Now that I know how atomics work...

[kullenius]

It sure is the only conclusion that also I have managed to make that actually do sum up.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

I would say that the atomic bombs were completely unnecessary.
The japanase were willing to surrender before the drops.
It just so happened that it became clear that Russia would turn out to be the coming opponent of the USA.
Plus the Red Army was on its way to invade japanese provinces.

..................
Hmm, what shall we do?
I know! Let's ignore the japanese surrender and instead drop 2 atomic bombs on their cities. As we are the only nation possessing one, we can shock the Russians.
If we accept the japanese surrender, how should we demonstrate the power of our wonder weapon?

......................

Thus the two bombs were dropped, the world was shocked, the Russians knew that from this moment forth they shouldn't fuck with Americans.

This explanation does make sense, doesn't it?

I'm hardly pro american nationalist, but I think that your explanation is too simplistic. I do not believe that Japan was willing to surrender...or they WOULD have before the nukes were dropped. As for the Russians, yes...much of the allied horribleness inflicted on the germans by the air was explained away as *to scare away the russians*. But I think you are looking back on things with a cold war lens. At the time, there was NO real reason to believe that major hostilities would break out between the russians and allies; it took aggressive moves on behalf of the allies and soviets in the years after the war to lead to the cold war, but I can pretty much guarantee you that he russians were in no position for another war until the ealy 50s and the ALLIES KNEW THIS.

- MVSN

P.S. Back to topic, I think one cannot DENY the psychological impact of dropping a nuke and this should be simulated in the game.

 

[unmerged(10262)]

Yes, I have been there. How can I convince them to hit Detroit (without killing people) so it can be built new like Hiroshima? Japan is amazing after being reconstructed. Even Germany is similar. There high levels of infrastructure today are due to the allies reconstruction projects.

yea the allies built up the current German and Japanesse infrastructure :rofl:

 

[unmerged(23821)]

I'm hardly pro american nationalist, but I think that your explanation is too simplistic. I do not believe that Japan was willing to surrender...or they WOULD have before the nukes were dropped.

Looking at the history of it, the Japanese offered to surrender, but not unconditionally, before the bombs. Their one condition was that the Emporer be retained. Two atomic bombs are dropped, and Japan surrenders, not unconditionally, as the one condition that the Emporer be retained was enacted.

Historically, the bombings made no difference on the Japanese surrender decision. It did convince Stalin of Western might, and got him out of Iran (Persia, at the time).

Since others have brought it up, there should also be some political considerations. I don't think Stalin would've thought twice about using atomics against an Axis held Moscow, but would U.S. Roman Catholics stand by pleasantly while Rome, and thus Vatican City, was bombed? Reasonable political restrictions are not a bad idea, if possible.

 

[seattle]

Looking at the history of it, the Japanese offered to surrender, but not unconditionally, before the bombs. Their one condition was that the Emporer be retained. Two atomic bombs are dropped, and Japan surrenders, not unconditionally, as the one condition that the Emporer be retained was enacted.

Historically, the bombings made no difference on the Japanese surrender decision. It did convince Stalin of Western might, and got him out of Iran (Persia, at the time).
QUOTE]

Then one could say, two atomic bombs on civil targets were an overreaction...

They could have demonstrated the terrible power of atomic bombs in another location, like an unpopulated mountain area.

.............................

I don't blame Truman too much for the bombings. Japan was the aggressor, they weren't any better than the Nazis (10 mio. chinese civilians killed).

I wouldn't risk one more life of an american soldier to spare the Japanese.

That's why I would have demonstrated the power of the atomic bomb without killing hundreds of thousands civilians. If they don't offer an unconditional surrender afterwards, then f*ck them and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[unmerged(5110)]

Frankly, under the conditions that the Soviet Union made it clear that it would be invading Manchuria (and with that, no doubt eventually Japan itself) at that very time, I think that the US felt it had no choice but to try to force the issue with Atomic Bombs.

