|
|
|
|
#1
09-01-2010, 08:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But although you are right it is still a difference if you use them against civillians or a military target. So should we, like it was done in real life, simulate concentration camps and use atomic bombs or chemical weapons now? I'm not so sure about that. I do understand your point, and being German I might even go so far and say: yes, show the truth and don't hide the wrongdoings of the allieds under mist. But then again, sometimes a hero can be born out of evil and I believe in this case it's better to just keep silent to prevent aviation sims from suffering under such absurdly unethical weapons. What's your oppinion? [EDIT] And by the way, the attack on Bari is interesting. It could be campaign material even but it appears that no German intel on the mustard gas bombs existed so I guess it wouldn't make much sense after all. Last edited by Madfish; 09-01-2010 at 08:51 PM. 
|
|
#2
09-01-2010, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Splitter, as promised, here you go:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...l/doctrine.htm After reading the document you should realize that Israel is afraid of the existence of a nuke in its neighborhood because it would cross it's defense strategy. No one thinks the Iran would nuke Israel. But: If there was a conventional war, and one or more of the involved nations has access to nukes - NO ONE can use them. It's a nuclear pat. And that is what scares the shit out of the Israelis, they would have to rely on conventional warfare to defend themselves - and most likely fail. But there still the Samson Option...
|
|
#3
09-01-2010, 11:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you want to check out a really interesting/weird/far fetched weapon, google the "bat bomb" (hint: it has nothing to do with sexually ambiguous men in tights  ).Tokyo was never a target for the nukes, btw. The US did not want to kill the emperor. If the Emperor had died, Japan would never have surrendered. Another city was also spared even after it was on at the top of the original target list. It was spared because of cultural and historical value...apparently it also hosted the honeymoon of one of the planners. Friendly, you are on for that beer, even if you break down and make it over here  .Swiss: Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) works when the other side is rational and does not want to get a large portion of their own people killed. "Rational" doesn't match the words coming from Iran. Israel has had nukes for a long time and refrained from using them when attacked (though they had them loaded on planes from what I remember reading). Interesting read! Thanks for posting. Swiss again: Our government is vested with the responsibility of national defense by our constitution (not that we pay much attention to our constitution these days). Most of the other programs that are run through our government have nothing to do with "why" our federal government was created. The scope of our government's powers has grown far beyond what was originally envisioned by the founders. Most of the power was to reside with the states but that changed after our Civil War. Our government spends far more money each year than it takes in. The largest portion by far is for entitlement programs. Right now, 1 in 6 Americans is on some form of government assistance....which is untenable for any length of time. So if the entitlement programs were cut (even frozen at current levels) it would be easy to cut the size of government. Plus, the government interferes with business in many ways that make creating profit ore difficult. Another strange thing about our economy and government is that when we raise taxes, revenue to the government goes down. When we lower taxes, it stimulates business and revenue to the government goes up. Of course, our congress then spends the excess revenue and more on top of it lol. Basically, our government is out of control. Splitter Last edited by Splitter; 09-01-2010 at 11:57 PM.
|
|
#4
09-02-2010, 12:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Aww, the Internet ate my post. Here's v2.0)
I thought the American Business Model view is that the government shouldn't be in control? It should just defend property rights and act as referee over a free market of self-interested materialistic rationalists? And then everything is beautiful and Pareto efficient. There is a competing point of view, that profits are a byproduct of delivering goods and services rather than the other way around. I quite like it
|
|
#5
09-02-2010, 12:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sorry for mis-understanding if you actually argumented against the use and implementations of such weapons. I interpreted it differently. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I didn't want to mention the emperor though because that might lead to another debate if it would have brought down the country completely, throwing it into chaos, or if it would have led to a series of relentless attacks until the last man instead. Guessing that they saw the kamikaze I'd say they assumed the later. But we don't know, or wouldn't know. So I was just sticking to the weather and industry ;P Last edited by Madfish; 09-02-2010 at 12:55 AM. Reason: typo
|
|
#6
09-02-2010, 12:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
09-02-2010, 01:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey madfish,
The ship was delivering mustard gas shells from WWI. They were to be used in retaliation if the Germans used chemical warfare. Allied troops were often issued gas masks because the belief was that Hitler would resort to chemical warfare eventually. I think both sides learned, in WWI, that chemical warfare was not as easy as it sounded. Lots of things tended to go wrong. The "bat bomb" was an American program that strapped incendiary bomblets to actual bats. They would be dropped over Japanese cities and roost (do bats roost? I dunno, say hide lol) in the roofs and eaves of Japanese buildings. When the timer ran out, the incendiary would ignite (poor bat) and start a fire. Thousands of small fires would have erupted almost simultaneously in a city and it would have been almost impossible to keep all those fires from getting out of control. I think the war ended before it could be deployed or that funding got diverted. Dozer: Yes, minimal government involvement in business (and in people's lives in general) was what the founding fathers envisioned. They are probably rolling over in their graves right now seeing how badly we have mangled their intentions lol. And as for this frequent poster, no A-bomb for me. I've spent a lot of time wondering what the crew must have (or might have) been thinking, I don't really need a simulated bombing run to clarify things for me. As someone else said, it would be more of an X-Plane exercise than a mission for a combat flight sim. Splitter Last edited by Splitter; 09-02-2010 at 01:19 AM.
|
|
#8
09-02-2010, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
09-02-2010, 02:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There was a point where New Zealand was more "American" than America where it came to economic policy. This was after the collapse of the interventionist Keynesian regime that spent large sums on giant steelmills that made a huge loss, which in turn was after the collapse caused by Britain joining the EEC and not buying NZ's exports any more. The hyper-American free-marketeers dismantled the state as far as possible, privatising everything, then there was a third collapse symbolised by the loss of electrical supply to Auckland because the distributor cut maintenance to boost profits until their network broke. I'd like to learn more of NZ's troubled history, it's grisly but fascinating.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
