More Crazy AI diplomacy and nuclear attacks

[Salil]

Hello Friends,
I know there is another post about AI diplomacy but this one deserves a thread of it's own. Russia declares war against me and drops a nuke bomb using a huge plane(probably a bomber) on one of my cities. The next turn I get a message from Gandhi(Of all people) calling me an uncivilized brute. I wish there was an option "F*** u B****". AI diplomacy seems to have no idea what is right vs wrong in any case.
How does one protect oneself from a nuclear bomb anyways? Should I have aircraft intercept bombers? Does anti-aircraft guns work against them? What sort of protection do I have against Nuclear missiles? I don't want one of these falling on my capital cities.

 

[Ddude97]

Hello Friends,
I know there is another post about AI diplomacy but this one deserves a thread of it's own. Russia declares war against me and drops a nuke bomb using a huge plane(probably a bomber) on one of my cities. The next turn I get a message from Gandhi(Of all people) calling me an uncivilized brute. I wish there was an option "F*** u B****". AI diplomacy seems to have no idea what is right vs wrong in any case.
How does one protect oneself from a nuclear bomb anyways? Should I have aircraft intercept bombers? Does anti-aircraft guns work against them? What sort of protection do I have against Nuclear missiles? I don't want one of these falling on my capital cities.

Yes aircraft can intercept abombs (thats what it was), nuclear missiles can't be intercepted, your capital can't be razed so in theory it could regrow,though another city might be gone. Yeah, the diplomacy is kind of off (understatement alert!) and the best way to prevent being nuked is to nuke them first

 

[Bob_]

It is OBVIOUSLY your fault to build that city on the future sight of atomic bomb testing area. Sacrificing all that people of yours... well thats really crude.

Seriously, i think there is no protection against missles except for space.. Conquer enough land arround your main city. The range of atomic bombs is not that high

 

[Ddude97]

The range of atomic bombs is 10, but they can be intercepted as I said, the reange of nuuclear missiles is 8 but they can't be intercepted

 

[SpearMan153]

I believe a fighter on intercept or aa gun would have stopped the nuclear bomb (the one dropped from a plane- although I've never tested this out.

you can rebase nuclear bombs to carriers and missiles to nuclear subs so you'll need a navy to prevent these

there are no diplomatic penalties (that I'm aware of) for using nukes so he who nukes first nukes best

 

[Larsenex]

There should be horrible, awful harsh penalties associated with WMDs. Honestly this should be a priority fix. Nuking a city should only be done as a last resort and then there should be a very high (85%) chance that all other civs will denounce and DOW on them.

 

[need my speed]

Well, no.

 

[noncognosco]

There should be horrible, awful harsh penalties associated with WMDs. Honestly this should be a priority fix. Nuking a city should only be done as a last resort and then there should be a very high (85%) chance that all other civs will denounce and DOW on them.

You mean like in the real world where nobody was ever friends with the USA again after we nuked Japan? Oh, wait....

 

[snarzberry]

You mean like in the real world where nobody was ever friends with the USA again after we nuked Japan? Oh, wait....

+1

 

[snarzberry]

[ ] dropping atomic bombs on Japan was the right thing to do and saved lives
[x] USA leaders would have been convicted war criminals if the other side had won

 

[need my speed]

Yes, of course. Nazi Germany would be a glorious paradise compared to the horrors of 'die Untermensch'. Communism would obviously be succesfull and of course vastly superior to capitalism. The stagnant nations of Europe, squabbling over religion and always fighting wars, stood no chance against the might of the Aztecs...

 

[Ddude97]

[ ] dropping atomic bombs on Japan was the right thing to do and saved lives
[x] USA leaders would have been convicted war criminals if the other side had won

Just curious by this do you mean that dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a bad thing?

Ontopic: Nukes should have a diplomatic penalty, though not an 85% of denounce, and maybe if the war was self defense it would be more acceptable and/or if its the first time a nuke has been dropped it should have less diplo penalties?

 

[snarzberry]

Just curious by this do you mean that dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a bad thing?

Yeah, it means I think it was a war crime.

 

[Ddude97]

And losing hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides is better?

 

[snarzberry]

Even if your premise is granted (which I reject), that more lives would have been lost had the atomic bombs not been used, it doesn't follow that it is therefore 'better'. The ends do not always justify the means. Nuremberg trial defendants might say that if I didn't execute the prisoners as ordered I would have been shot along with them, resulting in 20 deaths instead of 19, therefore it was better that I killed them.

Like it or not, our global civilization has developed a code of behavior that is to be followed during times of war. Violating this code is deemed a 'war crime'. You may argue if there should be war crimes or not, but what we mean when we use the term is to refer to those acts which have been deemed unacceptable to use during conflict by the international community.

Wanton destruction of towns and/or cities and the intentional targeting of defenseless civilian populations is such an act. The USA agreed that it was so at the 1863 Geneva convention.

 

[noncognosco]

[ ] dropping atomic bombs on Japan was the right thing to do and saved lives
[x] USA leaders would have been convicted war criminals if the other side had won

I am not arguing that it was or wasn't the right thing to do. And clearly if Japan had somehow gone on to win the war in such a way that it captured US military and civilian leaders they would have been punished as war criminals.

