civilleader
Prince
I only use nukes if i desperately need it. Otherwise I just fight mainly with ground troops.
Dropping the Nukes - Ethics or strategy?
- Thread starter OldieMagee
- Start date
Bluemofia
F=ma
"always remember, air superiority" -- some guy after pearl harbor
"oh my god. what have we done." -- one of the people on the Enola Gay after they droped the Atomic Bomb.
"oh my god. what have we done." -- one of the people on the Enola Gay after they droped the Atomic Bomb.
Magister_Mortis
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 17
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Your courteous letter, enclosing the resolution of the Hiroshima City Council, was highly appreciated. The feeling of the people of your city is easily understood, and I am not in any way offended by the resolution which their city council passed.
However, it becomes necessary for me to remind the City Council, and perhaps you also, of some historical events.
In 1941, while a peace conference was in progress in Washington between representatives of the Emperor of Japan and the Secretary of State of the United States, representing the President and the Government of the United States, a naval expedition of the Japanese Government approached the Hawaiian Islands, a territorial part of the United States, and bombed our Pearl Harbor Naval Base. It was done without provocation, without warning and without a declaration of war.
Thousands of young American sailors and civilians were murdered by this unwarranted and unheralded attack, which brought on the war between the people of Japan and the people of the United States. It was an unnecessary and terrible act.
The United States had always been a friend of Japan from the time our great Admiral succeeded in opening the door to friendly relations between Russia and Japan in the early 1900s. The President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, intervened and brought about a peace settlement.
But in the 1930s Japan joined the Axis Powers, and when the Hitler regime in Germany and Mussolinis government in Italy were defeated, Japan was left alone.
From Potsdam in 1945, before Russia declared war on Japan, Great Britain, China and the United States issued an ultimatum suggesting that Japan join the Germans and Italians in surrender. This document, sent to the Japanese Government through Sweden and Switzerland, evoked only a very curt and discourteous reply.
Our military advisers had informed Prime Minister Churchill of Great Britain,
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of China and the President of the United States that it would require at least a million and a half Allied soldiers to land in the Tokyo plain and on the south island of Japan.
On July 16, 1945, before the demand for Japan's surrender was made, a successful demonstration of the greatest explosive force in the history of the world had been accomplished.
After a long conference with the Cabinet, the military commanders and Prime Minister Churchill, it was decided to drop the atomic bomb on two Japanese cities devoted to war and work for Japan. The two cities selected were Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
When Japan surrendered a few days after the bomb was ordered dropped, on August 6, 1945, the military estimated that at least a quarter of a million of the invasion forces against Japan and a quarter of a million Japanese had been spared complete destruction and that twice that many on each side would, otherwise, have been maimed for life.
As the executive who ordered the dropping of the bomb, I think the sacrifice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was urgent and necessary for the prospective welfare of both Japan and the Allies.
The need for such a fateful decision, of course, never would have arisen, had we not been shot in the back by Japan at Pearl Harbor in December, 1941.
And in spite of that shot in the back, this country of ours, the United States of America, has been willing to help in every way the restoration of Japan as a great and prosperous nation.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman
I hoped you find this to be informative on why nuking is sometimes necessary but only as a last resort in warfare.
Your courteous letter, enclosing the resolution of the Hiroshima City Council, was highly appreciated. The feeling of the people of your city is easily understood, and I am not in any way offended by the resolution which their city council passed.
However, it becomes necessary for me to remind the City Council, and perhaps you also, of some historical events.
In 1941, while a peace conference was in progress in Washington between representatives of the Emperor of Japan and the Secretary of State of the United States, representing the President and the Government of the United States, a naval expedition of the Japanese Government approached the Hawaiian Islands, a territorial part of the United States, and bombed our Pearl Harbor Naval Base. It was done without provocation, without warning and without a declaration of war.
Thousands of young American sailors and civilians were murdered by this unwarranted and unheralded attack, which brought on the war between the people of Japan and the people of the United States. It was an unnecessary and terrible act.
The United States had always been a friend of Japan from the time our great Admiral succeeded in opening the door to friendly relations between Russia and Japan in the early 1900s. The President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, intervened and brought about a peace settlement.
But in the 1930s Japan joined the Axis Powers, and when the Hitler regime in Germany and Mussolinis government in Italy were defeated, Japan was left alone.
From Potsdam in 1945, before Russia declared war on Japan, Great Britain, China and the United States issued an ultimatum suggesting that Japan join the Germans and Italians in surrender. This document, sent to the Japanese Government through Sweden and Switzerland, evoked only a very curt and discourteous reply.
Our military advisers had informed Prime Minister Churchill of Great Britain,
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of China and the President of the United States that it would require at least a million and a half Allied soldiers to land in the Tokyo plain and on the south island of Japan.
