posted 02-22-99 01:27 PM ET     

I should seen it then. Cause in a few turns
later Yang looses no less than 3 Planet Busters on me. Thankfully I had 3 orbital defence satalites built as an after thought (I had a couple cities maxed and decided to use them for SOMETHING constructive). I successfully defended them at the loss of two OD sats.

Well if Yang wants to mess with the Bull he's gonna get the horn. I hurried a PB and set it's destination to a convenient spot in Hive territory where 4 LARGE cities were within blast range. A hole big enough to drive Nexxus through opened up. That'l show 'em.

EVERY FACTION TURNED ON ME! Now this aint a surprise. The surprise came when all the factions issued a truce with Yang so together they could get a piece of me!

THIS IS THE SAME YANG THAT PUSHED THE DANG BUTTON IN THE FIRST PLACE! I successfully defended his FIRST STRIKE and retalliated! SO WHY IS ONLY MY BUTT IN THE RINGER!

I love this game. Let me say that first. It models cold war behavior pretty well EXCEPT when it goes from cold to HOT. SHOULDN'T YANG
GET THE GLOBAL SPANKING FIRST. Heck I should be given a dang MEDAL! With a single burst I rendered a PB weilding superpower to a blubbering child!

You fire nukes at me I fire nukes BACK. Aint that what the cold war stand-off was about?

posted 02-22-99 01:36 PM ET         

I know what you mean. Playing as Morgan, Santiago got me into a war with Miriam (actually Miriam initiated it because of my friendship with Santiago), only to make a truce with Miriam 10 turns later. Now, one would expect that Miriam could find it in her heart to clear me of vendetta status (an innocent pulled into their stupid tiff) if she could do the same for Santiago. Answer is..... NOPE! The same old tired cliche is true : Choose your wars (and the friends who may start those wars) carefully. One thing is for sure, you cannot have lasting friendships with all 6 factions. If they don't tear you apart first, they will try and tear apart your friends and make you choose one side or the other. The best one can hope for is to find 2 or 3 factions that complement your political/economic/value structure and align with them i.e. Democracy / Green / Knowledge for the Peacekeeper / Gaians / and University. YMMV, on that last statement.

Regards,

posted 02-22-99 02:16 PM ET            

Once I shifted my economy towards a war footing and began to take a bite out of the Believers, the Believers and the Gaians formed a pact and attacked me from both sides simultaniously...The game finally ended when Deirdre was able to convince all the other factions to support her as Supreme Leader.

posted 02-22-99 02:18 PM ET            

Point is, global politics aren't very simple. If I were going to boil it down, though, I'd say that the country on top is usually the one most hated. The US, for example. Win a nuclear war, or a Cold War, and everyone decides you're to blame for everything since you're on top.

posted 02-22-99 02:42 PM ET         

But the total, unanimous, uncoditional decision by all other factions to declare Vendetta and me a war criminal is a little harsh. The decision should be weighted by the fact I had not fired the first shot and this was a limited retaliation to an otherwise FULL STRIKE.

I don't demand anything from Firaxis. I love this dang game. This game is DEEP. Thats why I'm a little surprised the game mechanics don't seem to handle this paticular senerio
more delicately or (fairly?).

I mean, if a guy tried to burn down your house would your friends blame you if you blew up the same guys car? Maybe they would have said "you could have handled it a little better" but I doubt your friends would have CONDEMED you. Hell the may have EVEN HELPED!

posted 02-22-99 05:24 PM ET            

SMAC has given a reason to enter into pacts - they work! I had one game as the Hive, had a pact with PK and UoP, the PK gave me tech for free (they came along and offered it to me) and when I convinced the Gaians to join I won a diplomatic victory (The Hive, Fundementalist/Green/Knowledge)

posted 02-24-99 04:16 PM ET            

If a CPU player uses a PB, will the other AI players all attack the offender?

Hasn't happened in a game with me yet, so I'm curious.

posted 02-25-99 07:07 PM ET            

Don't want to get all legal here. But I want to cite a concept of the english common law.

Just because somebody J-walk, doesn't give you the right to run him down with your car. That's call Last Clear Choice. In this situation, GreasePig, you have a clear choice NOT to use the nuke. You propobly still will win without the nukes. That's while using it here is still a atrocity.

I like the way Firaxis handle this.

posted 02-25-99 10:42 PM ET         

You want to make comparisons huh?
(IN THIS PATICULAR GAME)
First off Yang should not be compaired to North Korea. The Hive (in this game)is the Soviet Union. They have MORE land, MORE population, and a LARGER military AND THEY HATE DEMOCRACY which is what the rest of the factions are in this game, that he hasn't already conquored (Gains, UN sissys and me UOP). If USSR lanched on the US ...... what do you think would have happened?????

But... lets look at your senario ( North Korea ). You'd be a dang fool to beleive the US would NOT respond to an ICBM attack by North Korea! It may not be with ICBMS but possibly TAC nukes on they're remaining sites.

LETS EXPLORE ONE MORE GENERAL SENARIO. I hope you can except my point of view.

(We use generalizations here)
Say your a country with nukes and a "starwars" type defense similiar to the type represented in the game. Many countries have allied with you because, you know, your a heck of guy, your big, your a lovey democracy, and you have nukes. Now say another BAD country launches NUKES on you. your SATs kick on and blam! your out of danger. You DON'T fire back because your a better person than he.

Well, now because this BAD country can't seem to hurt you directly he decides to nuke your allies.

NOW YOU TELL ME WHO WILL BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL!

I can here it now!!!
< UN COUNCIL MEETING >

Chairman: "So, Can you tell the represenatives of the few surviving counties WHY oh WHY you did not use your nuclear capability to neutrilize an obvious threat to you and your ALLIES way of life?????"

YOU:
" cause im a better man? "

TO george,

J-walker huh? What if that j-walker was also pointing a shotgun at your head.

I'd personally run him down.

posted 02-25-99 11:41 PM ET            

Second: ANYONE who uses one will be attacked... Retailitory<SP?> attack or not.

posted 02-26-99 01:08 AM ET            

You said that using a nuclear weapon is the "stupidest thing in the world".

First, I agree that its use today would be a huge gamble, because the threat of retaliation from any number of countries exists, but don't tell the 2 million WWII veterans who would have had to invade mainland Japan by 'conventional means' that using a nuke is the stupidest thing in the world. There are (were) honest, good reasons for its development, and its coincident cans of worms. If we hadn't, someone would have. The Germans tried, the Japanese tried, and the Russians eventually got it right years later.

Dya think the UK might have dropped one on Germany if they'd had one developed in secret in 1940? Sure they would. Right in downtown Berlin.

Would bombing the Nazis into submission have been the "stupidest thing in the world"?

Agreed, it does massive damage in all sorts of ways -- direct, indirect, and for a long time, but remember that there was a reason we designed it in the first place.

The sad thing is that the US and USSR did more collateral (read: non-immediate deaths and enviro-damage) damage just TESTING the things than the two actually dropped in anger.

But today, you can drive your car right up to Ground Zero of the first Trinity test out here in the desert, there's a plaque there, and I believe that people have repopulated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, tho with radically elevated rates of cancer.

Just wanted to pro-actively rebut those who might want to question our use of the bomb 54 years ago.

And, like in SMAC, being the ONLY one with a PB is a singularly good thing.

It's when everyone gets 'em that everyone gets on edge...

Bottom line: Stupid or not, Nukes are simply the biggest sticks on the block.

When I look at a map of the Middle East, and see tiny little Israel there, it's a wonder that it's existed as long as it has. With all those bitter countries all around it (I'm not taking sides here, just trying to paint the picture), I gotta believe that having a few nukes hasn't hurt Israel's viability as a nation, and has, in fact, helped them survive.

Without nukes and US support, countries would be lined up to invade Israel.

In SMAC, it's just soooo nice to have one parked near a particularly hostile faction, if only for the psychic benefit.

"Hey buddy, don't keep sending those silly CONVENTIONAL missiles over here, or you'll get a real big surprise in your four largest cities..."

I just wish that SMAC would have all enemy AI's declare Vendetta on factions that even TRY to use PB's. I had Miriam lob two at me (why? I'm just being a good CEO Morgan...) that were caught by my Orbital Defense Pods, and no one delcared Vendetta on her, so far as I could tell. Now, when I lobbed two right back at her, and showed her how a Planet Buster is done, well, hey, now no one likes me...