That makes it understandable, i don't know if that makes it justifiable. Either way, what's past is in the past, and little use arguing over whether it was justified or not.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

The other factor that most people tend to, or want to, overlook is the fact the the use of the A-bomb was simply a safer and more efficient way to do what the Allies had already been doing to Germany and Japan since late 1944 with the mass firebombings. The casualties from the first bomb were less than the conventional firebombing of Tokyo; only the type of casualties were different.

It's a hard fact to face, because we've been telling ourselves that we're the good guys and we couldn't possibly have done that. I used to believe the official story that the bomb was needed to force Japanese surrender; maybe it did speed it up a bit, but the dropping of the weapon as a demonstration to the Sovs looks more and more like the real reason. Nothing wrong with that, realy; doing so may very well have prevented WWIII kicking off not long after WWII ended.

 

[unmerged(14393)]

A-bombs should effect war score, and when a nation´s war score is too negative dissent should be heavily effected. This system would ensure us that one single A-bomb doesn´t, for exampel, totally crush a German player who is otherwisely winning on all fronts.

It would also ensure us that a human player can´t totally neglect a huge negative war score since eventually dissent is affected too (meaning that research and production drops drastically).

 

[Plutarch]

Nobody was going to be making any use of Hiroshima until years afterward.

For the purposes of the game, a nuke should destroy a province entirely.

Let's not forget the casualties. There were approximately 135K casualties from Hiroshima and about 65K from Nagasaki. Even if the factory in the outlying area wasn't destroyed the workforce certainly was. IC and Infrastructure are abstractions that represent the number of roads, factories, supply depots, train staitions, rail yards, and the work force.

For game purposes I think the permanent loss of most (or all) of the IC and infrastructure in a province is the right thing to do.

There are events in CORE that simulate the German dismantling of Industry to form militia units. I see this as a similar thing. If you deplete the work force (due to raising milita or nuclear weapons) then that isn't a work force any more.

This system would ensure us that one single A-bomb doesn´t, for exampel, totally crush a German player who is otherwisely winning on all fronts.

Arguably it would have done just that. If the Germans had broken out at Stalingrad and D-Day had failed... Then in August of 1945 we flattened Berlin and a couple other cities. That would certainly have been a huge negative consequence.

For the player it is always a race to conquer as much territory as possible before the United States can fire up industry (with high War Entry). Once the US gets moving it can research every single item and produce a couple dozen units at once. As the Germans your goal would be to keep them out of the war (and keep them pumping out consumer goods). Then once the US is in the war you need to deny them the ability to project power across the oceans. Once you get to 1945 you should expect the US to have quite a large conventional army with nuclear forces.

 

[unmerged(29373)]

The question is if ever ever Americans would have dropped atomic bomb on Paris or other occupied city or even in Europe.

Atomic weapon should be changed somehow, perhaps giving extra victory points or so.

The US would most definately never have dropped atomic bombs on Europe. The only possible targets would be Japan or later on Russia. The idea of the Americans dropping a bomb in Paris is rediculous. If they had not beaten the Germans without help of nuclear power they would sooner nogiate a peace than use atomic weapons in Europe.

 

[unmerged(29373)]

Judging by what I saw in the Hiroshima museum, Id say 'wiped off the face of the planet' would be a very apt description. Little Boy didnt even hit the ground, but after it was done, the city was gone. It was flattened rubble.

Nobody was going to be making any use of Hiroshima until years afterward.

For the purposes of the game, a nuke should destroy a province entirely.

Little Boy didn't "even" hit the ground cause it wasn't supposed to. If it had, it wouldn't cause as much damage as it did. The bombs are set to explode high up in the air. I believe the Little Boy exploded roughly 200 meters up and modern bombs are set so much higher hieghts, over 2000 meters.