On July 16, 1945, before the demand for Japan's surrender was made, a successful demonstration of the greatest explosive force in the history of the world had been accomplished.
After a long conference with the Cabinet, the military commanders and Prime Minister Churchill, it was decided to drop the atomic bomb on two Japanese cities devoted to war and work for Japan. The two cities selected were Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
When Japan surrendered a few days after the bomb was ordered dropped, on August 6, 1945, the military estimated that at least a quarter of a million of the invasion forces against Japan and a quarter of a million Japanese had been spared complete destruction and that twice that many on each side would, otherwise, have been maimed for life.
As the executive who ordered the dropping of the bomb, I think the sacrifice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was urgent and necessary for the prospective welfare of both Japan and the Allies.
The need for such a fateful decision, of course, never would have arisen, had we not been shot in the back by Japan at Pearl Harbor in December, 1941.
And in spite of that shot in the back, this country of ours, the United States of America, has been willing to help in every way the restoration of Japan as a great and prosperous nation.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman
I hoped you find this to be informative on why nuking is sometimes necessary but only as a last resort in warfare.
Bluemofia
F=ma
even though the fire bombing of Tokyo did more damage, with the city burned to the ground, and a million civilian casualties, the atomic bomb was scarier since it only needed one. the exact records of the deaths will never be known, since it literally, vaporized tens of thousands of civilians, and burned some people's ashes perminately into the sidewalks. the initial casualties from the fireball alone was over 60,000 at hirosima. thousands more are condemed to die of radiation poisoning, and countless genetic deformed people were later born. as i mentioned above, "oh my god. what have we done."
man o' war
AKA Kristophski
I think that, before u drop such a bomb, it is important to consider
a.)how many it will kill
b.)how many it will save.
For all we know, Japan could have been about 2 surrender 2 the US before they dropped the bomb, but if not, would it really have saved the lives of over a million civilians? It's not as if the US had 2 target Hiroshima either - there was, infact, NO MILITARY STATIONED IN HIROSHIMA AT THE TIME. They could have easilly targeted a smaller population centre with a army base and had the same effect, probobly halving civiliopn casulties.
a.)how many it will kill
b.)how many it will save.
For all we know, Japan could have been about 2 surrender 2 the US before they dropped the bomb, but if not, would it really have saved the lives of over a million civilians? It's not as if the US had 2 target Hiroshima either - there was, infact, NO MILITARY STATIONED IN HIROSHIMA AT THE TIME. They could have easilly targeted a smaller population centre with a army base and had the same effect, probobly halving civiliopn casulties.
Pook
Bloviating
History Channel ran a special this past year on just what transpired in the Emperor's inner circle after Nagasaki. Even after two atomic weapons, even after firebombing paper houses in Tokyo with incendiaries, there was STILL a lot of resistance in the Japanese military to surrender- it is absolutely anathema to that culture. Only the Emperor himself announcing it on the radio made it even plausible as an option.
Even then, before the announcement, an Army major (yes, a major) tried to seize power and prevent the Emperor's message from being broadcast.
The Emperor's message did not mention surrender- it translates roughly as "circumstances of the war have gone not necessarily to our advantage." It was so vague that many listeners had no idea what the emperor was really saying.
On a separate note, I personally have no problem with nuking an AI civilization that has backstabbed me repeatedly.
Even then, before the announcement, an Army major (yes, a major) tried to seize power and prevent the Emperor's message from being broadcast.
The Emperor's message did not mention surrender- it translates roughly as "circumstances of the war have gone not necessarily to our advantage." It was so vague that many listeners had no idea what the emperor was really saying.
On a separate note, I personally have no problem with nuking an AI civilization that has backstabbed me repeatedly.
Bluemofia
F=ma
i rarely use nukes, unless if i have nothing much to lose, and if i have the SDI up, or if no one else has nukes.
Magister_Mortis
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 17
The Japanese as previously stated have a culture based on warfare and never surrendering. So it was little surprise when the Japanese round hundreds if not thousands of guerilla fighters who had been harboring weapons, because they felt the war with america was never over. However, you may be surprised to now that this occured in the 1970's. Looking at that you would assume that far greater numbers of people would have given their lives to kill off any American invader. I would like to see you force American Soldiers to go into a meatgrinder worse than vietnam ever would have possiblly been. I am no warmongerer, but I do feel that using fear and intimidation in World War 2 was the right thing to do.
You also say Hiroshima and Nagasaki we're merely civilian targets you are wrong. Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries.
You can have whatever opinion you like over the matter, but the facts are what they are. We bombed Japan to intimidate the mass of the population, to severely hinder their production capabilities, eliminate military leaders and military targets, and to cripple the Japanese navy. Last I heard that is pretty good strategy.
You want to know the total casualties?
Take a guess?
A million?
Two million?
