Give us the ability to Nuke our own lands.

[Dominico]

The nukes were not that bad. Its strange but peoples perception of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are very different than the reality.

yes it was horrific, yes lots died, but not the entire city. Nowhere near. Also not the entire city was flattened.

The best thing to do is read about eye witness accounts on the net, and also statistics. Strangely the Bombs actually saved lives. In American soldiers who didnt have to fight, and Japanese civs and military who didnt have to defend their homeland.

In game Nukes are pretty accurate. Destroying some buildings, damaging lots of units, killing some of the population and then causing after damage with fallout which kills off more population.

Also the areas are not uninhabitable for 1000s of years. Both WW2 cities are now inhabited. Fallout doesnt last forever!

God, now im thinking about the game fallout. I dont think i can wait till next year....

 

[Da_Man_2423]

The nukes were not that bad. Its strange but peoples perception of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are very different than the reality.

You should see the people that think ONE nuke can destroy the entire world.

The nukes in-game are accurate enough, and if you don't think they are then tweak the proper files.

 

[Spearthrower]

Strangely the Bombs actually saved lives. In American soldiers who didnt have to fight, and Japanese civs and military who didnt have to defend their homeland.

I cannot disagree more.

The troops that signed up did so willingly, and offered their lives for the national aspirations of their government.

Conscript troops' deaths are on the hands of their government.

Targetted civilian deaths are simply murder.

There's no valid comparison.

 

[BYC]

I think the game should tweak nukes to reflect what they truely do- drop one and the city just vanishes in a big puddle of fallout. Period. No stupid ' population drops to 3 from 12' nonsense or one tile with gold on it remaining blasted unaffected.
Using a certain # of nukes in a short period ( 50-100 yrs duration) should also automatically trigger climate change and desertification penalties around tropical areas.
For zapping invading stacks, we should have a MOAB type weapon

This is a horrible idea. Nobody wants to play for hours and then have their capital get nuked. If this was in the game, once civs can get the nuke, they win by merely building enough nukes to handle every opposing civ's capital.

As it is, it's already very very powerful. Going from 18 to 12 pop from just 1 nuke is nothing to laugh at. It won't be long before another nuke is dropped, ruining that city even more.

From a gaming balance standpoint, having nukes be uber is a terrible idea.

 

[Arlborn]

The nukes were not that bad. Its strange but peoples perception of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are very different than the reality.

yes it was horrific, yes lots died, but not the entire city. Nowhere near. Also not the entire city was flattened.

The best thing to do is read about eye witness accounts on the net, and also statistics. Strangely the Bombs actually saved lives. In American soldiers who didnt have to fight, and Japanese civs and military who didnt have to defend their homeland.

Heh...

On topic: I like the idea of somebody here that tactical nukes should give a more limited area of damage.

 

[SevenSpirits]

Completely aside from whether a nuke would destroy an entire city, the cities in game do not correspond 1-to-1 to actual cities in real life, at least as far as I can tell. You get way more cities in real life than you do cities in civ.

Having nukes wipe out entire cities would be like a real nuke killing every last person in California.

 

[Ghost Ranger]

before and after of Nagasaki bombing:


That bomb had a yield of 21 kT.
The largest ever bomb detonated had a yield of 50,000 kT, approximately 2,381 times more. And, it was tested 46 years ago, in 1961.

Completely aside from whether a nuke would destroy an entire city, the cities in game do not correspond 1-to-1 to actual cities in real life, at least as far as I can tell. You get way more cities in real life than you do cities in civ.

The same for units, if 10 real life cities= 1 civ city, then 10 real life nukes= 1 civ nuke.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

I cannot disagree more.

The troops that signed up did so willingly, and offered their lives for the national aspirations of their government.

Conscript troops' deaths are on the hands of their government.

Targetted civilian deaths are simply murder.

There's no valid comparison.

Run for your life! The thread is turning into a Poland-Hitler-HRE-type debate!

Back on topic: it would be possible to have nukes totally obliterate cities, but not on the first strike. Suppose the first nuke simply eliminates half the pop, the next one does it again, etc. If you have a size ten city it would take five nukes just to kill it, assuming it only dies once it reaches size one. (10/2 = 5, 5/2 = 2.5 ~ 3, 3/2 = 1.5 ~ 2, 2/2 = 1, then one more to obliterate it.) Thus, you'd have to be hellbent on totally ruining a city to actually do it. If you made this effective only for ICBMs and built the SDI... I think you get the idea. It's also a bit more realistic when we consider several nukes were often targetted at just one city during the Cold War.

On another note... it would be very interesting if we could build forts/bunkers to put ICBMs in, outside of the cities and away from urban areas. Then you'd have to track your opponent's stockpiles and nuke them preemptively if you didn't want a retaliatory strike to come back and bite you.

