Tough Decision

[Swedishguy]

Bobania is suffering under the harsch rule of the female hierarchy. Swedishguy nukes the city and saves the day!

 

[Ramius75]

Blockade !!!

Imagine the vast amount of money that goes into the defence sector with such a prolong war. the vice-president can gets his personal company to cater food, weapons, fuel, medical aids, etc etc. Imagine the money spend on logistic

I can retire when the queen surrender and date her too.

 

[colontos]

So you want to nuke two whole cities filled with thousands just because you resent their oppressive, totaltarian government?

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: if this government is daily causing the deaths of hundreds or thousands of both a) non-combatants from various countries and b) my men, and if it is daily mistreating those of my men that it has captured, and if dropping the bombs will cause all of these phenomenon to come to an end, then, absolutely, yes, I will drop the nukes. To do otherwise would be immoral.

Let's just draw a line connecting to the scenario of terrorists committing suicide bombings in protest of capitalism, and then we'll see where your position still stands

The difference: the Japanese were running a genocidal, murderous, abusive, totalitarian regime, and we stopped it. The terrorists want to institute one of their own.

You can equivocate all day long if you want to, but in the end, you're just an equivocator. <Cue the gatekeeper's speech from Macbeth.>

 

[REDY]

I would surrender and move to Bob City when women under 16 will grow up

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Hypothetical scenario:

You are the president of your country(Alexania) that has been in a bloody war with another country(Bobistan) for several years because the queen of Bobistan hates all Alexanians and is so beautiful she can entrance the men of her country into mindlessly fighting your country. However, you can end the war by nuking the capital city of Bobistan(Bob City) where she resides. Unfortunately, besides the Queen and her small retinue Bob City, is inhabited only by noncombatants. There are 100,000 people in Bob City and they are all female, or under 16. or over 70. You have no way to pinpoint the Queens exact location so you have destroy the whole city to be sure to kill her. Once she is dead and word gets out the country will immediately sue for peace and the war will be over.

However, you have one other option. Since Bobistan is an Island nation, you could instead opt to completely blockade Bobistan with your navy. You have already completely destroyed Bobistan's airforce and navy and their capacity to create more ships and planes. Their army and militia is still well equipped and dangerous. Bobistan is completely self sufficient as far as food and medicines go so no Bobians will die because of the blockade just as the Bobians can't harm the Alexian blockaders. For the blockade to be successful, 100,000 Alexian men(who are drafted) need to be stationed at all times around Bobistan which is 3,000 miles away from home. After 10 years of blockade, the Bobistans will sue for peace because their Queen will become older and fatter and unable to use her looks to keep her country in the war.

So, what will you do? Will you kill 100,000 innocents of the other country or do you spend ten years blockading the other country?

This is a hypothetical scenario, so don't try to weasel out of this decision.

Nuke the Bobians. I can't afford to keep my army sitting on their thumbs waiting for some stupid b!tch to get old. Since I have to use conscripts to muster 100k men, I am assuming Alexania is a small nation. Keeping 100k conscripts mobilized and under arms for 10 years will cost an enourmous amount of money, harm the economy, and leave Alexania vulnerable to attack from other nations. Nuking the Bobians means my people can come home and contribute to the economy and are also available for military service if I have to go to war with any other nations.

 

[Commodore]

The OP clearly states that the Alexian blockaders won't be killed by the Bobians so I can't see how it would save lives.

I guess theoretically it would save lives in that it would end the war quicker; whereas with a blockade many more civilians could get get caught in the crossfire of any attempted break-out by Bobistan's forces (yes, I know the OP said they were all but beaten, but that might not stop them from trying to fight on anyway). Not to mention the casualties caused by the civil unrest the lack of trade goods and potential economic collapse a blockade would bring about.

EDIT: Voted nuke btw. I know, I'm a cruel bastard.

 

[CartesianFart]

I can't answer this due to the fact that the war is one-dimensional.What about other nations?

War does not,in a narrow sense,consist of only 2 belligerants fighting one another for victory but to expand their influences by overpowering them by military means inorder to stave off other belligerants that are not in the fighting.

Unless this is only an hypothetical world which only have hypothetically two nations then i have to choose blockade since time is not a factor due to the fact there is no other competitors.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I tried to make the scenario as one-dimensional as possible. You should read it as if there is absolutely no difference between the two choices except the 100,000 dead vs. 100,000 people spending 10 years of their lives in blockade duty + $ to supply them.


I actually voted to nuke Bob City simply because as president of one country, it is my duty to serve my people and it is not my duty to protect the people of another. Definitely cold hearted. But now that I think about it, I would hold a plebiscite on the subject. If the majority of the voters wanted to nuke Bob City and get on with their lives I would do so. If the majority of the voters couldn't live with 100,000 deaths on their conscience I would institute a blockade.