I also dislike the fact that being the only one with a PB doesn't make anyone cower. They all just blah blah blah about how everyone will help THEM if I happened to use one.

That argument works until I realize that everyone else is already Vendetta'ed against me, and none have a PB like me.

posted 02-26-99 10:34 AM ET         

When some sycopath decides he doesn't care and comes a knocking. YOU would be a fool not to call his hand. Because at this point there
are some very basic facts that no longer need
proven.

1. There is syco out there lobbing nukes reguardless of YOUR humanitary beliefs.

2. You MUST stop him with using the swiftest means possible. And that means is (in this game and in RL) Nukes or PBs.

I never said it was a good thing to use them. But when the ball is dropped you have to look out for yourself. There aint nobody else thats gonna do it.

JAFO has restated my original point. Why doesn't the faction who originally uses PB's take the global spanking?? This was my only question.

Successful delivery or not, what the hell differance does it make? So you think the council should continue to let the aggressor lobb PBs everywhere? Whats the logic in that?
"Wait till he hits someone THEN spank him."
That makes absolutely no sense.

posted 02-26-99 05:40 PM ET         

Level 1 would be any attempted use of them.
Level 2 would be successful use of them.

That way, when UOP was attacked unsuccessfully, there would be an immediate reaction by the other factions against the Hive. It may not be as strong as the reaction against the successful use, (no pictures of burned cities on the vids) but still a recognition that the Hive had just committed an atrocity.

The next question is what should happen when the nukes are successfully used. There will be a stronger reaction than against the unsuccessful use. So, if factions are your allies in a war against another faction that has committed an atrocity, what should happen if you commit your own atrocity.

posted 02-26-99 06:11 PM ET         

1) It ended the war much sooner. This is a FACT accepted by both sides. Japan's leadership may have thought all was lost but still debated the "unconditional" surender terms offered by the U.S. The bomb just helped them think a little faster. It also saved lives on both sides. How can anyone deny that?

2) The U.S. needed to realistly test this weapon. There were still officials that doubted its significance and funding. The US was at war with a fanatical Japan. A Japan (from the US point of view) that may not surrender. A Japan that was sending young boys on suicidal Kamakazi attacks. When is there a better time or place?

3) The US HAD to show the world (namely the Soviet Union) that we had a working nuclear weapon. If you recall your history, the USSR was not LIBERATING anybody when they were pushing back the Axis. They were annexing. We knew this.. so did the world. The cold war had aready started.

I can't beleive some folks think this was pure evil. The simple fact is it saved lives on both sides. Besides, I WOULD NOT TRADE ONE MAN FOR A THOUSAND ENEMY LIVES.

If you think this is heartless and brutal then I would like to hear how you would explain to the mothers of all those would be dead boys, why this was better than dropping those two bombs. Its a cold s.o.b that would prefer to send those boys to slaughter instead of ending the war completely.

God, Family, Country. There were never 3 more important things

I'm hardly ever this serious

posted 02-26-99 08:36 PM ET         

1. The last major Strategic Bombing Survey conducted by the Army Air Force was already predicting a Japanese defeat BEFORE the A-Bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were looking at a November date for surrender.

2. The Japanese WERE ready to surrender pending negotiation about the continuing existence of the Japanese Imperial line. Since the US wanted unconditional surrender, this was difficult. However, the Japanese Emperor still exists today because he was used by the Americans to help lead his people during the American occupation of Japan. So... the point about unconditional surrender seems strangely moot considering the historical circumstances.

3. Even the best arguments here (testing the Bomb, saving American soldiers) are belied by the second bomb on Nagasaki. How can anyone expect a nearly-defeated country to react to the demolition of one of its cities by a new and terrible weapon within 3 days? Nagasaki was bombed very quickly without a strategic assessment of its effect on Japanese leaders.

4. Stalin already knew of the Bomb's existence from the spies in England. He reacted in an unsurprised fashion when Roosevelt popped it on him at Potsdam. They had already started to factor in the atomic bomb in their deliberations and within a few years, would have it too.

It's important to point out that even with the Bomb in the hands of Americans, the Russians still were able to annex all of Eastern Europe. I think this highlights the ineffectiveness of such a weapon on the battlefield. You can't occupy a country with a nuke nor can you use it as part of your military plans because of the difficulty in controlling the post-blast effects.

Room for political maneuvering gets limited when all you have is a choice between peace and total war.

posted 02-26-99 09:48 PM ET         

What do you mean by "strategic bombing survey"? Was Japan waving pretty white flag when they were taking pictures a city burned out city?

posted 02-26-99 10:56 PM ET         

Hey bud, I would like to address some points you made.

1. The last major Strategic Bombing Survey conducted by the Army Air Force ........

Of couse we knew. Hell, everyone knew we were winning at that point. You forgetting someting VERY important. The longer a war lasts, the more money, and most importantly the more LIVES are lost. If not American then Japaneise. You aparently have some statisics. Do you realize more lives were lost to conventinal incendiary bombing than were ever lost to both nukes? How do justify killing more than less.

2. The Japanese WERE ready to surrender pending negotiation about the continuing existence of the Japanese Imperial line....

What does unconditional surrender mean to you? We expected no less from Hitler. Would you have prefered Hitler to retain his Socialist line? We elected to keep the Emperor simply to quell the FANATICAL masses. Come on man, you need a better excuse.

3. Even the best arguments here (testing the Bomb, saving American soldiers) are belied by the second bomb on Nagasaki. How can anyone expect a nearly-defeated country to react to the demolition of one of its cities by a new and terrible weapon within 3 days...........

If you get kicked in the gut, cut above the eye, get your arm broken, leg broken, and when you finally get up AGAIN, you get your face smashed in, WHEN DO YOU REALIZE your getting your arse kicked? huh?

How much time do you think we should give them. Beside we were also playing a little poker. We were a few weeks if not months from delivering anymore nukes. What we portrayed to the enemy was simple SURRENDER! NO? BOOM! SURRENDER! NO? BOOM! Luckily for the Japs they surrendered. God help 'em if we invadaded.

4. Stalin already knew of the Bomb's existence from the spies in England. He reacted in an unsurprised fashion when Roosevelt popped it on him at Potsdam.....

Do you also realize that he really didn't think much of the technology anyway... UNTIL it was used. After which he stepped up his espionage and received ground breaking info from an individual on the US team.

But.. your right about the fact we could not contain the USSR completely. Would you have us bomb them too? After the war, as USSR continued to expand, it enveloped other countries. Countries it knew we were not willing to go to nuclear war over. It was still alarming however. THIS WAS THE COLD WAR.

Also your right. You can't "occupy" a country with a nuke. BUT you can damn sure prevent its occupation! Need proof.. look at West Germany or South Korea or more importantly the Cuban stand-off.

Now I'm drunk
GreasyPig

posted 02-26-99 11:05 PM ET         

I can see your point. But..

I also served my country by way of the regular army.

And in 1945, 1 million Japs wouldn't be worth my buddy in the next foxhole.

In desert storm.. 10 million Iraqies weren't worth my buddy in the next foxhole.

I hope you can see MY point. You don't have to be there to understand.

posted 02-27-99 02:21 AM ET            

(by the way I am proudly a US Army veteran,
1st Infantry Div, the Big Red One.)

At the time we were fire bombing the hell out
of Japan and it was only a matter of time
before they surrendered.

The bombing was somewhat racially motivated and definatly direct retailiation for Pearl
Harbor.

A dimenstration of power for the New World
Order of the last half of the 20th century.

To their credit other nuclear powers have never dropped The Bomb. America has and that
proves we could do it again. No other nation
can say that and that frightens (as it should) alot of humanity.

Justify it as you might, the A-bomb/H-bomb
was/is an atrocity towards humanity.

QS

posted 02-27-99 02:44 PM ET            

As for the AI model; it's perfect. Consider:
"Our top story of the day is an unconfirmed report of possible missile launches in the Soviet Union. Soviet officials deny this, and there have been no reports of damage to Nato countrie..."
"Wait! This just in... The USA has nuked Moscow! Millions of dead are reported and the radioactive cloud is drifting toward Europe. My God! This is horrible! An unprecidented act of mass genocide!"