 

[unmerged(29373)]

I'm hardly pro american nationalist, but I think that your explanation is too simplistic. I do not believe that Japan was willing to surrender...or they WOULD have before the nukes were dropped. As for the Russians, yes...much of the allied horribleness inflicted on the germans by the air was explained away as *to scare away the russians*. But I think you are looking back on things with a cold war lens. At the time, there was NO real reason to believe that major hostilities would break out between the russians and allies; it took aggressive moves on behalf of the allies and soviets in the years after the war to lead to the cold war, but I can pretty much guarantee you that he russians were in no position for another war until the ealy 50s and the ALLIES KNEW THIS.

- MVSN

P.S. Back to topic, I think one cannot DENY the psychological impact of dropping a nuke and this should be simulated in the game.

Wrong, the tensions between U.S.S.R and USA began the day that Berlin fell.

 

[Plutarch]

The US would most definately never have dropped atomic bombs on Europe. The only possible targets would be Japan or later on Russia. The idea of the Americans dropping a bomb in Paris is rediculous. If they had not beaten the Germans without help of nuclear power they would sooner nogiate a peace than use atomic weapons in Europe.

I'm not sure I'd agree here. Nuclear weapons were known to be powerful but initially they were viewed (by military commanders) as much more than really powerful bombs. Fallout and Radiation were not well understood. Even during the Korean War Army doctrine held that nuclear weapons could be used tactically on the battlefield or to soften up beaches for MacArthurs Marines.

Would the Americans have nuked Paris? Probably not. Berlin? I'm not so sure. If D-Day had failed and the Russian advance west not been as successful... Would we have softened up the Germans? I think Ike would have had a nice list of targets in Nazi-occupied Europe in August 1945.

 

[unmerged(29373)]

Arguably it would have done just that. If the Germans had broken out at Stalingrad and D-Day had failed... Then in August of 1945 we flattened Berlin and a couple other cities. That would certainly have been a huge negative consequence.

If the Germans had broken out at Stalingrad the Russians would be beaten, the D-Day would probably not occur (and if it did, it would have to take a whole lot more than it did for real) and the Americans would NOT use atomic weapons against Germany, no chance. They would sue for peace. And peace wouldn't come that expensively either. France would get back their coasts and retain basically the map they have today (- Upper Lorraine and Alsace), Grossdeutchland would keep their parts of Chekoslovakia and Poland. the U.S.S.R would be beaten and with it communism. Denmark, Norway, the Benelux countries and the Balkans were just tools in the war, they too would get back their souveregnity, probably with their fascistic goverments in rule though. The Japanesee would still have to surrender to the Americans and give back the territories in Korea and China. The holocaust wouldn't be known of until years later, thus the state of Isreal would not exist. Maybe I should write a "what if" about this... =)

 

[unmerged(29373)]

I'm not sure I'd agree here. Nuclear weapons were known to be powerful but initially they were viewed (by military commanders) as much more than really powerful bombs. Fallout and Radiation were not well understood. Even during the Korean War Army doctrine held that nuclear weapons could be used tactically on the battlefield or to soften up beaches for MacArthurs Marines.

Would the Americans have nuked Paris? Probably not. Berlin? I'm not so sure. If D-Day had failed and the Russian advance west not been as successful... Would we have softened up the Germans? I think Ike would have had a nice list of targets in Nazi-occupied Europe in August 1945.

If they did level Berlin the Germans would retaliate with their v-2 rockets and do pretty much the same with London. I say if the Russians were defeated and D-Day never fired (or failed), fighting on would be pointless and almost impossible... I say peace would be sued.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Judging by what I saw in the Hiroshima museum, Id say 'wiped off the face of the planet' would be a very apt description. Little Boy didnt even hit the ground, but after it was done, the city was gone. It was flattened rubble.

Nobody was going to be making any use of Hiroshima until years afterward.

For the purposes of the game, a nuke should destroy a province entirely.

It didn't hit the ground because its more effective to detonate the bomb in the air.

Well, technically it was flattened rubble (more so than Nagasaki, at least), but also both cities exist today.

I believe the effect should be something like a hit on the infra and ressources and some damage to the units stationed in the province.
Incidentally there should be a dissent hit on the target country and a smaller one on the bombing country. Say 10% for the target and 5% for the country that bombs. Maybe adjusted by the political sliders.