 

[CartesianFart]

I tried to make the scenario as one-dimensional as possible. You should read it as if there is absolutely no difference between the two choices except the 100,000 dead vs. 100,000 people spending 10 years of their lives in blockade duty + $ to supply them.

Does not matter which way if you think about it.The winner of the war will be able to take over the other and rewrite history without any foreign opposition by intermingling.

I actually voted to nuke Bob City simply because as president of one country, it is my duty to serve my people and it is not my duty to protect the people of another. Definitely cold hearted. But now that I think about it, I would hold a plebiscite on the subject. If the majority of the voters wanted to nuke Bob City and get on with their lives I would do so. If the majority of the voters couldn't live with 100,000 deaths on their conscience I would institute a blockade.

It is not a cold-hearted thing at all because you are going to win since there is not option in this hypothetical scenario for diplomacy and no option on determining the consequences if resistance can be made of the other based on the question of "blockading" or "nuking."

 

[thenooblet22]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: if this government is daily causing the deaths of hundreds or thousands of both a) non-combatants from various countries and b) my men, and if it is daily mistreating those of my men that it has captured, and if dropping the bombs will cause all of these phenomenon to come to an end, then, absolutely, yes, I will drop the nukes. To do otherwise would be immoral.

The difference: the Japanese were running a genocidal, murderous, abusive, totalitarian regime, and we stopped it. The terrorists want to institute one of their own.

You can equivocate all day long if you want to, but in the end, you're just an equivocator. <Cue the gatekeeper's speech from Macbeth.>

But then you are the one committing the genicide. You act as if all the civilians of Bobistan support the war. Totaltarian regimes, similar to Bobistan, are based on the enforement of fear. Like I posted earlier, you are choosing to annihilate them instead of liberating them. What about Henrysberg (Germany)? Do you want to drop atomics on their civilians and possibly captives (camps were sometimes built right outside cities) just because you want to stop them? Where do we draw the line? Following your logic, we should have nuked Charliestan (Russia), but did we?

And please don't insult me with big words, or else I will have to keep dictionary.com'ing them Besides, I already stated my stance, why don't you comment on that instead of saying I don't have one

I do not support either of the poll answers. I would approve of the nuking of a more appropriate target; a signifigant base or outpost. It's the cream of this black and white cookie

 

[colontos]

But then you are the one committing the genicide. You act as if all the civilians of Bobistan support the war. Totaltarian regimes, similar to Bobistan, are based on the enforement of fear. Like I posted earlier, you are choosing to annihilate them instead of liberating them. What about Henrysberg (Germany)? Do you want to drop atomics on their civilians and possibly captives (camps were sometimes built right outside cities) just because you want to stop them? Where do we draw the line? Following your logic, we should have nuked Charliestan (Russia), but did we?

It isn't genocide, it's a bombing to end the war. If bombing this city is the only way to end the war quickly, then it needs to be done for reasons I've outlined above. It would have been appropriate to nuke Germany if it had been necessary to end the war, absolutely.

We were never at war with Russia, so of course it would not have been appropriate to nuke them.

And please don't insult me with big words, or else I will have to keep dictionary.com'ing them

It wasn't really an insult. But hey, at least you learned a new word, right?

I didn't say you don't have a stance. I'm saying that it is an equivocal one.

 

[thenooblet22]

It isn't genocide, it's a bombing to end the war. If bombing this city is the only way to end the war quickly, then it needs to be done for reasons I've outlined above. It would have been appropriate to nuke Germany if it had been necessary to end the war, absolutely.

We were never at war with Russia, so of course it would not have been appropriate to nuke them.

So it's not genocide if it's a war tactic? I think that's more based on one's perspective. Wouldn't Henry of Henrysburg (Germany) consider the deaths of the Jewish community would benefit him? I'm just saying there could have been better targets that wouldn't have cost as many lives. The purpose of ending a war is to cease the deaths, but it's okay at the expense of others?

I didn't say you don't have a stance. I'm saying that it is an equivocal one.

I don't know then how I can make it any clearer to you. I think it would kill three birds with one stone. Nuking a less populated but stilll signifigant target like a base or harbour will cost less lives and be more humane. Japanese after witnessing this firepower would surely surrender. The sight of these atomics would also keep Charliestan (Russia) in its place from enroaching any lands for his own.

 

[Guangxi]

if this city is undefended, and only underage females inhabit it, and a bombing plane can get in without much opposition, i say send in paratroopers to kidnap this queen. or just shoot her on sight, if shes a real charmer.

 

[colontos]

So it's not genocide if it's a war tactic? I think that's more based on one's perspective. Wouldn't Henry of Henrysburg (Germany) consider the deaths of the Jewish community would benefit him? I'm just saying there could have been better targets that wouldn't have cost as many lives. The purpose of ending a war is to cease the deaths, but it's okay at the expense of others?