Do you see the point? A PB shot down is only a possible disaster averted. Just one more news story. A PB delivered is an atrocity.
So what if Yang was a nuclear-armed madman who would have destroyed the world if you hadn't taken him out? The Japanese killed tens of millions of Chinese civilians and uncounted millions of other nationalities; more Chinese were being killed in occupied China every day by the Japanese, than either Atom bomb killed. Every day. Yet to the twitterpates of the world, the Japanese are the heroes, and the USA is the villian.
Everbody hates the winner.

posted 02-27-99 03:27 PM ET         

Of couse we knew. Hell, everyone knew we were winning at that point. You forgetting someting VERY important. The longer a war lasts, the more money, and most importantly the more LIVES are lost. If not American then Japaneise. You aparently have some statisics. Do you realize more lives were lost to conventinal incendiary bombing than were ever lost to both nukes? How do justify killing more than less.

That argument is comparing apples to oranges. First off, it took several years of incendiary bombing to reach the figure you are talking about. Secondly, the atomic bomb is more indiscriminate than incendiary bombs. Most nations can claim (as America still does today with Iraq) that civilian lives killed in bombing raids are collateral damage. You cannot claim that with an atomic bomb. The Nagasaki bomb was placed to do as much damage as possible to non-industrial, residential housing.

As for unconditional surrender... I must point out that the American govt already knew that unconditional surrender was what was making the Japanese fight in a fanatical fashion. Don't forget that unconditional surrender as a working phrase was redefined several times as the war with Japan progressed. It's primarily a political statement outlining the goals of the war for the American people but unworkable when you consider it as a military goal. Many Americans including State Dept. officials knew that unconditional surrender needed work and they knew what it would mean to Japan. If you say that 1000 Japanese lives were not worth a single American, and you knew that an invasion would be very costly, then why not reconsider what "unconditional surrender" means? If for the price of a few words and the insignificant place of an American puppet Emperor, you can certainly not have to drop the Bomb and not commit to an invasion. After all, what did unconditional surrender mean to Italy earlier in the war? Or Germany later? Even a seemingly absolutist phrase leaves room for maneuvering.

Here's a paragraph from the acceptance of "unconditional surrender":

From the moment of surrender, the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.

Obviously then, the US government realized that it had to deal with an Emperor or deal with no one. After all, the same issue that applies to Saddam Hussein applied in this one, who will be the leader of the conquered people?

posted 02-27-99 04:32 PM ET            

IMO the US did not need to invade Japan, I
believe the operation would have been called
"Olympic". The casualty projections were
indeed high. We could have probably stayed
off shore in Okinawa and fire bombed Japan
into submission.

My point was that the dropping of the A-Bomb
was politically movitated, to make a statement. In the context of the War this
was really the final of many atrocities.

I stand corrected, but let us pray it never
comes to that again. Good argument hellrazor

posted 02-27-99 04:41 PM ET            

I'm definitely with hellrazor on this one. For the life of me I don't see the difference between people killed with a bullet or a conventional bomb and those killed in a nuclear firestorm. It's artificial to see a distinction, IMO.

We killed more Japanese when we firebombed Tokyo and destroyed more square miles than the TOTAL of Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.

I'm not comfortable with killing ANYBODY with ANY sort of weapon, but I don't think I have the right to second guess those who made the decisions. I've struggled a great deal with myself to try and determine what Christ would have done in this sort of situation and after all these years I still can't say I know.

I don't bring up Christ for any other purpose than to show where I'm coming from and I'm not about to drag religion into this. The basic dilemma is what does one do with an evil person/government that is intent on committing evil acts?

posted 02-27-99 04:55 PM ET            

I am 50 years removed from the events and
mindset that preceded dropping the Bomb.
You may be correct, after all Hitler attempted to bomb the UK into submission( or
a treaty) and all that did was strengthen
Churchill's resolve and so the English.

In retrospect, especially with the dropping
of the 2nd Bomb on Nagasaki it looks like
the US was saying "Halt this insanity, there
is a new king" not necessary a bad thing at
the time.

I just have a problem with the motivations
when polititians and the military are in
bed together.

posted 02-27-99 08:22 PM ET            

Anyway, I don't know the details about the nukes dropped over Japan, so I'm not going to join the discussion. Just a little remark.

posted 02-27-99 10:55 PM ET            

also, one of the arguments stated, was that the mass vendetta was appropriate because of the destruction caused on earth by nukes. Shouldn't the mass vendetta be called on the faction that BUILDS one?

but aside from all the political hoopla, if a country lob'd a nuck at the US, and it was shot down, the US would have proof before launching a counter strike. but I Think that would not be the course of action. it would be more damaging to the country that launched the nuke,to be made a laughing stock for attempting such an act, only to have their missle shot down.
what would have happened in WWII if Japan would have shot down the planes before reaching their target site?

posted 03-01-99 02:06 PM ET            

It's popular these days to disparage the wartime characterization of the Japanese as "racist." Racism certainly guided some U.S. perceptions, such as the early view that the Japanese had poor night vision. But the view that they were tenacious and brutal opponents was based on the objective reality of the Rape of Nanking, the kamikaze attacks, and the defense of Iwo Jima. The final proof of this point lies in the fact that their former subjects in China, Vietnam, and Korea, who can scarcely be charged with anti-Asian prejudice, still view the Japanese as brutal oppressors long after most American have forgiven them.

posted 03-01-99 08:05 PM ET         

Is'nt killing anyone murder?

If a bomb kills a soldier, isn't it, in it's basic form murder? Justified murder?

But if a bomb kills a civilian its outright murder? Aint murder murder?

When you look at a country's "readiness" for war. You need to look at all that country's available resourses. Right?

raw materials (oil,coal,iron,wood,ect..)
manufacturing (foundries,refineries,assembly plants,ect..)
Agriculture
Military strength

Population... Educated and uneducated, this is one of the most important resourse a country can have in a war of attrition, which of course is what was fought in 1945. All others are in all ways supported by this ONE resource.

So I have a hard time understanding some peoples "1990's politicaly correct" way of making a clear and definite distinction of civilian and military targets of 1945. This, so called clear, right and worng line.

A country has NO production if it has no civilians. A country cannot enlist if it has no civilians.

I am not condoning the killing of civilians. Instead, I'm trying to give a possible reason why it happens and happened. In total, all-out, world war, you could possibly say there are no real inocent civilians.

In retrospect you COULD say the bombing whether conventionally or by nuclear means is justified by its results.

Germany would have never capitulated in 1945 had it not been for carpet bombing of its major cities.

Japan probably would not have surrendered had it not been for the bombings.

Its all about a counties readiness, willingness, and means, to wage war effectively. You deprive or even disrupt her of any of the above resources and you have taken the next step in her defeat.

posted 03-01-99 10:57 PM ET         

The American government knew that the Japanese government was ready to surrender. The Strategic Bombing Survey in early 1945 already predicted surrender. The US govt knew exactly what the Japanese was sending to its foreign envoys since they had already broken Japanese codes. Remember this was the kind of information that allowed the Allies to beat the Germans time and again in Libya, the Eastern Front and during Normandy.

So... the United States already knew what was going on after the first A-bomb was going on and how surprised the Japanese were by the events at Hiroshima. They could easily have delayed dropping the second one. However dropping bombs was on a timetable: the order to drop bombs essentially said, keep dropping bombs until they surrender.

As for the Emperor, the British Foreign Office as well as the US government knew quite well how important he was to Japan's government.

On a further note, I'm a little troubled at the glaring errors in a lot of people's recounting of events during this period of history. Many of the arguments rely on the assumption that the Japanese were not going to surrender and that the US couldn't have known their intentions since their leaders were madmen. Both assertions are simply false since we had already decrypted their communications. We could even now the mad intentions of madmen. Yet, the Japanese government was hardly mad, it was convening over the surrender issue when they got the news that Nagasaki had been bombed. Don't forget, the United States had almost complete control of the situation after Hiroshima. Events were not going to be dictated to the United States by the Japanese government. A delay of a mere week would have been more than enough to settle the war in a better manner.

