ALLIED 'STRATEGIC BOMBING'

[Timskorn]

My moral compass agrees that bombings of such magnitude in Japan were horrific, and no matter what kind of war you're in that kind of destruction of civilian life can never be justified. On the flip side, I didn't live through that time. The world had been embroiled in a war the likes of which had never been seen, and for 6 long years. Dozens of millions of people had died and the future of the world had balanced on a thin wire. In that light I could never judge (nor should we judge anyway) the people involved in the atomic bombings of Japan.

Back on topic anyone?

Personally I'd like to hear from some of the multiplayer guys what they're opinion is of Allied air superiority and bombing of German targets in France/Western Germany. Is it worth it? Is it a viable tactic in most cases? Or is money better spent gearing up for an early D-Day?

[Fire]

Japan was ready to surrender and the only thing that kept Japan from surrender was the fact that the US didnt allow the emperor to be in place after the war. For the japanese the emperor was a god and so the US knew quite well that Japan would never surrender....so the US "had" to, tragically and very reluctant drop the bomb....

[Desert Dave]

But, it was never a sure thing either. It wouldn't have forced the Japanese to surrender. They could have let half the population starve.

You blockade, yea,

Considering IJN was done defunct,

And then, as with East Berlin in 1961,

You air-drop basic necessities.

What's so hard?

Might've taken - what?

A year before the common "rice farmer"

Over-threw the rabid Army tyrants

(... actually, IMO, would've been

a matter of months; the Emperor was on record

as favoring peace... I do believe the peasants

would have listened to Him, being

"superstitious" and all )

Well,

In the tremendous ARC of Eonic history,

What is that?

A month.

A month or two and - no Nagasaki,

And no Hiroshima.

I'd take it.

Truman was... guilty.

Of what?

Each can decide for themselves.

Related: I for one am VERY glad there are no

Atomic bombs in SC-1, or SC-2.

[Lars]

Personally I'd like to hear from some of the multiplayer guys what they're opinion is of Allied air superiority and bombing of German targets in France/Western Germany. Is it worth it? Is it a viable tactic in most cases? Or is money better spent gearing up for an early D-Day?

Depends, as so many things in this game do, on how Russia is going.

If Russia is holding, bomb the snot out of the Axis. If it looks like Russia is going to break, ramp up D-Day.

Perhaps you could link the strategy switch to a random city in Russia. Say Leningrad/Smolensk/Karkov?

[Lars]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But, it was never a sure thing either. It wouldn't have forced the Japanese to surrender. They could have let half the population starve.

You blockade, yea,

Considering IJN was done defunct,

And then, as with East Berlin in 1961,

You air-drop basic necessities.

What's so hard?

Might've taken - what?

A year before the common "rice farmer"

Over-threw the rabid Army tyrants</font>

[Desert Dave]

Lars, obfuscating:

Umm, if you're feeding the rice farmers, why are they going to overthrow the government?

Rice all by itself ain't enough.

You gotta have,

As most humans far prefer it,

Some semblance of "safe housing"

And, at least,

The equivalent of... Zen bells

Harmoniously bonging.

It's a very normal longing

And any fool can figure WHEN

It's own ARMY-dominated

Government has gone... Cuckoo daft. :eek:

Lessons learned,

How the aggregate Past can teach us well,

And etc, like that.

[Timskorn]

Lars: Yep, can definitely add a production script based on which cities are still friendly. Good idea.

[Sombra]

As airfleets are much rarer in SC2 and bombers are much cheaper I find bombers quite useful in multiplayer.

- Keeping down Tobruk

- Later on they are effective and useful if the German fleet looks for a fight with my poor Royal Navy

- You can keep down resources

and most important when you are are finally landing in France with a few bombers you can knock down cities to prevent Axis reinforcements

Perhaps its not the best way to play the allies but its fun and quite effective if the axis is already bogged down in Rusia.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Fire:

Japan was ready to surrender and the only thing that kept Japan

Originally posted by DD:

Could have ended without dropping those 2 fat bombs, and WITHOUT invading Japanese home islands.

I dont believe these statements are true. Even after dropping 2 A-bombs, the Japanese military tried to stage a "coup" (that might not be the exact term for what happened, but it is close) against the emporer to keep Japan from announcing surrender.

Originally posted by DD:

This was a "demonstration" to put Soviets and others "on notice."

I dont agree with this either. I believe Truman's main motivation was saving U.S. lives.

[Liam]

From what I understand the Japanese Isles are self sustaining in Rice. Throw some seaweed and dead fish in there and you got pretty much what we all should be eating right now if we want to live to be as old as Japanese people live to be. Not sure how much fish were being harvested in the end?

A-bombs were definitely unneccessary. perhaps the USA wanted Japanese Surrender and Terms before the Reds overran too much? Much like Western Europe?

I do not say the whole reasoning to be political, losses after the Island Hopping would've been stagering if they were any sort of indicator of how "Gung Ho" The Japs really were. I certianly would've favored losing 200 thousand to losing potentially twice that figure from an invasion including wounded perhaps a Million? On both ends

[Retributar]

Liam, ...i don't have reliable figure's here,...but i think i recall that the casualties for trying to do an invasion of Japan would have cost around 1,000,000 Casualties!.

That's reason enough to want to use the A-Bomb!.

[Guest Mike]

The US wasn't prepared to have a long blockade in case hte USSR invaded Japan and conquered it.

The A-bombs weer not a demonstration against the USSR, they were, IMO, an "honest" attempt to end the war ASAP.

Certainly there were fears of millions of casualties should Japan be invaded.

There was an attempted coup - the plotters attempted to get hold of the recording of the surrender announcement before it could be played on-air - it had been recorded onto vinyl at hte palace and smuggled out before the attempt.

[Liam]

All that was mentioned is valid, many possible reasons. The Leadership made the choice and we went with it for whatever reason. Ultimately To Win, now we see that Nuclear Weapons are not a Winning Strategy more of a deterrent or even perhaps a total apocalyptic undertaking, have to remeber the mindset of that era. They didn't see it that way just as HEY LOOK we've got some deadly bombs, surrender or be destroyed