Nuklear bomb

[Splitter]

[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;176252]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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

Yes, this.

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

[rakinroll]

[QUOTE=Splitter;176260]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Those bombs saved Allied soldier's lives ...
Splitter

Oh my god...

[Splitter]

Oh my god... [/QUOTE]

Please elaborate.

Splitter

[rakinroll]

It is open enough i think.

[Splitter]

Not really.

Should we take that to mean that you think it was unnecessary and did not, in fact, ultimately save lives on both sides?

Splitter

[Friendly_flyer]

1) There were no atomic bombs in 1940

2) Even if it were, or if the SoW:BoB had been a 1945 Pacific sim, I still would not want an atomic bomb included. I don't want a long, boring, unopposed and uneventful mission to destroy a whole city and kill thousands, I want to do daring raids against agaist pinpoint targets.

Let's face it: From a combat flight sim point of view the two atomic bomb missions were extraordinarily boring. They flew too high for being in any real danger from flack or fighters. The aiming of the bombs weren't really that important (though the Hiroshima bomb aimer did a very good job). The flying and navigation was nothing special. The only interesting aspect of the two missions is the immense destructive power of the bombs.

I play this game to fly and occasionally shoot. If I wanted to play God, I'll fire up my old Black & White.

[Azimech]

According to Noam Chomsky, the soviets were already involved in peace talks with the japanese and Truman ordered to drop the bombs anyway, sort of warning the USSR that the USA really had the bomb as part of political leverage.

Yes the japanese armies have done unspeakable atrocities to civilians and captured military personnel but that would've never justified to use two of the worst machines of suffering to punish the japanese people who were just like the german people hostages of their own government.

Dropping them are two of humanity's biggest mistakes ever. Actually all bombing of civilians in any case is dreadful and unethical like all wars are. The fact that I fly a military flight sim is because of the fun fighting other planes. I never bomb cities.

Don't forget Oppenheimer's words: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."