What's worse is that Truman in subsequent speeches kept inflating the numbers (which many of the pro-Bomb people here parrot) of the numbers of Americans he saved. Certainly, even he realized the momentous decision he made and could hardly be the kind of person to forget how many people he originally thought he saved. It started at around 200k and moved to half a million. By the time it was all over, it was millions on both sides. It's quite pathetic and indicative of the whitewashing of the event in American society. Truman even made sure to omit parts of his personal journals (esp. one sentence covering his attempt to use the Bomb to intimidate the Soviet Union). You see, Truman wanted to present his decision in the context of war not one of intimidation. So... those of you who wish to argue the Bomb in terms of its geopolitical usage viz. the Cold War would know that Truman did not consider that a politically and morally viable justification of his decision.

As for those who don't seem to acknowledge the change in moral degree that nuclear weapons entail (killing a person with a gun is the same as dropping the Bomb on them), I guess that's too bad for you. I suggest that the end result of a nuclear weapon is more lasting than a mere conventional conflict. The radioactive side effects are still being dealt with in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People who weren't even alive during the war still have to deal with its consequences.

It's wasteful in a way that lacks military purpose. The military does not regard nuclear weapons as a useful battlefield tool. You can't occupy terrain with it and its use renders the battlefield extremely difficult to operate in. Therefore, it's only use is as a terror weapon - naked ferocity on the tip of a missile. It's not a gun, it's used as a tool of foreign policy and it's notoriously poor at that since even its appearance can put you on the path to nuclear brinksmanship (see Cuba 1962).

posted 03-02-99 12:25 AM ET            

Since you stated that you see a difference in dying 30 years later from the after effects of an atomic bomb, I ask you; Who would you rather be?

1. A German civilian sucked into a burning building in Dresden.

2. A Japanese civilian who dies from cancer several decades after the war ended.

I have spent a great deal of my life (I'm 42) studing history. We knew SOME segments of the Japanese power structure were in favor of surrender, but the main warmongers (Tojo, et al) had no intention of quitting under any circumstances.

I do not say this justifies what the US did. I don't know how you can say that killing anyone is right and I wonder myself if one is morally correct to kill in self defense. I would have much prefered that the Allies (well, everyone except the Soviets, they were rulled by a man every bit as evil as Hitler) not bombed civilian targets. I do think it is sinking to their level.

BUT I do not believe I have the right to judge there actions. I was not there. I have not walked in their shoes. I do not believe that anyone outside of a situation who has not experience a similar situation can really know WHAT they would do. They may only speculate.

posted 03-02-99 01:10 AM ET         

abenamer, I'm sorry. I did know you were there.

And hell, you must be right because your NOT an American.

I feel so damn ashamed. Cause you know the world would so much better off had we not won our independance.

abenamer you so lucky. What every country you come from must be God sent to be so perfectly honest to it citizens.

<Sigh> I simply don't care that abenamer is tired of Americans taking for granted the simple "truths" presented to them by their own government.

posted 03-02-99 01:40 AM ET         

If you would Like me to rebut you last post, I gladly will (AGAIN). But If you take a minute, and climb out of you anti-american blind-fold you'll see that many folks have other opinions on the subject matter.

You love to beat on America and Americans, especially ones that have an opinion. Is your counrty so great that it can give you this unfaultered insight? Please let me know what this utopia's name is.

What you believe is by influence and thus biased. Truth is simply a matter of perception.

posted 03-02-99 01:49 AM ET            

I honestly feel every bit as patriotic as you. I am the son of immigrants, and it is those who have only recently come to this country that can truly appreciate its greatness.

However, much (if not all) of what Abenamer posted is true. I too have spent much of my life studying history, and Abenamer isn't anti-American as much as he is simply being objective.

I think it's easy to sit now and judge those who had the fate of the world in their hands in the 1940's. Although I'm not sure I would have done what he did, I hold Harry Truman in the highest regard. To drop or not to drop will forever remain an ethical debate, but we shouldn't allow our patriotism to cloud our judgement of this issue and of those on the other side of it.

posted 03-02-99 01:59 AM ET         

Please excuse me again. I have one more small, insignificant, american, hick observation.

Why are everyone else's comments "simple "truths"" and "glaring errors" while yours are the only true FACTs.

If I didn't know any better, it sounds like SOMEONE thinks they're a little TOO big for their own britches and a little better than everyone else.

posted 03-02-99 02:25 AM ET            

Justifiable homicide, for instance, is not murder. Neither is negligent homicide, although it is a very serious crime.

The way to remember it is that "murder" is a moral evaluation of a homicide, while "homicide" itself simply states a cause of death.

On the subject of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seems as unfair as arguing that the Model T should have had air bags.
Certainly if smart bombs and computer virus chips had been available to the Allies then using the atom bomb would have been a moral outrage. But lacking the means to do otherwise, the Allies did what they had to with the crude tools available.

posted 03-02-99 02:39 AM ET         

Your right..... even that little part about Abenamer statements being somewhat(?) true. Opinionated and biased, but mixed with some truth, maybe..

Don't misunderstand my comments as blind patriotism.

Hell, I LIKE EVRYBODY.

Great Britin: Small, but mean and always ready/willing to fight for her people and allies. Good beer too.

Austrialia: Man I love that country. If I could imagine the wild west anywhere else but America, It would be there. Fine beer too.

Germany: They speak for them selves. A country that can take on the world TWICE in one centry has got to be tough. Plus they make damn fine beer.

Russia: I've met a few Russians. They aint bad folks at all. Hell, every movie has got to have a good and bad guy. Just cause they wore the black hat don't make 'em evil. Good Vodka.

Chinese: Any place that can grow 18 billion people off just RICE has got to be noticed.

Japanese: eehh... ok, I like those little guys too. Next Japanese I see, I'm gonna give em a head noogy, just show theres no hard feelings.

France:................ Nope, got me there. can't say one good thing about France......other than its close to Germany's good beer.

posted 03-02-99 09:49 AM ET            

I could be offended by what you just said about France :
>France:................ Nope, got me there. >can't say one good thing about >France......other than its close to >Germany's good beer.

Well, I could tell you a few good points about France :
* We have the best food (chinese is close, but not quite)
* We are the champions (Soccer 1998)
* We do have A-bombs too
* We came to help you for your independence (remember Lafayette)
* We have the most beautiful country (France) and town (Paris) in the weold

and, last but not least for you :
* we make the best wine possible.

Seriously, I'm sad you did not find anything to say about us, but, well, you're welcome to visit Paris whenever you want...

About the debate about the bomb :
* Well, for my part, I think that nuclear bombs really are a different kind of weapon due to their massive destructive power (it's a change of scale)
* Yes, It has been considerered at some points in history as just a BIG bomb (russians even used it to dig canals...), and I think it was thought as so in 1945, but histroy, and the cold war, and the possibility for humans to destroy our planet have shown that it was not so.
* Who can say what SHOULD have been done by the US in 1945 ? I myself consider that the first bomb may have been seen as a neccessity by Truman, but I find it hard to agree with nagasaki (I know the theory which was to make the japanes believe the US had tens of bombs, but I'm afraid it was used as a test for the plutonium bomb (vs uranium - hiroshima))

* Anyway, in relation to the game, I think the use of Nuke in AC is seen as an atrocitie by whoever uses it, not in relation to WWII, but in relation of cold war, MAD theroy and massive destruction and the hypothetical destruction of earth before the exode... It explains how these leaders could think : "whatever the reason, there is NO justification to the use of nuke"
By the way, if you want to feel free to use nukes, can't you ask for a vote to cancel atrocities ?

posted 03-02-99 09:52 AM ET            

Abe, you've over-simplified a couple of things. The Strategic Bombing report didn't say that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender. That's ridiculous. No one- not even the Japanese themselves - knew that. The diplomatic corp and moderates in the civilian government had been urging surrender for months. Negotiations had been conducted (primarily through the Swedish ambassador) for over a year, and there were at least three times that the allies thought the Japanese were going to surrender. Each time, the military extremists blocked it. I no longer have the book that I got this information from, so I can't provide the exact reference, but I believe it was called something like, "The Rising Sun". It was assembled using Japanese documents declassified after the war as well as interviews with the people who were there. It's purpose was to tell the story of the war from the Japanese perspective.
Actually, if memory serves, what the report said was that by November - with a continuation of the conventional bombing campaign - the Japanese would be incapable of offering resistance. With it's population reduced to less than half of it's pre-war levels, the starving, disease ridden, survivors would be no threat to occuppation.

posted 03-02-99 11:28 AM ET            

1. War sucks. Soldiers die. Civilians die.

2. Japan DECLARED WAR ON US. (USA) Not the other way around.

3. Remember Pearl Harbor? We're only human, we have to retaliate.

4. Germany, Italy, and Japan wanted to TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND DESTROY DEMOCRACY.

You think I would just sit there and wait for them to say 'Oh, sorry, I give up, you're whooping my arse now'?

