Jump to content

SC2 - Atomic Bomb Option

Edwin P.

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I saw Things to Come, years ago. Wasn't Raymond Massey in it ? Trying to recall the details but they're quite hazy. Seems to me there was a WW1 style conflict which went on and on, a new world order emerged with neo-barbarian chieftans flying biplanes dressed in caveman furs, etc. Am I halfway close here ? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


You have a great recollection of it. Ralph Richardson was the semi-barbaric chieftain urging his boys up in tried and true biplanes that barely left the ground. He shook a fist skyward at the futuristic looking Black Bat Bombers, saying, "They're no good, they're too big, too big and clumsy!"

Richardson's costume actually has the perfect mix of past and present. Leather riding boots, a revolver holstered Poncho Villa style across his chest, fur vest, crazy looking leather cap/helmet. Running around with his girlfriend behind, trying to scare or cajole his half-hearted followers into scrounging around for treasures like machine parts, tins of gasoline, lighter fluid, broken Yo-Yos, anything interesting that might be tinkered with. He isn't actually evil, only a bit old fashioned.

His speeches are a riot. The more moderninstic types drop sleeping gas bombs after shooting his biplanes out of the sky. All Richardson's followers fall asleep, but he hangs on too long for one final speech, helping the others doze off, and he dies on cue instead of just napping. Which is just as well, it wasn't his kind of future.

If you have a chance to see it again you'll probably enjoy it. The mid-thirties view of World War Two and what would come after it is very interesting.

Cedric Hardwick is also in this thing. It's a who's who of old British actors.

Remember this scene of Massey in his huge helmet?

-- He plays three characters in this movie. The middle character is emerging from the aircraft.


In the true spirit of old cornball flicks, London is given the suble name "Everytown."

What we'll all be wearing if we live long enough, circa 1935 futuristic fashion. In this scene Massey, in his third incarnation, is informed by his son that he and his sweetheart want to be shot out of the Space Cannon to some vague destination. Massey says, more or less, "Okay, if that's what you want, ho hum."


[ March 25, 2003, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the part I'm really not sure of, whether the U. S. would have used the A-bomb on Europeans

I am not sure if it is true or not, but i heard once (can't remember from whom) that Hamburg was the first choice target for the first a-bomb. But Germany capitulated before the first bomb was completed, so the US droped it on Japan (US curiosity killed the [japanese]cat)

Japanese troops fighting to death wasn't seen so much as bravery or heroism but as sub-human stupidity.

Recently i saw a documantery about the pacific war on TV. An old man who was a US marine in WW2 stated that his unit NEVER made any prisoners. That would be another explanation why the japs always "fought" to the death...

Did the US ever started trials to find oui, if their own troops commited war crimes in WW2(like Nuremberg 1945/46)? I don't want to compare anything, but i just and honestly don't know anything about this issue, so i would be glad if someone could improve my limited horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jerseyjohn said--

"The stocks being discussed weren't necessarily left over from WW I. There were most likely advances made between the wars and new stocks built up again. I don't think Germany had any gas weapons from WW I; they would have been forbidden by the Versailles Treaty, the terms of which she adhered to throughout the 20s.'

yes very true, you mention advances, but no uses of them i know of. gas was a ww1 version of the ww2 nuclear weapon, but it was far more dangerous in peoples minds than it was in reality. germany was breaking the versailles early and often. many associated with KRUPP were continuing on engineering new weapons and doing it covertly.(i think title of the book was "the history of KRUPP 1450-1960")

wormwood ---"a US marine in WW2 stated that his unit NEVER made any prisoners. That would be another explanation why the japs always "fought" to the death..."

regarding the prisoner thing. theres a scene in saving private ryan where the beach has been secured and they are clearing out bunkers and trenches. tom hanks and others are calmly walking along while in trenches beside and below them you hear running germans shouting and trying to surrender, while being shot. it reminded me of the german machine gunners in ww1. if i had faced them for a few days, i dont know if i would have relished taking a german mg'er prisoner....it was a "you had to be there moment"

i read an eyewitness account of a us prisoner who escaped from a ditch prepared by the japanese in which us prisoners were burned alive. this has to color the view of individuals and a nation, and of course it would be done for either side in a conflict.