 

[dante alighieri]

I cannot disagree more.

The troops that signed up did so willingly, and offered their lives for the national aspirations of their government.

Conscript troops' deaths are on the hands of their government.

Targetted civilian deaths are simply murder.

There's no valid comparison.

Its also the governments duty to protect and safeguard the lives of its soldiers. I'm not going to debate the validity of dropping the bomb here. Niether one of us was alive when it was done. But just because someone signs on the dotted line it doesn't mean they have to forfiet their lives when it can be avoided.

 

[Arlborn]

But just because someone signs on the dotted line it doesn't mean they have to forfeit their lives when it can be avoided.

So, they are better than the dead civilians because they wanted to go to war, knowing they could die, but the nuked people were all cowards and deserved to die, right?

Sorry, I didn't want to say anything anymore, but...

I will repeat what I wrote in other thread; for some people any reason is no reason to use nuclear bombs.

 

[dante alighieri]

So, they are better than the dead civilians because they wanted to go to war, knowing they could die, but the nuked people were all cowards and deserved to die, right?

Sorry, I didn't want to say anything anymore, but...

I will repeat what I wrote in other thread; for some people any reason is no reason to use nuclear bombs.

Thats not what I said and you know it. I never said anyone deserved to die, or anything like that. What I said was this Its also the governments duty to protect and safeguard the lives of its soldiers. I'm not going to debate the validity of dropping the bomb here. Niether one of us was alive when it was done. But just because someone signs on the dotted line it doesn't mean they have to forfiet their lives when it can be avoided.

Again, I repeat, I will not debate this with you here. I have little interest in doing so. If it bothers you so much get an account at the Straight Dope and rant rant about nuking Hiroshima to your hearts content...but do not put words into my mouth to satisfy the wild hair up your azz about nukes.

 

[Badesumofu]

So, they are better than the dead civilians because they wanted to go to war, knowing they could die, but the nuked people were all cowards and deserved to die, right?

Nice straw-man. Before we all get too hysterical, let's just observe that no one has made any value-comparisons of one human life versus another. The fact is that it is extremely likely that dropping the nukes resulted in fewer people dying than if they hadn't been dropped. Whether that's valid justification is something that opinions will inevitably differ over, and probably not worth debating here.

I was recently watching Clint Eastwood's two brilliant movies about the battle for Iwo Jima. Watching how horrific this battle for one piece-of-s*** little island was, and then trying to imagine what a full scale invasion of Japan would have been like... well it's not hard to see why they chose to drop the bomb. It was a matter of chosing the lesser of two evils, imo.

The thing I find really amazing is that after the first bomb was dropped, and the threat of another nuking was delivered, the Japanese still refused to surrender.

 

[Arlborn]

dante alighieri, you said; "doesn't mean they have to forfeit their lives when it can be avoided".

So, how were their lives spared...? I simply finished your line of thoughts. Sorry if you actually didn't think in finishing it yourself.

I don't want to argue either, so let's just see if I can brainwash people by repeating myself before I go(oh the sarcasm!):

For some people any reason is no reason to use nuclear bombs.

 

[Elros]

The thing I find really amazing is that after the first bomb was dropped, and the threat of another nuking was delivered, the Japanese still refused to surrender.

I don't have the time to look it up right now, but I believe the Japanese did surrender after the first. They just didn't manage to communicate it well and so the Americans dropped another. Not entirely certain on this point, but I'm sure I read it somewhere.

And I find it hard to believe that more than the population of 2 cities would die in what was left of the war. Maybe there were less American casualties, but I doubt there would have been less overall.

 

[Spearthrower]

Its also the governments duty to protect and safeguard the lives of its soldiers. I'm not going to debate the validity of dropping the bomb here. Niether one of us was alive when it was done. But just because someone signs on the dotted line it doesn't mean they have to forfiet their lives when it can be avoided.

What does neither of us being alive then have to do with it?

Protecting their soldiers lives is not tantamount to nuking civilians - that's a strawman.

The US could simply have chosen not to invade Japan thereby saving soldier's lives. Instead, engaged in a war of seclusion, strangling the island and cutting off its acquired territories. This was an option. The option chosen was one of convenience; to murder civilians... if you dont want to debate the value of that, fine... but the fact that I wasn't alive at the time has nothing to do with my ability to rationalise from the historical fact.... we are morally obliged to judge the actions of our governments and to learn from past mistakes, or we are doomed to repeat them - as the saying goes.

