AI: missles + nukes is a real bad combo

[unmerged(152919)]

Interesting side note: I once heard that they were planning on using tactical nukes to blow out the Japanese defenses at the beginning of Olympic before they finally figured it would've been a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. I'm not sure if it's true, though.

It should probably also be noted that in the 50's and 60's they were thinking of using nuclear explosives to blow up a replacement for the Panama Canal, which was prone to landslides (and still is.)

The costs of excavation would be lower than 1 cent per cubic meter.

If you'll pardon the wikipedia link: WIKI!

I dug this up while doing a risk analysis of the Panama Canal against landslide failure... Imagine my surprise!!!!

edit: Perhaps the AI is trying to find a faster way to the other side of the world?

 

[xtfoster]

Troops under AI command should definately not use nukes, its more of a grand-strategy decision.
Then again, the AI shouldn´t change your entire command structure when you give it control.

If you don't want the AI to use nukes, don't give the AI control of the nukes (or their delivery systems)...how hard is that to understand. If the AI isn't able to use nukes, the the AI (opponent) wouldn't be able to use nukes.

 

[Kuciwalker]

It's fair to ask the AI not to use your central stockpile when you give it strategic bombers or rockets. However, it's still hilarious.

 

[jonnyincognito]

Hell, they thought you could clean radiation off with a broom. I've seen footage of decontamiation videos where that's exactly what they are doing...brushing it off with a broom.

They also had arty nukes and bazooka nukes in the 50's. The begining is accurate, but I think the stuff after the shell hits has been added...I've seen them fire the arty nuke on TV before, and the additional stuff after the shell hits wasn't there.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=428235

Anyways, the AI using your nukes seems about par for the course for the times!

General: It's a big bomb? Well lets use three of them then! We have to take these guys OUT!!!

 

[lobosrul]

Killing thousands of civilians with atomic bombs is terrible, but why is it worse than killing them with conventional bombs or any other method?? And I also wonder at why a civilians life worth more than a soldier? Especially an 18 year old kid who was just drafted. I remember arguing that same thing in high school with a girl who was ashamed that we dropped atomic bombs on helpless civilians. In a few months I could be drafted, why is my life then suddenly worth less than yours? She couldn't answer that.

Aprx 200,000 people were killed in total in the two bombings, thats out of around (a rough estimate) of 65,000,000 killed in the entire war. Including around 45,000,000 civilians. We spend a hugely disproportionately large amount time discussing the deaths of .3% of WW2 deaths.

Also bombing Japanese cities indiscrimintly was the only practical way of strategically bombing them. Their industry was highly decentralized, with much of it literally done in peoples backyard.

 

[Meadhros]

I do understand the reasons for the American nuclear attacks, and to some extend I actually agree with the decision.
Americans should however accept the responsibility they used, and so far are the only ones to have ever used, nuclear weapons. They can´t just forget about history with the argument "the enemy attacked first". Nor should America think they are the great bringers of hope to humanity and always know everything better then other forms of state.

Hell, they thought you could clean radiation off with a broom. I've seen footage of decontamiation videos where that's exactly what they are doing...brushing it off with a broom

You can. Well, not the radiation ofcours, but the main danger is the fallout, which is radioactive dust, sucked up and contaminated by the explosion and falling back down to earth.
You could in theory brush that fall-out dust away, though in reality it would ofcours be impossible because of the huge area and impractible because the main danger of radiotion-sickness is over after 14 days.

And I also wonder at why a civilians life worth more than a soldier? Especially an 18 year old kid who was just drafted. I remember arguing that same thing in high school with a girl who was ashamed that we dropped atomic bombs on helpless civilians. In a few months I could be drafted, why is my life then suddenly worth less than yours? She couldn't answer that.

I do agree with that. The obsession with not killing a single "civilian" while slaughtering thousands of soldiers is okay is absurd.
On the other hand, in a biological way a female IS worth more than a male in the long term. As you only need 1 man for hundreds of women for reproduction.

 

[kjd22c]

Americans should however accept the responsibility they used, and so far are the only ones to have ever used, nuclear weapons. They can´t just forget about history with the argument "the enemy attacked first". Nor should America think they are the great bringers of hope to humanity and always know everything better then other forms of state.