as for nuremberg-type trials i have a different opinion on that than most people. i believe that they werent legal or binding. first you decide that a crime has been commited, and then you decide on a punishment. crimes against humanity? sounds good, but as goering implied at his trial, the VICTOR of a battle is able to make up any rules they want, after the fact.

the nuclear option should be just that(as stated by edwin), an option. turn it off/on. but it should be an option(historically!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think the book you're thinking of is The Arms of Krupp , a great book, I think it came out either in the late sixties or early seventies along with a book about The Rothschilds around the same time.

Good point about the Germans breaking those rules even before the Nazis came to power. They had deals during the Weimar Republic where German troops trained in the USSR and shared technology with the Russians. The Versailles Treaty was so stiffling that they had to break it just to maintain some semblance of an army and navy -- they weren't allowed to have an airforce.

It was stilted and unjust that neither Britain nor France were the least bit inclined to mutter a word about Hitler's announcement that Germany refused to continue honoring it. The British in particular disliked it and Winston Churchill wrote articles in the press at the time defending Germany's renunciation of the treaty.

After the Second World War Admiral Raeder was convicted of breaking that idiot treaty because he supervised the building of the three pocket battleships before the Nazis came to power, and they were each 1,000 tons beyond the limit (11,000 instead of 10,000). Surely the most idiotic and pathetic war crime conviction of them all.

After the First World War the English and French tried putting Germans on trial and wound up leaving it up to the German courts to implement; naturally, the world is still waiting for those cases to get started. Actually, some of them were held but nobody was convicted.

After the Second World War they had to have War Crimes Trials. First of all, there had to be trials for the Holocaust, that was mandatory. Then there had to be investigations and trials for all the very real crimes German troops, especially the SS had committed. Wiping out entire villages in reprisal for partisan activity, executing 25, 50 or 100 hostiges for every soldier killed, etc., these are crimes by anyones standards. Had there been no Nuremburg Trials, the Russians, French and a number of others would have held their own trials or conducted summary executions. The Russians, for example, wanted to automatically execute everyone with an SS ID tatoo.

Where I agree with you, though, is crimes like Conspiracy to Commit Aggressive War seems like a contrived offense. Crimes Against Humanity , on the other hand seems perfectly legitimate to me.

Goering, for all his rotund jolity, was floating on blood. He was the creater of the Gestapo and the architect of Germany's rape of the USSR policy, among other things. Of all the defendants at Nuremburg he had the least right to complain; he entered 1939 with a noose already around his neck, his misdeeds during the war only tightened it.

I don't think it can be justified that people like Dr. Mengele and his counterparts, both in Europe and the Pacific, couldn't be tried as war criminals simply because no specific laws existed to cover their particular activities. These men were the worst, most cold blooded variety of murderer. Execution was the right penalty for them. Amazingly, many of them received lesser sentences, presumably for cutting various deals with the prosecutors.

On the other side of the world, the Japanese killed an estimated fifteen million Chinese without giving it much thought. I doubt any of the responsible officers were put on trial, but I can't see an officer who'd stood by and watched a few hundred unarmed civilians buried alive so his drunken, out of control troops could dance on the shimmering ground, should be entitled to say, "Aw, the boys were just letting off some steam." I mean, face it, these guys are murderers and so are their officers, existing laws or not.

The only Japanese general I feel was unfairly tried and executed was Tomoyuki Yama****a. He was held responsible for atrocities committed in the Luzon campaign. The military tribunal was well aware of the man's innocence and proceeded believing they needed to hang someone for the Manilla atrocities and, as commanding general, Yama****a needed to be the one. In reality, he'd ordered his troops to evacuate Manilla and set up defenses away from the city, covering his main position. Subordinates ignored his orders, fortified the city, and massacred 50,000 Phillipine civilians, and act Yamashia definitely did not order and would not have permitted if he'd been in actual control of the troops. He's one of the few exceptions, along with Raeder, Doenetz, Kesselring and Rundstedt. Most of the other convicted war criminals were deserving of what they received and in many cases were probably treated with too much leniency.