Hell no, I send a few bunker busters over there to wipe some of them bastards off the planet.

In war, people make decisions they would not otherwise make. They shoot people in the back, they throw grenades into civilian buildings, and they drop atomic bombs on enemy cities.

Wait, did you catch that? ENEMY CITIES.

It's not fair to analyze, 50 years after the fact, the hazy points of possible surrender and political underpinnings in Japan. The point is, we were at war with a country who declared it on us. We have an obligation to the mothers of our own soldiers that our military force is going to take action to save our boys' lives.

My grandfather served in the pacific for 5 years, he was at Pearl Harbor, and saw his friends burned to death as they ate breakfast. He saw his friends blown to hamburger by enemy bullets raining from the sky. He saw his friends drown as they were dragged into the bloody waters when their ships were blown out from under them.

Do I think nuclear bombs are the best thing since sliced bread? No.

Do I think their use was justified? Yes.

WWII was a unique war in the history of warfare because there was the potential that a single nation on the planet could wield a stick so long and studded with so many nails that no other country could retaliate in any sensible fashion.

Also, any time a new weapon is developed, someone will use it, and if it's not the friendlies, you better watch your back.

For all you bastards nailing the US for doing it and killing civilians, where the hell do you think you'd be right now if the US had lost the war, or had never entered it and lost later? You can bite me, but I'd wager most of you'd have never been born.

The US did the ENTIRE FREE WORLD A HUGE FAVOR.

Yes, we also did it for ourselves, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the world is a bunch of whining bastards who bitch when someone else takes their place in history.

Jealousy is a bitch, aint it?

For the guy who said 1000 enemies is worth one of our soldiers, I'm with you. In war, if you don't fight to win, you lose. Even America has seen this in action. Remember Vietnam? Our fuzzy-friendly leaders of that era believed they could fight a half-arse war, and they got bit on the arse for it.

As for Desert Storm, I believe we should have run him down and shot him like the dog he is, but hey, we can fix that.

posted 03-02-99 11:46 AM ET            

It's the "other" WW2 movie released recently, and I think it does a much better job than 'Saving Private Ryan' at showing the 'truth' of war. In specific, it is very careful to not demonize either the US soldiers or the Japanese soldiers, even though it is shown basically from the American point of view.

Anyway, take a peek.

posted 03-02-99 12:54 PM ET         

Elegantly simple and powerful post.

I couldn't have written my feelings on the subject better.

GreasyPig

posted 03-02-99 06:45 PM ET         

As for the rest of the factions. They never really seemed too terribly mad (all their bio scans were yellow). And after about 50 to 60 turns later they all seemed willing to make up. My economy didn't colapse when they declared Vendetta but it sure took a good hit.

Back to my first statement, In my OPINION I think Yang deserved immediate punishment for firing the first PB. I just don't see the logic that they HAVE to be successfull in order for the rest of the factions to sanction him.

posted 03-09-99 02:54 AM ET            

And get this we helped save EUROPES BUTT in WW2when All of MAINLAND Europe was conquered by Hitler,except Sweden and i think Spain. And they still hate us.I think AMERICA is the best damn country in the WORLD.

In Russia , the people get treated like crap.
In England they still have a Queen!!!!
In France they also droped A bombs in experimental uses :ie:French Ploneisa(Pacific)
In Germany,thats a time bomb waiting to explode.
In China they put a population limit of 2 children per home(this is on what i heard)
In SouthEast Asia people worship idols
In the Middle East theres a tyrannical madman
controling a huge military.
In Africa tribes are still in wars.
In India and pakastan there testing biological weapons.

IN AMERICA THERE A STABLE DEMOCRACY\REPUBLIC
founded on the Christian religion.

posted 03-09-99 03:08 AM ET            

In fact, the ignorance and Christian thirst for blood is so perfectly executed in that post that I suspect it's just a European ploy to undermine us peace-loving Americans.

posted 03-10-99 11:40 AM ET         

1) The use of Nukes is justified in some situations under certain unspecified circumstances. If you want to vote for this one please accept the fact that other people and cultures (Saddam Hussein, China, Islamic Jihad) have different views of what the acceptable uses are. Go to your basement, build a bomb shelter, someday you're likely to need it.

2) The use of Nukes is never justified. If doomsday comes we might fire them off just to see if we can do it to the other guy also. If you want to vote this way you might still want to build the bomb shelter, after all anybody who votes for number one above can still force doomsday.

There's a great book on this theme, written during the 60's by a guy named Frank Miller (I think.) It's called "A Canticle for Leibovitz" and follows generally the history of a world in which Nukes are an accepted weapon. Read it. It's funny and terrifying at the same time and it beats the hell out of Dr. Strangelove in terms of bringing home the realities of MAD.

posted 03-10-99 01:46 PM ET            

You claim all Europeans hate America (or rather, hate the USA). Read your own post. Why wouldn't some Europeans hate America for producing someone who can write such trash (I assume you are an American). Just to settle the record, I'm born and bred in the UK. Besides, remember that your statement that the A-Bomb contributed to "the longest peace in this world's history" is patently false. The First Indo-China War (i.e. whent he French and Vietnamese were battling it out) began in 1946. Ignoring civil wars, that still leaves the Arab-Israeli Wars, the Indo-Pakistani Wars (of which there have been three), not to mention THE Vietnam War. How you can call the last fifty years peaceful is quite beyond me.

Also remember that in the European War in WW2 America did not officially get involved until Nazi Germany DECLARED WAR on the USA. Roosevelt had done alot to help Britain before that, Lend-Lease being the prime example, but if another man had been in the White House it could have been a very different story. Remember, isolationist politics were still very potent in the states back then, and could have derailed any stronger American commitment for several years.

Another reasons some Europeans feel ungrateful is the view of some Americans you so artfully expressed that we want to rule the world because we colonised it. If you look at most British colonies from the Age of Empire, that is mainly from post-1815, we actually tried to help people towards self-rule. This is particularly true in India. We did not oppose independence for India in principle, merely that it should take longer. Maybe history prooves that view is right, maybe history prooves that view wrong. I don't know, there hasn't been enough history yet! I don't speak for the French simply because I don't know enough about the history of French colonisation.

What is (I think) at the root of Americans dislike about Europe, and Europe's dislike about America, is a very simple difference is perspective. I have heard it best expressed in the line 'in one place a hundred years is a long time, in the other a hundred miles is a long way'. I have lived in a house older (I think) than 99% of civilian buildings still standing in the USA (it was built in the 1680's). The church in that village was built in the 1300's. I'm sure you see my point. Put simply, in terms of age there is nothing in the USA that is of the culture and history of the USA that can match that directly. This is an observation, and prove of the earlier statement.

Also, if you think that the USA saved Europe in WW2, think again. The victory against both Germany and Japan was a joint victory in every sense of the word. Most of the technology that allowed the allies develop the A-Bomb came from Britain. A vast amount of work on the primitive computers used in the developing of the A-Bomb was equally done from Britian. Also, Europe paid a price that is still being paid. Our ecomies were shattered, our infrastructures torn to shreds. Marshall Aid helped, but it was never enough. And within a handful of years Europe was once more becoming a battlefied for a potenially much bigger conflict that thankfully never happened.

Lastly, I have American friends who are ashamed to be called American when they see things like your post. God Bless America indeed, but God is not exclusive, and blesses ALL. (And no, I'm not a Christian.)

