing up against tyranny since the two world wars. Colonialist opression and post-WWII violence from the "good guys" against much of Africa and Asia is conveniently brushed aside, just like the middle eastern guys do with their own wrong-doings against others. However, the underlying theme in both cases is the above example part in quotes, which is surprisingly common regardless of who it comes from. People are scared of each other, in many cases with good reason. Too much complacency can bite one in the behind, as much as too much paranoia can get one in uneccessary trouble. The hard part is balancing these insticts in a way that ensures one's survival without going overboard with pre-emptive bloodshed that usually earns one enemies for entire generations.

As you have correctly stated, it's always much more complicated than black and white

On the topic of the Korean war, it was indeed a UN sanctioned operation. As for Vietnam however, i think i have a slightly different reading of the situation. From what i've read, the Vietcong problem was a local insurgency. It relied a lot on the freedom of moving supplies through North Vietnam and neighboring states sympathetic to their cause but it was not an invasion, it was south Vietnamese locals turned guerrillas.

Much like it was during the civil war in my country (45-49, right after WWII) between communist guerrillas and the official Greek government forces returning from exile as part of the allied forces in the N.Africa, the rebels received safe haven and supply routes from neighboring communist states like Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Had the Greek government army attacked these countries, it's safe to assume that the situation would have escalated.
Instead, they focused strictly on COIN operations and relocating the rural population to metropolitan areas under government control, which denied the guerrilas their source of support in the countryside (supplies, food and recruits, either from willing sympathisers or by force). This cut off the guerrilla's lifeline inside the country to such an extent that outside help was a non-issue, especially since the states helping them preferred to stay covert than get actively mixed-up and risk all out war.

The American strategy in Vietnam did follow along these routes as far as operations within S.Vietnam were concerned, with the added benefit of mobile air-lifted armies. In fact, i think the US tactically won every single major engagement they fought, or most of them. Where they went wrong was that they attacked the neighboring VC sympathisers, effectively dragging them into more actively supporting the VC and broadening the pool of enemies. This is a bad move if the other guy is willing to bleed more than you do and as history has shown, you can win the battles on the tactical level, come ahead in the body-count contest and yet still lose the war on the whole. That's essentially what's happening in the current wars as well, where instead of isolating the problem into easy to tackle, set-piece situations, there is an overwhelming urge to go overkill on any kind of opposition all at once, which only serves to lengthen the list of people with an axe to grind. A recent example were the battles in Faluja, where a city that was governed by an openly pro-American council turned into a hotbed of anti-occupation activity, mainly due to ignorance of the local customs and socially accepted practices.

It might sound funny or hard to juggle, but in COIN situations it's things like that that count the most: knowing how the locals think and what is likely to get on their nerves and turn them into raving fanatics overnight is far more beneficial to knowing how to call a fire support mission, not to mention far less costly in lives on both sides.

It's pretty interesting how the British were always better versed in this type of warfare, in fact it's due to them being the main advisors of the Greek army during most of the civil war that the local guerrillas were defeated.