[ March 25, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that one bomb would only damage 1 hex, but based on the scale of the game, we must be talking about multiple bombers carrying multiple atomic bombs. Once research is accomplished, the country spends a whole year developing multiple bombs, attacks an area, and destroys 150 miles across.

A devastating weapon, yes, but very very expensive. Another year is spent, more bombs developed, etc.

I'm not sure if one hex of damage is worth the trouble. Lets say you could make the game engine keep the supply at 0. Thus we have a city that normally produces 10 MPP's producing nothing. This equates to 130 MPP's per year. Or a mine at 260 per year, or oil at 390 per year. Not worth the time or expense, and not really a devastating weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Good points.

The WW II A-bomb was fairly puny by comparrison with the super oblivion makers we've come to know and love in the succeeding decades. Historians aren't even certain that the destruction of those two cities were what caused Japan to surrender -- we were flattening their cities already with conventional firestorms, and had already done it so often we were running out of good targets (Heroshima and Nagasaki were on a protected list of cities reserved for the A-bomb). Some historians believe the Russians pouring through Manchuria and Korea was the actual reason; the loss of two key provinces was much more devastating than two cities.

Regarding the one hex or five hex concept, I don't have much conviction either way. As I said earlier, after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U. S. had no new bombs on hand for further use. I have no idea how long it took to build the next few but I doubt we had five of them by 1947, which is the ending of the game.

I'm not saying we should be stuck in the historical timetable, but the truth is nobody had the capability to manufacture those bombs in six packs till around 1949, so I'd be inclined to go with the single hex attack and a new bomb every six months after the tech level is achieved.

An alternate idea might be to make A-bombs production at L=4 and the Booster effect at L=5. The Booster effect should make the bomb twice as powerful, so the target hex and one adjoining hex would be made to glow. We should cut humanity that much slack as opposed to an early nuclear oblivion.

[ March 25, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dropping an A-bomb on one hex would be devasting if:

"An A-bomb dropped on the capital city of a nation has a 50% to cause the immediate surrender of that nation."

You might also say that an A-bomb dropped on non-capital city has a 20% of causing their surrender. However, this option should be open for playtesting and debate about what degree of destruction would cause the UK and Russia to surrender.

Perhaps dropping an A-bomb on a non-capital city should cause that nation to offer you a Peace treaty 20%(cumulative) of the time , which you could accept to end the war on that front, but you would not gain any plunder or future income from cities that you do not hold at the time the peace treaty is offered.

Thus if you managed to drop an A-bomb on London or Moscow they have a 50% to surrender and you gain their plunder and they disband their armies.

If you drop an A-bomb on Machester, the UK has a 20% to offer you a peace treaty. If you drop 2 a-bombs then this percentage increases to 40%.


As for the concept of multiple A-bombs and a 150 mile blase radius. The US only had 2 A-bombs when it bombed Japan and each of these A-bombs had a blast radius of about 1 to 2 miles:


U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey




19 June 1946

In Nagasaki, no fire storm arose, and the uneven terrain of the city confined the maximum intensity of damage to the vally over which the bomb exploded. The area of nearly complete devastation was thus much smaller: only about 1.8 square miles. Casualties were lower also; between 35,000 and 40,000 were killed, and about the same number injured. People in the tunnel shelters escaped injury, unless exposed in the entrance shaft.
Hiroshima was uniformly and extensively devastated. Practically the entire densely or moderately built-up portion of the city was leveled by blast and swept by fire. A "fire-storm", a phenomenon which has occurred infrequently in other conflagrations, developed in Hiroshima: fires springing up almost simultaneously over the wide flat area around the center of the city drew in air from all directions. The inrush of air easily overcame the natural ground wind, which had a maximum velocity of 30 to 40 miles per hour two to three hours after the explosion. The "fire-wind" and the symmetry of the built-up center of the city gave a roughly circular shape to the 4.4 square miles which were almost completely burned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really like the surrender idea associated with the a-bomb. Makes it too much of a game ender(no other research does this) as opposed to a viable research strategy.