Pragmatist

Good post. I think that in the modern situation (with a dozen countries nuckear or probably nuclear, and dozens of others have the immediate capability of becoming nuclear should it prove necessary) a nuclear war would truly be disasterous. However, since before long terrorist organistions will gain nuclear cpability, I think building bunkers might be not such a bad idea when they do.

posted 03-10-99 03:16 PM ET            

Nylan is quite correct in that the rise of U.S. power after WWII was NOT accompanied by a "Pax Americana." The Cold War launched any number of proxy wars, and regional disputes in the Middle East, Africa and Asia burned out of control.

The whole diatribe about worshipping idols, tribes at war, and such, makes me think that CeoTJ is very young and ignorant of world affairs as they really exist.

I know for a fact that Europeans do not, as a massive group, hate Americans. Some do. Some hate people who come to their country with arrogant attitudes and no respect for the local culture (something some, but not all, Americans are guilty of). Some like American and the American people very much. Some are even very appreciative of the role the Americans played in WWII -- particularly those who were liberated from the Nazis by American troops.

The USA declared war on Japan subsequent to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Germany then proceded to declare war on the United States as an ally of Japan, who replied in turn. You seem to think that the fact that there was doubt about the US's involvement in what was seen as a war between European powers somehow casts a negative light on the United States. That would seem to imply a unity of purpose in England that was not necessarily there (until after the Blitz, at least). The royal family had to send the former king (Edward? Whichever one abdicated due to his marriage to an American divorcee) to the Carribean because they were afraid that he would be used as a pawn by the Nazis. He was a known sympathizer with the fascist point of view.

As for your assertion that "most of the technologies used to build the A-bomb came from Britain," I would think that physicists such as Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, working in the United States, had something to do with it, never mind the resources that the US Government put into the Manhattan Project.

The British fought valiantly in WWII, but I maintain that American help was indispensible -- particularly the aforementioned Lend Lease Act, which provided England with the escorts the British needed to fend off the German U-Boat fleets early in the war. No doubt, Hitler's inability as a military commander helped as well. England would have been in very dire straights if the German forces had managed to destroy more of the BEF and allied troops at Dunkirk, or if they had continued to hammer military targets during the Battle of Britain instead of switching to civillian targets. Again, I have a strong appreciation of the British role in the war, particularly in Africa and during the Normandy invasion.

Colonization is a nasty business, no matter how you look at it. Need we mention the Opium Wars? How about the mercantilist policies that encouraged the American colonies to rebellion? The confusion over the handover of Palestine that led at least indirectly to the Arab-Israeli wars? (Again, to be fair, the British banned the international slave trade decades before the US, spread the concept of a modern civil service throughout many of its colonies, etc.)

Your point about differing points of view is very astute. The Americas do have a history -- unfortunately, much of it was destroyed when the Europeans came. European settlements do have a history going back to the sixteenth century, at least. My home town in Massachusetts was settled at about the same time your house was built. What America does have is the longest period of democratic government under the same constitution anywhere in the world.

posted 03-10-99 11:27 PM ET            

I want to point out a couple of points of order not linked to CEOTJ.

1) I hope your intent is not to understate the US involvement in WWII either. England was on it's knees and powerless, the Wehrmacht was at the gates of Moscow and the French amounted to a demi-brigade of Legionnaires under De Gaulle. As such, I think a debt of thanks is owed to thousands of American boys who took to the skys in daylight raids to bomb Germany into submission. Many of whom never came home. Like it as not, without this effort and millions of Americans wading ashore in Normandy, the Allies would never have returned to the continent.

2) I think you also left out the singularly greatest British contribution. Were it not for the exceptional British intelligence networks and their use of ULTRA to break the German codes, the return to the continent would have taken far longer and been much bloodier.

posted 03-11-99 07:25 PM ET            

I do not under-estimate America's involvement in WW2, nor do I deny that America's contribution was vital. I apolgise if I gave that idea (reading back, I can see how it can be taken that way). My point about Germany declaring war on the USA was a response to the attitude that the USA's involvement in Europe was simly 'to save Europe'. It is a view I have heard, often accompanied by the comment that the USA shouldn't have bothered.

What makes me most angry about some people's attitues is that they forget the ALLIED nature of the vistory of both Germnay and Japan. My (admittedly) exaggerated comment on A-bomb development supposed to point this out. Of course, I (stupidly) forgot about the other groups. To any offended I do sincerely apologise.

I would agree that the Americas have a history of thousands of years, but American history is really the history of those European settlers. It is a sad fact, but indicative that the natives everywhere have been very ill-served by history. Looking back in history natives or those seen as 'barbarians' by the less civilised have always been oppressed. Lets hope we don't today repeat the mistakes of the past.

By the way, I am fully in agreement with your last point. Good post.

uncleroggy
I am thankful for the Americans who served in Europe. But many Brits also helped bomb Germany. For along time both our countries co-operated in the vast bombing ops over Germany, and both contributed an equal amount. Your point about British intelliegnce is excellent. By the way, the best book on British intelligence I ever read was not on the breaking of Enigma, but on the far wider, yet equally vital issue of radar. It is called "Most Secret War", an autobiography by R.V.Jones. I do not know if it can be got in the States, it would be a shame if it could not. This is an extremely informative book about intelligence in general. I recommend.

posted 03-11-99 10:36 PM ET            

Thanks for the book tip. I'll be sure to look it up and get back with what I thought.
One good turn deserves another so I'll recommend a book for you. It's two volumes by Anthony Cave Brown. It's called "Bodyguard of Lies" and pretty much details the entire Allied Intelligence effort during the war. Xlnt reading. Frankly, the Americans were babes in the woods and the allies would have been in big trouble without the British intelligence services. Correct me if I'm wrong, But I believe that not a single German infiltrator escaped capture or being turned during the entire war?

Regarding bombing. Even with the best efforts by "Bomber Harris", the British nighttime bombing campaing was only marginally effective. Pathfinders, radar beacons and infiltrators were not particularly effective in improving bombing accuracy and by far more damage to German industry was caused by the American daylight bombing campaign. The Americans could easily put 400, 600 and even 1000 heavy bombers in the air as compared to 200-300 max for the British. Also, the Americans were more aggressive at pressing their attacks and at bombing at lower altitudes. Finally, the Americans were the ones who sustained by far the highest losses as they bled the Luftwaffe dry. Ultimately, the destruction of the Luftwaffe was the death nell for the Germans. Not that this changes any of the posts, but it's good information to know when thinking about all this.

posted 03-13-99 07:21 AM ET            

Thanks also for the book tip - I'll see if I can find it. Leaving aside all the other arguments in this thread, I have to say the Americans whom I have the most respect for are the ones who helped the UK and France before December 1941. I forget how many, but there were Americans serving in the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and others helped out elsewhere because they though they should. Anyway, I'm off to other threads...

posted 03-14-99 07:07 AM ET         

However, in real life, how can you prove that the missile that failed to detonate (ie: intercepted & destroyed before it reaches its intended target) was a nuke, instead of conventional warhead? The fact is, you cannot be 100% sure.

posted 03-14-99 08:39 AM ET         

Please pardon my extreme nitpicking below (which is also off-topic), but I'm on a historical bent. And the WW2 air campaigns are among of my pet study subjects.

In regards to your quotes below:

"Regarding bombing. Even with the best efforts by "Bomber Harris", the British nighttime bombing campaing was only marginally effective. Pathfinders, radar beacons and infiltrators were not particularly effective in improving bombing accuracy and by far more damage to German industry was caused by the American daylight bombing campaign."

>>Yes and no. Neither the British nor the US individual bombing campaigns achieved all of what they were given as objectives. But both made their own significant contributions in their own way. By 1944, the Germans adapted to the bombing offensive by effective dispersal of their key industries. So the RAF notion of "burn out the cities, which will take the factories with them" didn't work as well anymore. But the US bombers, even when they could hit their "pinpoint targets" frequently couldn't do the needed damage because 500-lb bombs weren't powerful enough to smash machinery after penetrating roofs. The RAF practice of mixing in heavier bombs would have been more appropriate against industrial targets. Finally, industry dispersion ensured that no one industry could be knocked out by a single raid. What was finally realized by both sides after the war was that knocking out ENERGY sources was more effective in shutting down industry (oil, gas, hydroelectric, & power distribution). As to RAF bombing accuracy, this was effected by whatever counter-measures the Germans applied over their homeland. In the interdiction offensive leading to D-Day, RAF was VERY effective in their bombing accuracy at smashing depots and transportation networks.