 

[dante alighieri]

In your opinion. I disagree, but then again, I'm a soldier and I have a different point of view that I repeat I will not debate this with you here. I'm through with this conversation because it will A) Derail the thread B)We're only going to pointlessly argue over it and my time is too important for that and C) I'm tired of repeating the fact that I WILL NOT DEBATE IT HERE

 

[Spearthrower]

If you are not going to debate it here - why did you post just to repeat it?

And furthermore, what does your being a soldier have to do with it?

I'm a teacher, does that count?

 

[IlyaZ]

The US dropped the bombs because Soviet Union was already invading Japan from the north.

 

[dante alighieri]

Realizing that I'm only falling for the old "why did you repeat it" tactic I'll answer your question. Because you brought it up, thats why and I wanted to let you know that I would not go into a hiroshima debate with you. Especially when my only point was that the gov't had a responsibility to protect the lives of the men fighting in the pacific.

The second questions: Yeah, as soldier and combat veteran it gives me a perspective on the lives of soldiers that I don't think a non-vet would have. You can dismiss that if you like and think of them as faceless drones. I'm not here to change anyones mind on how they may or may not feel about the military. If you want to know that drop me a pm sometime and I'll tell you why I'll never be a recruiter again. (and I didn't pick recruiting duty, I was assigned to it against my wishes)

Being a teacher may give you you're own perspective, but in my opinion...note I said my opinion, and thats all it is....it doesn't count. Especially when you're only saying that to try and discount my experience with the military and opinion.

Derailing this thread is what I wanted to avoid and we're doing it. I suggest going elsewhere with this pointless discussion if thats what you want. The only thing we'll do however is most likely piss each other off which is a good reason to just quit it right now. I don't personally care if someone thinks dropping Fat Man was a good idea or not. Its done. We can't change it. I think it was the right call, but the world was different then.

Anyway, as I said, if you must continue this just start another thread somewhere or PM me. I don't want to burn this one out with this, it has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Spearthrower]

Realizing that I'm only falling for the old "why did you repeat it" tactic I'll answer your question. Because you brought it up, thats why and I wanted to let you know that I would not go into a hiroshima debate with you. Especially when my only point was that the gov't had a responsibility to protect the lives of the men fighting in the pacific.

There are 3 instances where you have implied that I am up to some kind of tactic... I am simply discussing the issue at hand, you can opt to not reply if you so choose!

It certainly had a responsibility to protect its own troops, but it also had a moral responsibility not to knowingly target civilians - that is the only valid definition of terrorism.

The second questions: Yeah, as soldier and combat veteran it gives me a perspective on the lives of soldiers that I don't think a non-vet would have. You can dismiss that if you like and think of them as faceless drones. I'm not here to change anyones mind on how they may or may not feel about the military. If you want to know that drop me a pm sometime and I'll tell you why I'll never be a recruiter again. (and I didn't pick recruiting duty, I was assigned to it against my wishes)

I am not dismissing it, I am simply questioning why a grunt (not specifying you here) would have any more valuable insight into grand strategy than a non-vet. Generally, they wouldn't. Especially if the non-vet were a historical buff / armchair strategist.

Being a teacher may give you you're own perspective, but in my opinion...note I said my opinion, and thats all it is....it doesn't count. Especially when you're only saying that to try and discount my experience with the military and opinion.

I never for a moment tried to discredit you, I simply questioned the value of you saying that you are in the military vis-a-vis your opinion on the bombings. Your job has no value relative to it - your opinion is totally valid with or without your position. If, however as you have just done, you try to argue from authority to justify your opinion as more valid than someone else's, then yes, I would call it into question.

Derailing this thread is what I wanted to avoid and we're doing it. I suggest going elsewhere with this pointless discussion if thats what you want. The only thing we'll do however is most likely piss each other off which is a good reason to just quit it right now. I don't personally care if someone thinks dropping Fat Man was a good idea or not. Its done. We can't change it. I think it was the right call, but the world was different then.

I don't find it pointless - and this thread has already concluded I assume. Questions were asked and solutions have been given.

I have no intention to piss you off, but this is a public forum and I am entitled to disagree with you. You think that the past is done and dusted, and I from a historian's perspective have to argue that is morally reprehensible. Obviously we cannot change the past, but if you don't learn from putting your hand in the fire, then you deserve to be burned, burned and burned again. There is a lot of associated cross-rationalisations in the media and popular culture today that are totally ignorant of their remarkable similarities to this past fact.

Anyway, as I said, if you must continue this just start another thread somewhere or PM me. I don't want to burn this one out with this, it has nothing to do with the OP.

Sure that's fine.... but you did say that you wanted to stop discussing it.... I didn't say that I wanted to stop discussing it!! If you no longer wish to continue discussing it, I can respect that opinion... but that doesn't mean I have to stop posting about it, does it?