I would be flexible on the number of hexes, maybe tech 4 is 1-2 hexes, while tech 5 is 3-4 hexes, completely random except for the targeted hex. Cost and frequency can be fine tuned if this option was chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EdwinP & KDG

Good points and good ideas.

The surrender idea should definitely vary with the country. England would be more inclined to seek terms than Germany, unless Hitler were killed, which I assume is the 50% Berlin idea. As for Russia, hit a square and you've hit a square. I don't thing the Stalinist government would have batted an eyelash at losing a city. Especially one they viewed as a haven for troublemakers, such as Kiev or Lenningrad; they'd just have moved a new, more Moscow oriented population into the ruins. Cancer, radiation poisoning, comrade, you should be lucky enough to live that long!

As for it being a knockout blow, that's fine, it would only be employed in very long games, those going into mid-45 and beyond to 1946 and 1947. By then there should be war weariness enough that the sudden vaporizing of an entire city by a single bomb should provide the decisive shock.

Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Japan's surrender. At the time Japan asked for terms the central government knew very little about what had happened in those cities. What reports they did hear were initially written off as halucinations.

As for A-bombs being expensive to research and to make -- sure, but the sheer outlay doesn't guarantee the production of a truly effective weapon. In reality, an A-bomb was not more effective than the 1000 plane raids being routinely carried out at the time. In the World War Two sense they were similar to those huge 80cm siege guns Germany only used at Sevastopol; impressive, but probably not cost efficient in terms of outlay and diverted manpower.

One point from earlier on concerning the use of Gas in WW II. It would have had nothing at all to do with the way it was used in WW I; not in a strategic sense. It wouldn't have been one or two shells fired a mile from a howitzer. It would have been twenty or thirty bombers dropping full loads of gas bombs at different points of a major city. At least half the residents would have been caught without their gas masks, probably a lot more. Night bombers would also have been dropping full loads of chemical weapons, catching many in their sleep. The use of chemical weapons in this manner, even in 1940, would have been a nightmare fully comparable to 1945 nuclear devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You asked about the Japanese.

Japanese culture is quite different from American or European culture. WWII culture emphasized and rewarded conformity, obedience, "spirit" and was full of ritual. "Spirit" is like a combination of religious faith and the way Europeans feel about their favorite soccer team. And the ritual helped maintain the belief in the Emperor, who is considered a combo Pope and God.

So when the Japanese soldier got into combat, it was like they were having a religous experience. And they were not afraid to die. Resigned to the possiblity of getting killed is a trait that all successful combat veterans share. Makes for excellent soldiers.

Japanese military doctrine did not recognize surrender as an option. They had various terms to differentiate how you died in battle, since the method determined the degree of military honor you earned.

So you ended up with a soldier who would take you to the bitter end, preferring death to surrender. Why most of the western media referred to them as fanatics. And it is also the reason they mistreated most of the POW's they had, since surrendering or being captured would be the equivalent to us of being a child molester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Good post and well said.

Having said so much about Japanese atrocities, I have also to add something about their other side. A typical incident occurred after the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse in early 1942. The Japanese aircrews felt the ships had fought bravely and several of them returned to drop flowers and wreaths among the lifeboats and zig-zagging destroyers. On the way out the Japanese pilots tilted dropped a bit on one wing as further recognition of the sailors bravery. All of which puzzled the bobbing seamen, who thought they were returning for a strafing run.

The same behavior took place at Leyte Gulf when American minesweepers and escort carriers fought suicidally against heavy cruisers and Battleships, saving the beachhead with their sacrifice. Japanese vessels returned to throw flowers among the survivers. Unaccountably, the U. S. admiralty made no effort for days to recover the survivors, they were overlooked. By the time rescue ships arrived more than half had either died or exposure or wounds or been eaten by sharks.

