Make Nukes a trade-off.

[Raptor83]

There are many opinions about "back then" as well. And calling nuking a city a good thing is in my opinion unacceptable.

Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were most destructive air raids - conventional bombers were capable of causing more damage and higher loss of live in targeted area.

Also if Japan didnt surrentder Allies would invade Japan itself - casualty estimanes for that were 2+ million dead.

 

[Danmark Rising]

1000 bombers does not mean you have to use 1000 nukes...
the main problem was that nobody did know what exactly would happen and if the planes would survive the explosion themselves. the blast wave and the mushroom cloud are not exactly something you want to fligh through... also most of the pilots would have been blinded for several minutes which is not a good idea when you fligh in close formation...

That's certainly true. But I was mainly commenting on the fact that the reason we only used one plane (and a couple of decoys) each time was becuase we simply only had one bomb available each time. It's quite possible that if we had had two available for Hiroshima we quite possibly would have dropped both, but there is no way to know for sure with out building a Way-Back machine. Either way it's a bit off topic so feel free to ignore me.

 

[Ksyr]

There are many opinions about "back then" as well. And calling nuking a city a good thing is in my opinion unacceptable.

You are entitled to your opinion, but are you aware that not using them would have killed a lot more people and prolonged the suffering of the millions of people affected by the war?

 

[Danmark Rising]

You are entitled to your opinion, but are you aware that not using them would have killed a lot more people and prolonged the suffering of the millions of people affected by the war?

There is no way to know that for sure. Plus, wouldn't have dropping it on a location with far fewer of inhabitants have made just as effective of a demonstration?

 

[Ksyr]

There is no way to know that for sure. Plus, wouldn't have dropping it on a location with far fewer of inhabitants have made just as effective of a demonstration?

To show the enemy that you are not willing to use the weapons potential? No I don't think so. The will is just as important as the ability.
And yes, we do know for a fact that the japanese surrendered right after the bombs. It's in the history books

 

[myLAAN]

You are entitled to your opinion, but are you aware that not using them would have killed a lot more people and prolonged the suffering of the millions of people affected by the war?

This is not true. Japanese establishment surrendered because of Soviet declaration of war, not because of the A-bombs. Soviet help was their only hope to repel Americans, so when it became clear that it isn't coming, they simply had to surrender. Plus, if the Americans didn't require unconditional surrender (which would mean getting rid of the instution of the Emperorship), we wouldn't even be having this discussion, since the war would be already over by August. The irony is that, in the end, the Japanese surrender was not unconditional at all and Hirohito stayed on the throne.

And yes, there were serious hesitations about the usage of these weapons. Not only among some civilians, even among the highest echelons of US military, i.e. Eisenhower or MacArthur. If even the guy who was actually engaged in the war against Japanese said the bombs were unnecessary, then we may not simply consider the droppings a no-brainer.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

 

[unmerged(149861)]

Points raised so far.


1. Only one nuclear bomber used per attack in Japan

For a start, the Americans had total control of the air. The Japanese did not have the fuel to get aircraft in the air. If the Americans had wanted to they could have used a pre-war biplane. If the Japanese had the ability to down American Superfortresses from the ground sucessfully, all the USAF would have done would be to mount a thousand bomber raid, and the nuclear carrier aircraft would have had a very good chance of being left alone.

2. Normal Bombing was more effective.

True, but it took time, and the defenders could fire back. Not so with a nuclear bomb. A single bomb could produce the results of tens of thousands of bombs, and there was nothing to be done. The mass destruction and sheer mental fear of a huge, city destroying bomb is bad enough.

3. Nukes and diplomacy.

America has the bomb. The Axis and Comitern should now be more fearful of America. Pro-Allied nations should start leaning towards America to benifit from this. Netural countries should lean towards or drift from the Allies depending on the average value of relations with members, to stimulate netural meduim powers being intimidated by this power and pushing against it.

 

[Danmark Rising]

To show the enemy that you are not willing to use the weapons potential? No I don't think so. The will is just as important as the ability.

How would have dropping them on a lightly populated location in mainland Japan as opposed to a major city shown the enemy that were weren't willing to use them?
Personally, I think dropping one on the side of Mt. Fuji would have been a far more effective demonstration even though it would have killed very few people, since it would have been seen from the streets of Tokyo, but's only my opinion.

And yes, we do know for a fact that the japanese surrendered right after the bombs. It's in the history books

My point was that we have no way of knowing just what would have occurred had we not dropped the bombs and invaded instead. Yes, it was speculated that it would have cost a 1,000,000 US causalities (in the same way it was speculated that Operation Market Garden would have "ended the war by Christmas") but there is no way to know for sure while your comment seemed to imply that we did know for sure before we dropped the bombs. That's what I was getting at.

Now we really are sidetracking the thread.

 

[Ricox]

There are many opinions about "back then" as well. And calling nuking a city a good thing is in my opinion unacceptable.

What's better - few hundred thousand civilian deaths and instant Japanese surrender due to use of weapons of mass destruction and wipe out of 2 major cities or death of millions of Japanese and American soldiers, alongside several major cities wiped off due to bombing and millions of civilians dead?

 

[Darkrenown]

My point was that we have no way of knowing just what would have occurred had we not dropped the bombs and invaded instead. Yes, it was speculated that it would have cost a 1,000,000 US causalities (in the same way it was speculated that Operation Market Garden would have "ended the war by Christmas") but there is no way to know for sure while your comment seemed to imply that we did know for sure before we dropped the bombs. That's what I was getting at.

Well, you could check out what happened when Okinawa was invaded...

