No Penalty for Nuking?

[Shock360]

So I finished watching the first WWW series(Daniel against Johan mostly) and noticed that Johan just started nuking everywhere with no regard. In real life, nuking was a massive moral dilemma. The US would not have gotten away with simply firing nukes at any city they could including occupied territories that Japan didn't truly own. Now I know that this was an early build, but this is kind of disturbing for me. I would think nukes would be this rarely used desperate times measure, not who can nuke the world first.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Wait what? You were disturbed? Over a game?
Yeah it will be who can nuke who first. It has been posted by many that is their #1 goal.

 

[Kozer]

So...What?

You want the country that fired the nukes to suffer a unity drop?
Its fine to me. Its a game.

 

[commandercoop]

So I finished watching the first WWW series(Daniel against Johan mostly) and noticed that Johan just started nuking everywhere with no regard. In real life, nuking was a massive moral dilemma. The US would not have gotten away with simply firing nukes at any city they could including occupied territories that Japan didn't truly own. Now I know that this was an early build, but this is kind of disturbing for me. I would think nukes would be this rarely used desperate times measure, not who can nuke the world first.

Its a game.

And unlike IRL, a lot of people actually want to nuke everything to hell in this game.

 

[Shock360]

Wait what? You were disturbed? Over a game?
Yeah it will be who can nuke who first. It has been posted by many that is their #1 goal.

So...What?

You want the country that fired the nukes to suffer a unity drop?
Its fine to me. Its a game.

Im saying I want there to be a reason for it to not be so easy to just spam nukes everywhere with no consequence.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Yeah not going to happen. Maybe a mod that shuts off nukes?
I'm not sure how much morality can be introduced into a game where waring is the #1 aspect.
If IRL morality ruled there would be no WWII.

 

[kviiri]

Im saying I want there to be a reason for it to not be so easy to just spam nukes everywhere with no consequence.

Nukes require industrial slots to produce and air supremacy to deploy, as well as lots of research that has no other purpose. There is a cost.

The moral issues of bombing were probably addressed satisfactionarily during the Allies' other bombing campaigns. It's not like other cities than Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't get a harsh helping from the Allies...

 

[ObssesedNuker]

In real life, nuking was a massive moral dilemma.

Not until long after the bombs had dropped. You're projecting your post-Cold War perspective onto the people of late-WW2. It's a common fallacy among amateur historians and even professional ones can sometimes fall into it.

 

[Haydar]

Not until long after the bombs had dropped. You're projecting your post-Cold War perspective onto the people of late-WW2. It's a common fallacy among amateur historians and even professional ones can sometimes fall into it.

"... At that moment, few if any Americans doubted that the purpose of this first use of atomic bombs was to bring the war to the swiftest possible end, and thereby to avert American casualities. But the moment was short lived. As early as 1946, challenges to the dominant opinion appeared and soon multiplied... As one examplar revisionist put it: The bomb was dropped primarily for its effect not on Japan but on the Soviet Union. One, to force a Japanese surrender before the USSR came into the far eastern war, and two, to show under war conditions the power of the bomb. Only in this way could a policy of intimidation [of the Soviet Union] be successful."

How long is long after?

 

[Skrotskalle]

In the www streams johan got that national focus that united france and britain, and if i remember correctly he dropped som nukes over occupied france effectivley nuking his own country.

 

[Kevonfor]

In the www streams johan got that national focus that united france and britain, and if i remember correctly he dropped som nukes over occupied france effectivley nuking his own country.

What national focus is that ? I remember the Franco-British Union happening in the stream, but I have no idea how Johan managed to do that..

 

[Skrotskalle]

What national focus is that ? I remember the Franco-British Union happening in the stream, but I have no idea how Johan managed to do that..

Didn't johan takeover management of mainland france, colonies and millitary units with that focus

 

[Karimas]

Well, if its really always a rush for the atomic bomb, than thats a little boring for an MP endgame.
I also could not imagine that the US could tell their people that its the right thing if they needed 10+ atomic bombs.

 

[Denkt]

Nukes are expensive to get. You need to research 3 technologies each that is as expensive as a land doctrine. You have to build reactors who are very expensive to build and take up factory slots. Each reactor can only produce a nuke per year, think about how many equipment a military factory can produce in a year.

Then you need air superiority in the zone you want to use nukes.

They are powerful because they are super expensive to get.

 

[Bridger15]

Well, if its really always a rush for the atomic bomb, than thats a little boring for an MP endgame.
I also could not imagine that the US could tell their people that its the right thing if they needed 10+ atomic bombs.

1) Nukes are very time and resource intensive.
2) Nuking by itself doesn't win the game. All it does is make another country more likely to surrender *if they are already losing home territory*. You can't force Germany to surrender by Nuking berlin if they still own all Germany. You need to invade them, then nuke the capital to finish them off.

 

[Scooty Dash]

So I finished watching the first WWW series(Daniel against Johan mostly) and noticed that Johan just started nuking everywhere with no regard. In real life, nuking was a massive moral dilemma. The US would not have gotten away with simply firing nukes at any city they could including occupied territories that Japan didn't truly own. Now I know that this was an early build, but this is kind of disturbing for me. I would think nukes would be this rarely used desperate times measure, not who can nuke the world first.

The only moral dilemma was with the scientists and generals of the Manhattan Project worry that when they drop the bomb that it would set the world on firing killing everyone

 

[elessar90]

1) Nukes are very time and resource intensive.
2) Nuking by itself doesn't win the game. All it does is make another country more likely to surrender *if they are already losing home territory*. You can't force Germany to surrender by Nuking berlin if they still own all Germany. You need to invade them, then nuke the capital to finish them off.

Actually USA nuked two cities, not just military bases, because of moral effect of bombing and a bunch of others factors. Also USA had more than two targets - Japan just surrendered very early so they had no chance to nuke more targets.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

"... At that moment, few if any Americans doubted that the purpose of this first use of atomic bombs was to bring the war to the swiftest possible end, and thereby to avert American casualities. But the moment was short lived. As early as 1946, challenges to the dominant opinion appeared and soon multiplied... As one examplar revisionist put it: The bomb was dropped primarily for its effect not on Japan but on the Soviet Union. One, to force a Japanese surrender before the USSR came into the far eastern war, and two, to show under war conditions the power of the bomb. Only in this way could a policy of intimidation [of the Soviet Union] be successful."

How long is long after?

Well obviously the USSR and its sympathetics in the west were going to question the attempt from the start but then they did that for everything the west did in WW2, but in the west the only non-commies who questioned the morality of the affair were the select number of handful of scientists who pretty much had no impact on the decision and even they didn't buy into the revisionist arguement that the weapon was directed primarily at the USSR. That kind of revisionism didn't gain traction in the American mainstream until the 1960s. The synthesis (and most probably correct) view didn't really formulate until the late-90s, give-or-take.

 

[Thorin]

, nuking was a massive moral dilemma. The US would not have gotten away with simply firing nukes at any city

LOL, yep, the allies got away with pretty much anything, since they won the WW2, just like the germans would got away with everything, if they won.

It is against the forum rules, but the terrorbombing done by the allied forces were much more widespread, than the axis one.

 

[Oriflamme]

Public morality had no effect on the conduct of the Manhattan Project. The only thing that prevented the US (or anyone for that matter) from dropping more atomic bombs was, well, a lack of more atomic bombs.