A last incident reflecting the Japanese sense of honor involves a Cockney P. O. W. in Tokyo. He was caught lifting things from dying comrades. Dragged before the camp commondant he expected to be decapitated. Instead the commander sentenced him to wear a placard that said, front and back, something like, I am a thief who has dishonored my friends, family and ancestors. in both English and Japanese. To his delight the guards thought this was such a harsh and uncalled for punishment that they took pity and sneaked cigarettes and food to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thank you for your post. You are absolutly right, but this marine spoke from NEVER, sounded like his unit was just to lazy or racist to make japanese prisoners. And in my eyes it is amazing that somebody can make such statements without shame. I think it was the attidue of this old man what shocked me.

The "Private Ryan" situation happens in every war. In my opinion the only "bad" guy in this movie was the scribe who shot the german who recognized him. I still wonder why he finaly shot someone (after he didn't rescued his comrades).

Shaka & JerseyJohn

Thank you for your posts.


But i am against an atomic-bomb in SC2.

Why? I am from germany, i am against anything.


Just kidding, just kidding.

Godspeed to all allied forces in Iraq!

[ March 25, 2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


"Godspeed to all Allied Forces in Iraq."

Amen to that.

The usual skepticism aside concerning the oil and powerbrokering, etc., I'm very glad that the Iraqi people will be shedding their Stalin-wannabe. Hopefully they'll develop a good and responsive government. After being ruled by oppressive murderers and thieves for thirty years they deserve the best.

[ March 25, 2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I haven't checked in for a few days, and have missed a lot.

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that 'the US would never have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany.' I agree absolutely that racism was a big part of the war against Japan; old newsreels, magazines, etc. are filled with evidence of this. I also agree that the element of racism was absent against the Italians and Germans (after all they were 'like us'...because 'we' didn't think of blacks, hispanics and other 'non-european' races as being part of 'us' in 1940).

Still, I have a very difficult time envisioning Winston Churchill (in particular) going down to defeat at the hands of Hitler and all the evil the Nazi regime represented--and a fair amount of it was known during the war--with the atomic bomb sitting around unused.

It is clearly unlikely (almost impossible) that the bomb would have been used in Europe with the Allies winning the war--when it was used in the Pacific there was no doubt about an eventual Allied victory. But in SC the Allies don't always win. And what would have been done with the British government in Manchester (or Canada) and atomic weapons in the US is an open question to me. There was no more certain 'political suicide' for Churchill and Roosevelt than losing a war to Hitler.


On gas: Historically I think the Germans considered it when they were losing, but the military men discouraged Hitler from using it. Of course Hitler had been gassed in the first war, so he might have been itching for a chance for revenge, but the hang up the Germans ran into is that gas is a good weapon for attack, not so good for defence--it's particularly bad if you've lost control of the air over your country and everyone is compressed into a small geographical area.

It's hard for me to see how SC could incorporate gas usefully. If it requires a large MPP investment, it would likely be a never used (i.e. "gun laying radar") option in the research chart. If it were already available and ready to use it would probably be used more frequently than would be good for the game.

In contrast, I see the 'nuclear option' as the opposite in terms of game play:

1. It would require long-term strategic decision making and investment for uncertain but possibly decisive results.

2. It would encourage countries who were losing on the battlefield to hang on hoping for the "miracle weapon" that would win the war (this actually happened).

3. And it could be done, I think, in a way that would not visibly affect WWII-style combat (a la SC) until after 1945-46--when WWII-style combat had historically ceased in Europe.

In other words, I think it could be added to the game while preserving (actually enhancing) the historical consistency/"realism"/ability to play "what if" that makes the game so enjoyable.

Plus, it has generated a lot of interesting discussion. Thanks again, Edwin P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just caught this subject today, you know I love this stuff.

We all enjoy to read your synopses on the historic aspect of this game.