"The Americans could easily put 400, 600 and even 1000 heavy bombers in the air as compared to 200-300 max for the British. Also, the Americans were more aggressive at pressing their attacks and at bombing at lower altitudes."

>>The RAF was launching 1000-plane raids long before the USAAF, although this wasn't a typical raid strength. RAF bomb raids were typically made up of 400-800 aircraft. In The infamous Nuremburg raid that cost the RAF over 100 bombers (31 Mar '44), over 800 were sent. And I don't think that the USAAF usually bombed at lower altitudes. Cruising altitudes were often dictated by aircraft performance, which is why B-17's (20-23,000 ft altitude) often flew higher than B-24's.

"Finally, the Americans were the ones who sustained by far the highest losses as they bled the Luftwaffe dry. Ultimately, the destruction of the Luftwaffe was the death nell for the Germans. Not that this changes any of the posts, but it's good information to know when thinking about all this."

>>By war's end, the total losses of both the RAF and the USAAF against Germany were about the same: 79,000 each. But you're absolutely right in that pressing the daylight bomber offensive was critical to achieving the objective of air supremacy over the Luftwaffe, and that USAAF operations were far more costly to the Germans in aircrew attrition. The air cover that was key to the Normandy campaign would have never come about if the USAAF had given in to the demands of Churchill and Harris in '43.

>>Again, extreme nitpicking on my part. But over the years, I think that most people today still seem to come to the wrong conclusions on "strategic bommbing" and its value/results in WW2. Some see it as a big waste of effort. Others think that only the USA, not the Bitish, had the right idea in application (and vice-versa). But what also be remembered is that bombing plans and counter-measures were always changing throughout the war. What was applied in '43 didn't necessarily work anymore in '45.

Regards,

posted 03-15-99 12:10 AM ET            

But there were three exceptions, it seems to me, that hinge on morale: the British attack on Berlin refocused German bombers away from "Fighter Command", giving Britian a strategic edge in the Battle of Britain, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, which ironically gave both the Japanese and the Americans a tremendous surge in morale, and the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo, which also had a significant impact on American morale.

posted 03-15-99 03:08 PM ET            

Just to point out as to the beginning of the city-bombing raids was a mistake. Two German bombers accidentally loosed their cargoes on London, which until then had been unraided. The RAF repponded by the raid on Berlin, and Hitler then responded with the Blitz. It ia an irony perhaos that Britain's Finest Hour came about becauseof the mistaken navigation of two German aircrews.

Generally however I would have to say that in the question of morale, though bombing could be used to increase home morale (the Doolittle Raid), it could not be used to decrease enemy morale (as was proved in 1940 by the Germans, and in 1942-5 by the allies).

posted 03-15-99 06:23 PM ET            

In your comparison of British and American bombing/air campaign effectiveness in WWII, you forgot to mention that a key advantage the Americans had over British air forces was the development of a high-production, long-range, four-engined bomber. Typical two-engined British bombers simply didn't have the range of the B-17, which made farflung German industries relatively safe from British, but not American, bomb runs, and the American four-engined birds could carry more ordnance.

Maybe it was mentioned before, but I didn't see it.

Range is quite important (asks the Russians, who moved entire factories to the other side of the Urals to be safe from the Germans), and after the implementation of the P-51 escort fighters in Europe, long-range bombing became much more effective, allowing more bombers to make it to target unhindered. In the bombing campaign of Europe, not the air defense of Britain, the two most influential planes would have to have been the B-17 and P-51.

I forget who said it, some German high official, who said he knew the War was over when he saw Mustangs flying over Berlin.

posted 03-15-99 09:02 PM ET            

Bombs as a morale weapon are most effective either, as you pointed out, when an enemy uses them against ones own civilians or, more subtly, when one provokes an enemy to change policy by bombing them.

Britain's "Finest Hour" came because Britain bombed Berlin, which caused a change in German policy from attacking Fighter Command to attacking British cities, which allowed Fighter Command to take the initiative, which gave Britain a decisive strategic advantage in the Battle of Britain.

"I do not choose war. War chooses me."
-- Leo Tolstoy

To understand what a bomb does to the human psyche, one must understand human nature: "A Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged. A Liberal is a Conservative who's been arrested." A consequence of the synergy between the survival instinct and memory, we respond to things in proportion to our personal experiences, so ... "A Hawk is a Dove who's been bombed." An attitude of detached apathy is more or less what all feel toward everything -- until something happens to them personally. (Look at the way politicians try to make everything personal. They calculate how many Bibles or handicapped children or "victims" or whatever they need to throw at you until you take whatever they want personally, and you're theirs.)

Consider the Gulf War. Were "you" at war, or was "the government"? If your country had been bombed, "you" would be at war; you, not just the government, would be responsible for fighting it. It's a paradigm shift, from a world you're viewing to the one you're living in.

posted 03-15-99 10:27 PM ET         

who wrote...

The Strategic Bombing report didn't say that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender. That's ridiculous. No one- not even the Japanese themselves - knew that. The diplomatic corp and moderates in the civilian government had been urging surrender for months. Negotiations had been conducted (primarily through the Swedish ambassador) for over a year, and there were at least three times that the allies thought the Japanese were going to surrender. Each time, the military extremists blocked it.

The gist of my argument is that the second drop at Nagasaki was surely unjustified in light of what we then knew about Japan. No one in this forum has disputed my assertion that the United States should have waited before dropping a second bomb. Even GreasyPig, the crude American chauvinist that he is, has yet to dispute that. Instead, there seems to be an insistence in this forum that we can't judge the decisionmakers with 40 years hindsight. I'd say that of course we can do that, since we now know nearly as much as they did through declassified documents. It was made deliberately difficult to secondguess the American decision to bomb Nagasaki because many of the documents were classified until recently.

As for the Survey, it's certainly clear that resistance would have ended by November. Exactly, how would one define defeat at that point? We could certainly have modified our stance on unconditional surrender which again neither you nor anyone else has contested in this forum. To just modify our demands on the Japanese government in return for a more morally clear ending to the war would have been to America's benefit.

posted 03-16-99 12:01 AM ET         

The British Lancaster, Halifax, and Stirling bombers were all four-engined. All were flying by 1942 also.

In terms of range and bomb-carrying capability, the Lancaster was superior to the "earlier-generation" B-17. The superiority in range was enabled by the use of four inline Rolls-Royce Merlin engines. The American bombers (and the Halifax) were radial-engined for the most part, with higher drag penalty.

The Lancaster, however, suffered from one severe Achilles heel: no defense armament to cover the bottom of the aircraft. German night-fighters were quick to capitalize on this.

More nitpicking by me, I know. But in balance, the Lancaster was more "advanced" than the B-17, and more capable than the B-24. All of this is moot, however, to the fact that the B-29 was the "next generation" beyond all of these planes, and was superior even to the Lancaster in every regard. (once the engine problems were resolved.)

posted 03-16-99 03:41 PM ET         

"No one in this forum has disputed my assertion that the United States SHOULD have waited..."

Should..... I don't agree. I think COULD is a better word and a more accurate statement.

And what do you beleive would have happened while we waited for an answer (If we even knew for sure one was coming)? Do you think the conventional bombing would have ceased as well? Do you think the U.S. would have pushed all its invasion timetables back indefinitely. Our soldiers were preparing to board landing craft as the second bomb was dropped.

You state so matter of factly what the U.S. should have done with out ever being there. You make broad based accusations that most Americans are sheltered and over zealous. And you call me chauvinistic, aint that rich.

Whats even more rich is your use of morally and war in the same sentence. War has never neen moral, from the beginning to the end.

"Remember what we stand for and what we once used to be.". Remeber hell... I fought for it and for another county's want for it.

I don't really care about you feelings toward "my kind of American". You can spout your holier than thou ignorance. A lot of boys died for that very freedom.

When you fight, you fight to win. Morallity finds no place in war. No matter how much you wish it.

posted 03-16-99 07:14 PM ET            

War is one of the nastiest occurences of history - with the one possible exception of the Black Death. Remember the situation in 1945. For the US that was the fourth year of war, for the UK and others it was the sixth/seventh. One of the clearest trends of WW2 is how the warfare became more inhumane as time went by. the second bomb was dropped in my view for three reasons.