And please no dissent hits at all... its not cold war era public opinion there.

(at least for using country, i do not mean war support hit for receiving country)

 

[Kevyinus]

If the Germans had broken out at Stalingrad the Russians would be beaten, the D-Day would probably not occur (and if it did, it would have to take a whole lot more than it did for real) and the Americans would NOT use atomic weapons against Germany, no chance. They would sue for peace. And peace wouldn't come that expensively either. France would get back their coasts and retain basically the map they have today (- Upper Lorraine and Alsace), Grossdeutchland would keep their parts of Chekoslovakia and Poland. the U.S.S.R would be beaten and with it communism. Denmark, Norway, the Benelux countries and the Balkans were just tools in the war, they too would get back their souveregnity, probably with their fascistic goverments in rule though. The Japanesee would still have to surrender to the Americans and give back the territories in Korea and China. The holocaust wouldn't be known of until years later, thus the state of Isreal would not exist. Maybe I should write a "what if" about this... =)

If the US sued for peace with Germany, then as an Axis power Japan would also be in the peace negotiations. Germany would most likely keep northern France, and Vinchy France would be 'happy' with it. Asia would be Japanese dominated. I cant see the US losing much though. However the Brits wouldnt make peace with Germany if they had broke through in Stalingrad or the D-Day landing fail. As it was said by a old wise man "we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle".

 

[unmerged(21796)]

industy set to 0, able to VERY SLOWLY climb back up to 40% of what it was, let dissent be whatever is reasonable in hoi2 terms, have infostracture go down to 0 and slowly climb back up to 50% of what it was...

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

If the US sued for peace with Germany, then as an Axis power Japan would also be in the peace negotiations. Germany would most likely keep northern France, and Vinchy France would be 'happy' with it. Asia would be Japanese dominated. I cant see the US losing much though. However the Brits wouldnt make peace with Germany if they had broke through in Stalingrad or the D-Day landing fail. As it was said by a old wise man "we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle".

I seriously doubt Germany would have held onto Northern France. It doesn't make sense, Hitler would have given it back to a puppet Vichy the second Britain dropped out of the war.

Hitler was trying to great a Greater Germany out of any province in Europe that had any sizable German population. Note that he did not annex outright any nations that didn't have these minority. He created small fake countries that he dominated or territories equivalent to Canada's old NWT...no political authority besides military making sure the supplies and food flowed.

The Hess Deception outlines his goals fairly well. All his foreign policy makes sense if you read the parts on Geopolitics.

- MVSN

 

[blue emu]

They could have demonstrated the terrible power of atomic bombs in another location, like an unpopulated mountain area.

This possibility WAS discussed at the policy-making (presidential) level. It was suggested that for humanitarian and diplomatic reasons the USA should first warn Japan, then drop the first atomic bomb on an uninhabited off-shore island to demonstrate to the Japanese the horrific consequences of continued resistance. Perhaps that's what they SHOULD have done... but the idea was rejected, for this reason:

What if it didn't go off?

Remember that up to Hiroshima, the bomb had only been tested ONCE, at Alamagordo (the Trinity test), and that bomb wasn't even the same type as the Hiroshima bomb... one was U-235, the other Pu-239. The USA decision makers had to face the very real possibility that the Hiroshima bomb might turn out to be a dud.

Suppose they warned the Japanese to 'surrender or be destroyed', then said 'watch this!', then dropped the bomb as a demonstration and it just went 'pffft' instead of BANG!

Not only would this be a tremendous blow to USA international prestige... not only might it turn them (temporarily at least) into a laughing-stock, it might even have LENGTHENED the war. Worst of all, in this scenario, what would stop the Japanese from recovering and disecting the mis-dropped bomb?

For better or worse it was decided that the bomb should be used without warning on a 'live' target. If it failed (pffft) there was a good chance that the Japanese would not even learn of the failed raid, and so would not recover the unexploded bomb.