I remember that the Allied trials at Nuremburg convicted around 20 German men to death penalties. Many more were to serve life sentences and some 7 to 20 year sentences. Most were let go after serving only 5 years. Isreal caught most of the men it wanted and took justice in their own way.

In Japan however we convicted a 1000 men to death. That's a big difference! Paybacks are a mother____k, 2500 dead at Pearl Harbor must have felt justice.

Again your analyses of the destruction in Germany is spot on. In Dressden Germany lost more than a A-bomb in Hiroshima, that was like using a nuke but civilization for some reason excepts it. I don't think that US/Britain would have used a nuke on Germany, unless it was used against them, but again the bombings of so many major cities in Germany was like nuclear war. No country has ever surrendered because of just bombing, you always need grunts on the ground, although the French could be the exception. My deductive conclusion comes from the difference in the way we treated the Nazis after the war, and the way we treated the Japs (from above about A-Bombs).

[ March 28, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Great Points.

With regard to German war criminals I think a lot were quietly convicted and either executed or imprisoned in Russia, Soviet occupied Poland and the Balkans.

I'd forgotten how many Japanese were tried and sentenced as war criminals. No doubt the majority of those were convictions were gotten in Manchuria and Korea by the Soviets and in South East Asia by the French and British. Also, they were probably all done within a a year or two of the war's ending and outside of the Home Islands because MacArthur did a lot to protect those people.

What I find interesting now is that, with all the millions of innocent victims in both, the European and Pacific Theaters, so called justice managed to misfire so many times. A lot of those who received the heaviest sentences were fall guys for more powerful superiors who either vanished into the population or successfully disassociated themselves from their murderous deeds. I suspect the same thing will happen in Iraq when the smoke clears. The smallest fish who weren't powerful enough to delete or destroy their files will take the fall for the bigger culprits.

Albert Speer, in 1943, said a few more devastating attacks like the one on Hamburg would have crippled Germany's ability to carry on it's war effort. At the time it was far from beaten in the field.

I have to agree with you about wars not being won in bombardments --enjoyed the remark about the French becoming the first, though I hope they never have the opportunity to prove it. It's definitely the foot soldier who has go slogging through in the end, disarmimg or killing the diehards before peace becomes official.

Also have to agree that the destruction of Germany in World War Two was comparable to nuclear warfare. The difference, of course, was in the actual body count and the way the victims died. Uranium and plutonium bombs of 1945 vintage would have killed fewer immediate victims than thousand plane firestorms, but I think the cumulative effect of half a dozen A-bombs would have resulted in a far greater number of lingering casualties probably exlipsing the eventual number of firestorm fatalities. Not a pleasant choice either way.

Interestingly Dresden, like Hiroshima, was singled out for special destruction because it was a pristine target and Allied air generals wanted to perfect firestorm techniques. I think there's a danger of men in that position becoming deranged and those gentlemen reached and passed that point. After creating a few firestorms already was it really necessary to destroy a city of little military value, killing 100,000 or so people -- though no one will ever know the actual total -- for the sake of studying new techniques? They knew the answer before they gave the orders, they effect would be terrible, what more was there to find out, whether people on the street would only be baked instead of incinerated?

Glad you jumped into this thing. smile.gif

[ March 27, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Good point about the fall guy, and war.

We have really kicked the hornets nest in attacking Iraq. If you look at a map you will see that Iraq is surrounded by six Islamic nations. Iraq is dead center of the Islamic world and the way that that part of the world thinks of us is kind of scary. To them we are the Jewish, Zionist puppets, Jerusalem occupying, Godless, Great Satan, Bloodloving Crusaders, Imperialist Infidels.

Now Syria is getting their back hairs to stand up, and I don't know but i've heard that they have a lot of back hair, so much that you can braid it!

We are in a loose loose situation, if we don't go Saddam will eventual kill our people, if we go the whole world will hate us for taking out the poor helpless peaceloving gentil Hussein. 40,000 children have died of starvation under his regime, how many Kurds killed, how many Shiittes muslims killed, Kuwait raped, but the 10,000 civillians that will probibly die in this war are more important than the ones already killed or the several 1,000s more HE will kill, plus it's US troops doing it!