TEN MILLION!?!?!
In fact the total casualties for the attacks we're
Hiroshima: 135,000
Nagasaki: 64,000
That is including small injuries like minor concussions, and deadly injuries such as radiations poisoning. It is also less the total # of jews killed by the germans, and also less than the total # of russians killed by their own leader stalin. All of statements are facts, look them up if you want to.
You also say Hiroshima and Nagasaki we're merely civilian targets you are wrong. Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries.
You can have whatever opinion you like over the matter, but the facts are what they are. We bombed Japan to intimidate the mass of the population, to severely hinder their production capabilities, eliminate military leaders and military targets, and to cripple the Japanese navy. Last I heard that is pretty good strategy.
You want to know the total casualties?
Take a guess?
A million?
Two million?
TEN MILLION!?!?!
In fact the total casualties for the attacks we're
Hiroshima: 135,000
Nagasaki: 64,000
That is including small injuries like minor concussions, and deadly injuries such as radiations poisoning. It is also less the total # of jews killed by the germans, and also less than the total # of russians killed by their own leader stalin. All of statements are facts, look them up if you want to.
Bluemofia
F=ma
that is true, but after considerating their crimes their entire country comited, before wwII, like the naking massacure, developing biological weapons, and using civilians as target practice, i would say japan deserved it.
No offense to anyone Brittish, Britain wasn't any better with the Opium wars. imagine, Britain and China fighting each other just because Britain wants to drug the entire country and take all of their money.
No offense to anyone Brittish, Britain wasn't any better with the Opium wars. imagine, Britain and China fighting each other just because Britain wants to drug the entire country and take all of their money.
man o' war
AKA Kristophski
I'm British but I agree. Our government sux 
Only jking but I admit that if u look hard enough at any nations history u can find something really bad. Particulally the French. (no offence 2 any1 french)
Only jking but I admit that if u look hard enough at any nations history u can find something really bad. Particulally the French. (no offence 2 any1 french)
if you use nukes, use it at the last minute, when you are ~5 turns away to victory. I laugh when I blitz nuke their capitol and major cities(<12 pop). Then I send my fleet of MA and wipe them out. Ha haha, ha haha haha!!!!
BTW, the letter by Truman isn't eatly accurate. They changed the target to Nagasaki about 7 minutes before the drop due to poor visibility, if it mattered...
BTW, the letter by Truman isn't eatly accurate. They changed the target to Nagasaki about 7 minutes before the drop due to poor visibility, if it mattered...
lordbasl
Chieftain
Definitely strategy. Use them when your foes cannot, or to prevent them from ever using them, to stomp stacks and enemy capital cities, to deny resources, decimate populations and, yes, to warm up the world a but
man o' war
AKA Kristophski
dont u ever worry about all those poor pixels ur killing?
Bluemofia
F=ma
actually it's data
man o' war
AKA Kristophski
well i'm sory if my jokes arent completely accurate 
Duke Togo
Golgo 13
I don't know about the rest of you, but there is something satisfying in building up after a long game having won the either the Space Race, Cultural Victory, Diplomatic Victory, something along those lines, and then just letting loose a firestorm of nuclear fury upon whatever Civ messed with you the most during the game.
We all get atleast ONE Civ in the games we play that just can't help themselves from constantly threatening you and attacking you. I say its about time they got what was coming to them.
We all get atleast ONE Civ in the games we play that just can't help themselves from constantly threatening you and attacking you. I say its about time they got what was coming to them.
Bluemofia
F=ma
true, take them out at the last turn of the game, they cant do squat about it!
Plug
Warlord
I'm not sure if ethics have any place in military strategy. The only use for ethics is that "the generic enemy's nukes are evil, ours are defensive."
Basically, if it is expedient to use nuclear weapons they will be used. If a state needs to it will. It is winning that counts. (And I am not a right wing lunatic, I'm being realistic.)
The environmental effects of nuclear weapons checks their wide scale use. States will not use them if they don't think they will benefit greatly from it. The environmental effects would be coonsidered. States will weigh up the good and bad (that's not the same as weighing up the Good and Evil.)
Basically, if it is expedient to use nuclear weapons they will be used. If a state needs to it will. It is winning that counts. (And I am not a right wing lunatic, I'm being realistic.)
The environmental effects of nuclear weapons checks their wide scale use. States will not use them if they don't think they will benefit greatly from it. The environmental effects would be coonsidered. States will weigh up the good and bad (that's not the same as weighing up the Good and Evil.)
OldieMagee
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2004
- Messages
- 44
We warned them too, if I'm not mistaken. I recall from history classes in college that we also gave them the locations for the events.
I try to "warn" anyone that it's coming by dropping a nuke offshore first.
I realize this has no effect on the AI, but it makes me feel better.
-Chris
Similar threads