 

[jju_57]

There are many opinions about "back then" as well. And calling nuking a city a good thing is in my opinion unacceptable.

Huh? What is the difference if I drom 10000 bombs and kill 100,000 or one bomb and kill 100,000. You are still DEAD. This whole line of thinking is illogical. See the problem is you are trying to put you morality from 2011 into 1945. Can't be done.

If I was a leader I would make it clear that all wars sucka nd we should never get into one. But once in war kill all of em till they submit to complete surrender. History has shown that complete and total surrender has lead to longer periods of peace then negotiation with no clear winner has ever did.

 

[Dev]

There are many opinions about "back then" as well. And calling nuking a city a good thing is in my opinion unacceptable.

It's easy to be a 2011 armchair general who speculates about the most humane ending to ww2. Being a 1945 allied soldier or the mother of one you'd probably have had a different opinion about what's good or bad.

 

[Dev]

Huh? What is the difference if I drom 10000 bombs and kill 100,000 or one bomb and kill 100,000. You are still DEAD. This whole line of thinking is illogical. See the problem is you are trying to put you morality from 2011 into 1945. Can't be done.

I notice you beat me to it.

 

[jju_57]

There is no way to know that for sure. Plus, wouldn't have dropping it on a location with far fewer of inhabitants have made just as effective of a demonstration?

Total war means destroying the capability of the enemy to wage war. Ask the people in Dresedan about it. There are no such thing as innocents in war. You either directly or indirectly support war by your actions and inactions. If you grow food you are contributing to the war effort in your country. This is a fact that people don't like to admit to but it is still a fact.

Once again history has shown numerous times that partial victories or negotiated peace never lasts as long as complete victory by one side or the other.

 

[Dev]

Anyway on topic, I don't think it's relevant for the bomb to cause any diplomatic effects. Nukes and related diplomacy is a cold war issue and that's outside the game's scope.

 

[jju_57]

Anyway on topic, I don't think it's relevant for the bomb to cause any diplomatic effects. Nukes and related diplomacy is a cold war issue and that's outside the game's scope.

+1

WW2 and nukes (on missles) brought war to the common people in stark reality. They realized that for the first time in history they could suffer as much or more than the common soldier that had done most of the dying till that time. I firmly believe that if nukes only killed soldiers they would never have been made into such boogymen as they are now. People finally realized that they had real targets on their backs. But human nature is to never give up wars so we faced a dilema where we still wanted to wage war but were afraid that we might have to pay the price for it.

But as long as there are living things there will be wars. And that includes other species besides humans.

 

[Ksyr]

How would have dropping them on a lightly populated location in mainland Japan as opposed to a major city shown the enemy that were weren't willing to use them?
Personally, I think dropping one on the side of Mt. Fuji would have been a far more effective demonstration even though it would have killed very few people, since it would have been seen from the streets of Tokyo, but's only my opinion.



My point was that we have no way of knowing just what would have occurred had we not dropped the bombs and invaded instead. Yes, it was speculated that it would have cost a 1,000,000 US causalities (in the same way it was speculated that Operation Market Garden would have "ended the war by Christmas") but there is no way to know for sure while your comment seemed to imply that we did know for sure before we dropped the bombs. That's what I was getting at.

Now we really are sidetracking the thread.

Lots of people would see it, but the decision makers would see that the US was not willing to use the weapon on a city. That can be seen as a sign that the US won't be willing to do it later either. Dropping the bomb in a mountainside is not using the weapon it's throwing it away. At risk of derailing the thread I'll use Vietnam as an example. The US won every battle, but lost the war. Because the enemy had a stronger will to fight and they showed it to the US population and the world.

Japans strongest bargain chip was their willingness to fight to the last man and the assumed cost of a US invasion of mainland Japan. Using those nukes for effect showed the Japanese that the US didn't have to invade at all.

It's true that we can't know every detail about what would have happened, but the japanese had proven in so many battles that they could inflict heavy losses on the enemy while willingly sacrificing their own lives. And it was not only about Japan itself, but for as long as the war lasted millions of people suffered in Asia. Including japanese civilians. If we are a bit realistic and can put away the political correctness for a moment then those bombs had a huge impact while the damage was a drop in the ocean compared to the rest of the war.

 

[Darkrenown]

We should probably stick to discussing the game though...

 

[Danmark Rising]

Well, you could check out what happened when Okinawa was invaded...

True.

There are no such thing as innocents in war.

I completely disagree but that's a different topic.

Total war means destroying the capability of the enemy to wage war.

The US spent 6 months prior fire bombing Japan's cities and had effectively destroyed their ability to produce arms. The dropping of the bombs was little more than a demonstration of America's capability to wage war. A demonstration that I believe could have been made just as effectively without the targeting of a major city in order minimize causalities. This is solely my opinion on the mater however and has little to no relevance to the game.

Edit:

We should probably stick to discussing the game though...

I need to learn to type faster.

 

[Ksyr]

Sorry, op
Back on track.

Did the people back then(man in the street/common soldier) think the nukes were a bad idea? How much did they know in general about the cost of the war(lives/suffering/economy) and did the nukes have an impact back then(among common people) that is anything like the political correctness today?

Now the same questions for the leaders of nations.

Did it have an effect on relations? Did allies turn away because of it? Did neutrals become more "hostile"? We know the(previously fanatic) enemy surrendered, but what about the comintern? Did they penalise the allies because they had used the bombs?

If there was a penalty for using nukes in game, what should it be and why? Please remember that it is already an effort to get them and maybe even more so after we get SR in FTM.