The only point I am making is that in the only real-world example of nukes being used, there was little or no "diplomatic penalty" on top of the way in which relations had already suffered due to the war itself. So if there was to be an in-game diplomatic penalty it seems to me that it should only affect civs with which you already have poor or at best neutral relations.

 

[snarzberry]

Imagine another world, as you say, where the Japanese did turn the war around, gathered allies, and all but completely destroyed the USA. Burnt major cities down to the ground, subverted their population.

This is not dissimilar to what the USA and its allies accomplished in WWII against Germany and Japan.

Now those of us who live in the nations that participated in this victory are reminded, whenever this war is considered, about the horrendous acts that the enemy committed. The Holocaust. The rape of Nanking. It helps us feel better about being a member of a nation whose armed forces obliterated entire cities and were ordered to cause the deaths of untold numbers of non-combatants. This is the way history is written, to provide justification for the actions of the victors of war.

If Japan had somehow prevailed then the USA atomic bombings would be portrayed in the same way as the holocaust in order to help the Japanese people sleep better at night knowing that their brave soldiers acted justly in wiping an evil scourge from the planet. That is just the way that History works.

And as the Allies are justified in pointing out the holocaust and the rape of Nanking as terrible and unforgivable acts which help to bolster their claim to the martial moral high-ground, IMO, also the Japanese would be justified in pointing to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bolster their claim.

 

[blac]

Wanton destruction of towns and/or cities and the intentional targeting of defenseless civilian populations is such an act. The USA agreed that it was so at the 1863 Geneva convention.

The difference is Japan was in a state of total war. Total war means everyone is contributing to the war effort against the enemy, in this case the USA. The estimated cost of lives on the american side would have been around 250,000 at least, some say 1 million plus. That doesn't include the lives of Japanese soldiers killed, plus the civilians. All men between the ages of 15-60 were being trained to fight, even some women. Children were being taught to take bombs and run under tanks, as a suicide missions. The country itself would have been entirely devastated from all the fighting, probably more damage then both atomics bombs caused. Japan only surrendered because they knew if they didn't they would just have the whole island blown off the map, but if a land invasion occurred they planned to fight to the last man.

If you were the president at the time could you justify sending 1 million of your men to die, when you could end it all right then for a fraction of the number of lives? The Allied nations had already lost millions of lives and they wanted the war to be over with. I don't think the American people would be happy to have suffered 1 million more deaths. I just started to do a bunch of research for an essay on the Manhattan project so this info is right

(Those estimates also don't include British, and other troops fighting on the Allied side, which would add to the USA total, plus the large amount of people who were dying in China. The Japanese murdered tens of thousands of people there)

 

[Ddude97]

Even if your premise is granted (which I reject), that more lives would have been lost had the atomic bombs not been used, it doesn't follow that it is therefore 'better'. The ends do not always justify the means. Nuremberg trial defendants might say that if I didn't execute the prisoners as ordered I would have been shot along with them, resulting in 20 deaths instead of 19, therefore it was better that I killed them.

Like it or not, our global civilization has developed a code of behavior that is to be followed during times of war. Violating this code is deemed a 'war crime'. You may argue if there should be war crimes or not, but what we mean when we use the term is to refer to those acts which have been deemed unacceptable to use during conflict by the international community.

Wanton destruction of towns and/or cities and the intentional targeting of defenseless civilian populations is such an act. The USA agreed that it was so at the 1863 Geneva convention.

Alright, you may think what you wish. I understand that the ends don't justify the means, and I wouldn't agree with the defendant in the Nuremburg trials. I will admit that this may be considered a war crime, depending on your view. Sacrifice a few for the greater good is what I'm getting at here, though I will say that I'm not some bloodthirsty villain and do wish that this decision was never needed to be made. I'd also like to point out that the Japanese had refused to surrender at that point. But enough, you may hold your opinions while I hold mine, shall we agree to disagree?

 

[blac]

Imagine another world, as you say, where the Japanese did turn the war around, gathered allies, and all but completely destroyed the USA. Burnt major cities down to the ground, subverted their population.

This is not dissimilar to what the USA and its allies accomplished in WWII against Germany and Japan.

Now those of us who live in the nations that participated in this victory are reminded, whenever this war is considered, about the horrendous acts that the enemy committed. The Holocaust. The rape of Nanking. It helps us feel better about being a member of a nation whose armed forces obliterated entire cities and were ordered to cause the deaths of untold numbers of non-combatants. This is the way history is written, to provide justification for the actions of the victors of war.

If Japan had somehow prevailed then the USA atomic bombings would be portrayed in the same way as the holocaust in order to help the Japanese people sleep better at night knowing that their brave soldiers acted justly in wiping an evil scourge from the planet. That is just the way that History works.

And as the Allies are justified in pointing out the holocaust and the rape of Nanking as terrible and unforgivable acts which help to bolster their claim to the martial moral high-ground, IMO, also the Japanese would be justified in pointing to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bolster their claim.

I'm sorry, but having taken multiple university classes on WWII this is completely wrong. The Americans weren't trying to wipe out an entire race of people like the Nazi's were, the only reason being pure hatred of them. They weren't try to set up an empire over free people, in fact America poured billions of dollars into the Reconstruction of Europe and Japan (and even Korea later) and none of those nations would be where they are today if it wasn't for that. America brought democracy to them, and stopped them from controlling and terrorizing the free people of the world.