Maedhros, no one said that America was 100% right all the time, and other countries 100% wrong all the time. I'm an American. I have never met an American who believes that. It isn't hard to find an American who thinks that our government is totally wrong most of the time.

As far as our use of atomic weapons is concerned the only reason we hold exclusive title to their usage is because we developed them first. That's the only reason. If the Soviets, the Imperial Japanese, the Nazis, the British, the French, the Poles, or anyone else fighting in WW2 had developed atom bombs they would have dropped them.

In a way we should be thankful it was America who developed the bombs first, and not one of the Axis powers OR the Soviet Union.

I don't mean to rant at you, but I get tired of people treating the US like some pariah over the use of atomic weapons when we only did what everyone else would have done.

 

[Slyguy3129]

Yeah, but you should still feal sorry for the thousands of japanese civillians dying a horrible death.

Oh no doubt, it was the lesser of all evils. The choice was thousands of American Soldiers dying, or Japanese.

The fact that we did not fully understand what effects the bomb would have on the population leads me to believe that if we would have known, we may not have even dropped the bomb.

It was no doubt a very difficult decision to make, I certainly would not have wanted to be the one to make it.

Yes, so obviously all Japanese deserved to die.
Luckily the USA will always be there so save us from evil, actually we should just give up our identity and always listen to the States, in their infinate wisdom they always know whats best for humanity.

As for you, I truly could not care less what your opinion of my country is, and this wasn't even what the topic was about.

And luckily we will be here to save the world from itself! USA FTW!!!!!!!1111111111oneoneoneoneoeneoneoneoneoneleeet!

Jeez some people.

 

[Slyguy3129]

Maedhros, no one said that America was 100% right all the time, and other countries 100% wrong all the time. I'm an American. I have never met an American who believes that. It isn't hard to find an American who thinks that our government is totally wrong most of the time.

As far as our use of atomic weapons is concerned the only reason we hold exclusive title to their usage is because we developed them first. That's the only reason. If the Soviets, the Imperial Japanese, the Nazis, the British, the French, the Poles, or anyone else fighting in WW2 had developed atom bombs they would have dropped them.

In a way we should be thankful it was America who developed the bombs first, and not one of the Axis powers OR the Soviet Union.

I don't mean to rant at you, but I get tired of people treating the US like some pariah over the use of atomic weapons when we only did what everyone else would have done.

Thanks man! Took the words right out of my mouth. I too am sick of the Anti-American crap the world seems to be hyped up on.

I'm sure that it will be dropped in a moments notice once someone needs our help again. Like a bad joke, its always dropped at the first sign of trouble, you'll see I'll show you. These civilized people, will eat each other,*ahem* *cough* Joker rant, sorry.:rofl:

 

[unmerged(27944)]

Well, in that period, that's probably realistic... interesting, though!

Jesus you guys really do not know anything about history.
Just read "Erinnerungen" by Albert Speer (architect, first of all, then minister of armaments from 1942 to 1945 then maybe nazist). Hitler himself didn't believe in nuclear weapons, just take a look to his ideas about new weapons: very efficient big guns Germany could use on the Somme in 1916. He didn't believe in a planet that looked like a smoldering crater.
This is a point too few take into consideration: under fascism or nazism there were a very little space for talking. If Hitler didn't want to develope nuclear weapons, his signature on a paper could move millions of reichmark into another developing project.
That's the same reason, for example, Guderian's tank army couldn't get dunkirk: Hitler ordered a widthraw, for the only reason he feared its own success in beating French army.

 

[unmerged(138626)]

Don't really want to get into if it was right/wrong to drop the bomb but couple of things have stood out in this conversation. People have said it saved American lives but in most historians opinions, it also saved hundreds of thousands to millions of Japanese civilians. Just look to what happened to the Japanese civilians on Okinawa and just imagine what the numbers would have been on the home islands. Not to mention that "civilians" we being trained to fight with gardening tools and spears against invaders.