Atleast Bush has a purpose and clear direction for doing what he is doing. Britian, Isreal, and the US have the best Intel on earth, and they all agree that to take him out is the ticket.

Now France and Germany are boycotting our goods, Canada and Mexico are both against our Foreign policy, atleast our Parentland England still backs us, unlike our socalled friendly neighbors.

[ March 28, 2003, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Germany everything is like always: everybody buys still Coke, watch still Hollywood-movies etc., no real "boycott" to see here at all. And while the dollar still lose against the euro every american made product gets even cheaper, so what do you think people will buy. ;)

Let the world shout and cry, they always do if someone does right while them would rather prefer to do wrong. And the islamic states would hate the christian western states even if they would regain rulership over isreal, africa, asia ...

These folks have nearly no education, follow an fanatic religion and know (and never knew) no freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaWolf and xwormwood

Enjoyed the point and couterpoint, great stuff to consider.

First, I agree with everything SeaWolf said, if we (the Americans) don't succeed we've done much more harm than good and the harm will be very enduring. However, it is precisely because Iraq is in the center of the Arab World that a progressive and enlightened government would be so effective. Once the rest of the Arab/Moslem World sees the effects of true national prosperity and a country that isn't ruled by either a strongman or a military clique, things will begin changing very quickly in Iran, Syria and Arabia. There will be unrest directed from the bottom up and it will be focused upon their own self-serving leaders instead of the Boogey-man United States.

To me the perceived Arab image of the United States and Israel based upon our past conduct is entirely correct. We've been despicable for decades seeking our own interests at the expense of others. We helped not only Shah of Iran and the Arabian Sheiks but also Saddam Hussein himself. Those days are ending. It isn't because we want them to end, as a people we wouldn't mind sitting home forever manipulating the rest of the world. They have to end because our policies are too well known and too easily thwarted. The American Robber Barons have squeezed the International Fruit dry and now it's time to plant some seeds.

Americans, British and most other Western people tend to be the exact opposite of their world wide image. Unfortunately people are judged internationally by the actions of there governments, which tend to be self-serving and corrupt. Fortunately, at heart the overwhelming majority of people everywhere are generous and good and this is the way of the future.

Even the most stilted observer can't help but notice the near obsession to feed and care for the liberated population first of Afghanistan and then of Iraq. And unlike the vast majority of history's wars, these truly are liberated populations instead of newly conquered subjects.

In this case it's the victims of a petty dictator being liberated by the sons and daughters of International Imperialists. As for the absurd claims that the U. S. and Britain are doing this for financial gain, I'd those morons who say this to look at Iraq's GNP and compare it to the cost of the war and then add up how many years we'd have to confiscate 100% of their oil before we just broke even! Oh, how God does love the ignorant. Iraq, like most other oil states, only seems rich because the top .005% are stealing 99.99% of the wealth (Please don't ask me to break this down, if you're that curious YOU break it down). Part of the idea behind this war is to put an end to that.

The day of both the gunboat imperialist and the petty dictator are coming to an end. Sooner is better than later.

[ March 28, 2003, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To think, I was thinking it was time to get back onto topic, but really enjoyed your comments JerseyJohn, thanks.

Do you think a key to the aftermath of this war is the finding of "Weapons of mass destruction", since this was the main reason given for attacking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Appreciate it. Oddly enough I was also planning to get back on topic. At least we aren't talking about Ty Cobb any longer.

I think the mass destruction issue will become less and less important.

Instead of focusing on the weapons issue I think people will focus more and more on the tactics of desperation the Baath (more accurately, the bloodbaath) party is employing against it's own people. As the country becomes straightened out and the thousands of thugs are arrested by their own countrymen it will become apparent that the regime iteself couldn't be allowed to continue; at that point I doubt anyone will care much about what he may or may not have been developing.