1) To make sure the Japanese did surrendur - it was a closer thing than peopel realise, the vote being a tie and all.

2)Related to (1). To make sure invading the islands was not necessary. The death toll of such an invasion would have been hige, and the damage done to Japan far worse than what actually happened. Look at what Germany looked like in 1945 and you'll get the idea

3)Because we could, and by 'we' I mean the allies. We had the capability, we used it. I know that sounds very cruel to today's ears, but that is war. War is cruel. Period.

It is all very well talking about the Strategic Review, but wh knows if that was correct. Remember, when trying to work out what an enemy is upto all you are really doing is guessing. Informed guessing may be, but still guessing. And although we may now know most of what was known at the time, we cannot recreate the _feel_ of the time, which is at least as important to understand decisions like the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Finally, we are all arguing with hindsight about how deadly these things really are. We knew in 1945 that they were powerful. We knew a little about radiation, but not very much compared to today. We all have memory of living under the threat of nuclear war, a threat that still exists (the arsenals are still there after all). And since then the overall opinion has come about that nuclear weapons are bad things. In 1945 they were just tools, nothing more. Deadly, efficient, but still tools.

posted 03-16-99 08:15 PM ET         

Would the Japanese have done the same?

The answer is a wholehearted YES. I am an American who was born and lived for 13 years in Japan (not military) and for my first 17 years or so, I thought myself more Japanese than American. The main thing you have to ask yourself when you talk about all those poor Japanese is are they actually even mad?

Every Japanese that I have spoken to on this topic (including one man who was a child during WW2) has no real hard feelings toward the US about the bomb. they see it as an act of war, but we were already at war and so the worst sentiments that you get is some small amount of regret that the bomb had to be dropped.

posted 03-16-99 11:05 PM ET         

The problem is no matter how simple you try to make your agrument there will be others who won't (not don't) but won't understand.

You and I are probably alike in some ways. I, am a realist. I beleive in things that I can touch and prove. I beleive in other's theories, that they can prove. Even if I hold an opinion very strongly it can be swayed another direction with proof.

I take speculation with a grain of salt.

abenamer's arguement is based on speculation.

abenamer, you and a friend of mine might get along pretty well. You see, he is into speculation too. He can speculate what you ate up to three days ago by how your farts smell. Now, I can't say he has ever been right. But the biggest difference between he and you is that he knows when he's full of sh*t.

Your arrogant generalizations about Americans and this topic make you sound more like a biggot then one with a sound arguement. If you like to talk down to people, talk to that little guy between your legs. It sounds like he don't get much attention.

Your poor, lowly, working class, veteran
GreasyPig

posted 03-16-99 11:20 PM ET            

Congratulations!

And remember:

"Make patches, not war."

posted 03-16-99 11:28 PM ET         

Does that mean I win the RONCO beef jerky/ spegetti/ sausage/ rubber sex toy MAKER!!!!

Oh boy, can't wait!

posted 03-17-99 01:06 AM ET            

The Constitution guarantees every American the right to nuke, bomb, shoot, and otherwise kill anyone who bombs us first. This is the quintessential definition of "defense". And we, as Americans, exercised that right with great vigor.

VJ day is a patriotic holiday which symbolizes American values, not a day for us to feel shame over some perceived "atrocity". If you must, I suggest you mourn "Hiroshima Day" on the deck of the Arizona -- if you can hold your breath.

Kurt Vonnegut Junior once remarked that to teach a lesson to those whom you intend to kill is wasted effort. With that caveat, Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught a valuable lesson, if not to those in the blast radius, then at least to the rest of the world: if you bomb us, we'll bomb you.

You wished for moral clarity. I can think of no more morally clear message than that. It is, in fact, dangerous and immoral to equivocate on defense, because it can only lead to one of two possible outcomes: either you will be crushed because of your weakness, or you will have forced your own hand by appearing weak.

posted 03-17-99 01:19 AM ET            

So you see no difference between a military and a civilian target?

If you feel "All's fair in love and war," I pity the United States the next time a suit-case nuke is planted under your mother's desk at the local Walmart.

Muslim extremists sound a lot like you, so I hope you have lots of sunscreen handy.

For the record, I remember asking my father about dropping the bomb. Where he was. What he felt. That kind of thing.

He told me, "At first, we were all just relieved that the Japanese had surrendered. A land invasion would have cost another million of our troops lives and who knows how much more war. We also knew that the Japanese military would never surrender unless we broke their civilian support. So, son, it was probably the best decision at the time. Looking back now, however, the war--especially that bomb--was a tragedy for all mankind."

[You can see where I get my verbosity.]

posted 03-17-99 01:52 AM ET         

On the day that happens, there will be only hell to pay.

posted 03-17-99 02:18 AM ET            

What's your take? Do you think we will live to see a terrorist detonate a nuke on U.S. soil?

posted 03-17-99 12:38 PM ET            

I would say that the 'if you bomb us, we'll bomb you' argument is a fallacy, due to the fact that in those days the A-Bomb was just a bomb. A very big bomb yes, but just a bomb. There was not the current hype. I know that Truman wanted to show it off to Stalin as well, but that was a message to one man, not to the world. If the bomb was a message it was the conviction of allied forces that 'if you attack us, we'll destroy you'.

I do agree about that point about being weak in defense. Loom at Europe in 1935-39. If we (the UK and France) has trodden on Hitler in 1936 things would have been alot nicer. Still, we just have to learn from the mistakes of the past...

yin

I fully agree that it is dangerous extending the defense argument too far. Remembring alot of the IRA bombing in the 1980's, as well as the Docklands and Manchester bombs of 1995(I think), that terrorists with nukes is something to be avoided at all costs. Since the WTC and Oklahoma bombings, the US has also seemed to have woken up to the fact of terrorism. (From over here at times it seemed otherwise. that is why I am very happy to see the situation has changed).

posted 03-17-99 01:02 PM ET            

I would say that the 'if you bomb us, we'll bomb you' argument is a fallacy, due to the fact that in those days the A-Bomb was just a bomb. A very big bomb yes, but just a bomb. There was not the current hype. I know that Truman wanted to show it off to Stalin as well, but that was a message to one man, not to the world. If the bomb was a message it was the conviction of allied forces that 'if you attack us, we'll destroy you'.

I do agree about that point about being weak in defense. Loom at Europe in 1935-39. If we (the UK and France) has trodden on Hitler in 1936 things would have been alot nicer. Still, we just have to learn from the mistakes of the past...

yin

I fully agree that it is dangerous extending the defense argument too far. Remembring alot of the IRA bombing in the 1980's, as well as the Docklands and Manchester bombs of 1995(I think), that terrorists with nukes is something to be avoided at all costs. Since the WTC and Oklahoma bombings, the US has also seemed to have woken up to the fact of terrorism. (From over here at times it seemed otherwise. that is why I am very happy to see the situation has changed).

posted 03-17-99 05:16 PM ET         

This is turning into a very interesting thread. Here is my take on the bombing:

During the First World War (the war to end all wars -- HAH!), both sides used poison gas pretty much at will. This was before things like Sarin, but mustard gas is still very nasty stuff. During WWII, chemical warfare was not used. Why? Partly it had to do with effectiveness, because it can be hard to control a cloud of vapor on a battlefield. I think that it was also because everybody knew that it was just a bad deal, all around. If anyone used it, it would be used against them, and it was a very nasty weapon. It took time for people to come to that realization, though.

What would have happened, let us say, if both Germany and the US had developed the A-Bomb in 1943? Now, both sides have a new "toy" to use against the enemy. Anybody want to bet that Europe would have been a radioactive wasteland before anybody realized what a horrible weapon it was?

Any time somebody comes up with a new weapon, people talk about how awful it is and how it should be banned. People have tried to ban gunpowder. They have tried to ban machineguns. They have tried to ban submarines. Land mines have only just been banned, and the US won't even sign the treaty. Why would anybody have suspected that the A-bomb would be any different, a weapon that was "horrible but necessary?" Who knew that humanity had finally invented a world-killer? Only the physicists who built it, the pilots who dropped it and the people at ground zero truly had a grasp of how much destructive potential they had unleashed.