 

[unmerged(27944)]

There is nothing "moral" to say about a decision taken by USA government about 60 years ago, we weren't even born. It's history. There is only one thing to say: USA feared that to make Japan surrender, they had to invade main island. They didn't know Japan were on the edge of a civil war, with two o three factions: one of these wanted to "save" the emperor by killing him, because the war and final destruction of Japan was the only option.

The USA couldn't know all of this. On the other hand, nuclear bomb was considered a very big bomb, in a war you do use bombs. So, USA spent millions of dollars in developing it, why you shouldn't use a not so cheap weapon?
They didn't know the effects on the long term, that's the point.

 

[unmerged(27944)]

You can just read these considerations in Liddel Hart's history of the WWII.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Indeed Darkrat. The chemical munitions being stockpiled for Olympic would have sterilized the Japanese islands. Everything from air-delivery to hand grenades would have been employed. Massive fire-bombings. Japan would not exist today if they were not nuked.

 

[unmerged(63189)]

Why the sad face they started the war?

probably cause not everyone in targeted cities were evil godzillas.

 

[Meadhros]

As for you, I truly could not care less what your opinion of my country is, and this wasn't even what the topic was about.

And luckily we will be here to save the world from itself! USA FTW!!!!!!!1111111111oneoneoneoneoeneoneoneoneoneleeet!

Jeez some people.

I guess I misunderstood you, but my reply was to your earlier quote:

Why the sad face they started the war?

It seemed to me like you didn´t find it a sad thing Japanese died, as in they deserved it because their country "started the war".

Thats the thing with many Americans. I can understand they get annoyed with the unnuanced criticism of the bombings by people who don´t know a thing about the situation or history in general. But sometimes they go to far as in feeling attacked everytime someone dares to say it is a shame people were vaporized in the attacks.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

Dropping the bombs was the ultimate in pragmatic decisions. On one hand you have two devastating bombs that will kill tens of thousands of civilians. On the other hand you have the potential for continued firebombings which if I am not mistaken killed far more civilians, a naval invasion and conservative estimates for a million plus casualties.

This isn't just American lives we are talking about. The Japanese would have suffered far worse in their ultimately futile but never compromising defense of the home islands. I think it is safe to assume over a million civilians would have died as a result of such an invasion. Direct combat, starvation, illness. It probably would have been MILLIONS of dead Japanese civilians.

So yes, the Americans look like the big bully for dropping the bomb, but at the strategic level they saved more lives all around. On the other hand, it now looks like the Japanese were possibly on the verge of surrendering anyways so maybe it is all moot. However you cannot truly blame the US policy/decision makers for making the best decision based on the best avaliable REAL intel they had. The notion Japan MAY have been planning to surrender in light of what ultimately happened is tragic, nothing more.

 

[unmerged(63189)]

They didn't know the effects on the long term, that's the point.

umm sorry about doubleposting:
nukes are scary because of short term effects. who cares about city being off limit for 50 years (or so), if everyone in the city dies first. if considering ethic aspects, fallout is least of your problems (hey, you just scorched 100.000 civilians).

edit: author of the post gets my first HoI3 loud laugh award of commando parade capitule.

 

[Meadhros]

The USA couldn't know all of this. On the other hand, nuclear bomb was considered a very big bomb, in a war you do use bombs. So, USA spent millions of dollars in developing it, why you shouldn't use a not so cheap weapon?

Good point, that was actually a factor in the decision. How would the government explain the enormous costs of the Manhatton project when it would be declassified, when the weapon was never actually used?

They didn't know the effects on the long term, that's the point.

I doubt that, the dangers and effects of radiation had been discovered and were being experimented on for decades. On the other hand, the long-term effects are much smaller then most people think. Though almost the same amound of people died from imidiate radiation by the end of ´45 as in the attacks themselves, after ´45 the number of cases of cancer and handicapped children is only very slightly above avarage.

 

[unmerged(154481)]

I was under the impression that Hitler's refusal to heed the advice of Max Planck on judenfrage was responsible for the failure of the German nuclear program on the basis of a near total loss of advancement after 1933 due to the loss of nearly all of the top theoretical physicists due to emigration.