Aside from which, I believe they will find them. It will be a matter of seperating the symptoms from the actual disease. I just hope we're providing the cure. The people of the entire Arab World deserves much better than it's received from their own rulers. If they don't receive it the entire World will suffer along with them for decades to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

An A-Bomb Tech Option in SC2? :rolleyes:

santabear - I see the 'nuclear option' as the opposite in terms of game play:

1. It would require long-term strategic decision making and investment for uncertain but possibly decisive results.

2. It would encourage countries who were losing on the battlefield to hang on hoping for the "miracle weapon" that would win the war (this actually happened).

3. And it could be done, I think, in a way that would not visibly affect WWII-style combat (a la SC) until after 1945-46--when WWII-style combat had historically ceased in Europe.

In other words, I think it could be added to the game while preserving (actually enhancing) the historical consistency/"realism"/ability to play "what if" that makes the game so enjoyable.

[ March 22, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having worked both in the usage end initially (in the army) and in the manufacturing / maintainance / de-commissioning end more recently, I would like to add that imho I dont believe the introduction of the option of creating nuclear weapons will in any way enhance either SC or the holy grail known as SC II.

It is a simple fact from all the available evidence that Germany would never have been able to construct a viable nuclear weapon. Delivery of such a system would also be open to discussion as Germany posessed neither a suitable aircraft nor rocket capable of delivering the weapon, based upon the dimensions of the US weapon. With respect to research, Germany had limited research resources and thankfully they already wasted a lot of them in elaborate weapons systems which proved to be absolutely useless and a waste of precious resources for areas they could have been MUCH greater used in. For every success they achieved (the Jet fighter, V1, V2, MP44, etc) there were 1000's of failures. America on the other hand had not only the resources and capacity in abundance without adversely affecting other key research areas, they had the largest collection of physicists in the world, boosted in no small way by all the european scientists who fled the axis tyranny (pity Fuchs was a spy for the Russian though).

The effects of a nuclear attack are also greatly exagerrated. Japan was already suing for peace prior to the use of the nuclear weapons. As has been pointed out, by 1945, with unrestricted bombing, long range fighter escort and lack of a cohesive air defence policy, 'conventional' bombers could achieve the same results as that of a VERY expensive and difficult to handle nuclear weapon.

Finally, about nuclear weapons in general smile.gif

Nuclear weapons are a terror weapon of 'mass' destruction with an overly exagerrated destructive capability. The majority of Cold War weapons were not aimed at enemy cities but at enemy silo's and command and control centres. There was also a huge arsenal of 'tactical' warheads (usually launched from a trailer on a rocket with a maximum range of 50km). Far from a last resort weapon, in the event of Russian aggression across the German border, a lot of battlefield weapons would have been employed against the Russian invaders to check their advance. In other words, they were 1st option weapons.

Anyway, the long and short of it is the majority of people understand nuclear weapons and their uses and capabilities from 'information' from the government, mainly generated during the cold war.

A final point - there was never EVER enough weapons to destroy the world or humanity. There was always more than enough to destroy mans current level of existence. Japanese houses were match sticks in comparison to concrete and steel structures generally found in the West. Without going into detail, the destructive force of a nuclear weapon is dependent not only on target type, but also terrain (as proven in Nagasaki). Todays weapons are 1000's of times more potentially destructive, yet, due to the laws of physics most weapons are limited due to the inverse cube law - or as the manufacturer like to say 'a good bang for the bucks' - which means creating huge weapons is not worth it for the money as the exponential cost does not produce an increased yield worth it.

This is from somewhere on the web I cut and pasted a year or so ago for a lecture I gave on nuclear power and weapons in the 21st century, as it summed up very nicely what I wanted to say. I am sorry that I cant credit the words to whoever initially wrote them.

"Blast effect is a volume effect. The blast wave deposits energy in the material it passes through, including air. When the blast wave passes through solid material, the energy left behind causes damage. The more matter the energy travels through, the smaller the effect. The amount of matter increases with the volume of the imaginary sphere centered on the explosion. Blast effects thus scale with the inverse cube law which relates radius to volume."

sleep easy smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...