Sacrificing a few thousand to save many hundreds of thousands is perfectly ok, and even imperative, yes. The Holocaust had no military purpose. Nor did Japan's enslavement, sexual and otherwise, of hundreds of thousands. Nor did Japan's wanton murders and rapes. Nor did Japan's or Germany's mistreatment of POWs. (Germany was nice, relatively, to US and UK POWs, not so much to Soviet ones)

The atomic bombs did have a military purpose: to end the war immediately. And they achieved that end: Japan surrendered nine days after the first bomb.

If you're concerned with the number of lives lost, then you should really forget about the A-bombs. Casualties were relatively minor (a bit over 200,000, all told). Turn your attention instead to the firebombing of Tokyo and many other cities, which caused MANY more casualties than the A-bombs. Both of the A-bomb targets were legitimate military targets, as you can easily discover for yourself.

I don't know then how I can make it any clearer to you. I think it would kill three birds with one stone. Nuking a less populated but stilll signifigant target like a base or harbour will cost less lives and be more humane. Japanese after witnessing this firepower would surely surrender.

Nagasaki was a major harbor, and Hiroshima was a major industrial center.

I'm not saying your position is unclear. I'm saying you're drawing moral equivalents where they don't exist. I understand your idea, and it makes sense, but it's erroneous in a few ways, some of which I've tried to describe here.

 

[thenooblet22]

Sacrificing a few thousand to save many hundreds of thousands is perfectly ok, and even imperative, yes. The Holocaust had no military purpose. Nor did Japan's enslavement, sexual and otherwise, of hundreds of thousands. Nor did Japan's wanton murders and rapes. Nor did Japan's or Germany's mistreatment of POWs. (Germany was nice, relatively, to US and UK POWs, not so much to Soviet ones)

Those estimates are only for if we chose to invade the main island, which wasn't our only option (like my idea, which I'll later explain). Okay, if war crimes are irrevelant, why did you bring them up?
"if this government is daily causing the deaths of hundreds or thousands of both a) non-combatants from various countries and b) my men, and if it is daily mistreating those of my men that it has captured, and if dropping the bombs will cause all of these phenomenon to come to an end, then, absolutely, yes, I will drop the nukes. To do otherwise would be immoral"

The atomic bombs did have a military purpose: to end the war immediately. And they achieved that end: Japan surrendered nine days after the first bomb.

Yes, that is what weapons are for. But in our community, there is morals and yes, even laws to war (whether followed or not). Mustard gas was an effective weapon, did it not get protest? How about we just drop a couple of biological bombs over Iraq? If they all die from viruses, they can't fight, problem solved! Who care about there lives when we are concerned of ours, right? Who cares if some are innocent, they are the enemy !

If you're concerned with the number of lives lost, then you should really forget about the A-bombs. Casualties were relatively minor (a bit over 200,000, all told). Turn your attention instead to the firebombing of Tokyo and many other cities, which caused MANY more casualties than the A-bombs. Both of the A-bomb targets were legitimate military targets, as you can easily discover for yourself.

How many people do you think about when you see the word 200,000? That is a lot. Especially since a good proportion of that number was civilians. I can't compare an atomic strike to another single event of firebombing that costed more lives and left more destruction, so please link a source.

Nagasaki was a major harbor, and Hiroshima was a major industrial center. I'm not saying your position is unclear. I'm saying you're drawing moral equivalents where they don't exist. I understand your idea, and it makes sense, but it's erroneous in a few ways, some of which I've tried to describe here.

Sure, you can twist it that way, but the problem is those were cities. You just can't label a city after its production and say "It's important, nuke it." As I said, I want a more isolated signifigant target, like a military base or a military harbour. I'm not being specific because I wouldn't know any potential targets of that era, but please enlighten me.

 

[JohnRM]

Blockade, if you've destroyed the air force there powerless anyway, and any land assault by them could be nothing less than catastrophic in that situation, they are a lame duck. You'd just bomb the Bejesus out of any army that came near yours, so just blockade.

Killing 100000 people is morally repugnant. I'd say the same about Japan too, since it's the same situation, they had no real airforce, no real navy and were pretty much dead in the water? But then this is theoretical not real, right?

Not really. Japan still controlled most of its mainland Asian territories in China, Korea and Indochina. They also still controlled Formosa (Taiwan). They were killing thousands of noncombatants per day.

However, the above poll question does not allow for that particular feature, so I voted for blockade. If the intention was to sucker the people who agree with the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then the poll question is flawed and improperly engineered to represent the situation as it was.

 

[colontos]

Those estimates are only for if we chose to invade the main island, which wasn't our only option (like my idea, which I'll later explain). Okay, if war crimes are irrevelant, why did you bring them up?

I think I'm being clear here, but you keep misunderstanding me, and it's making this discussion rather difficult. I did not say that war crimes were irrelevant! I said that they have no military purpose and are therefore unjustifiable.

How many people do you think about when you see the word 200,000? That is a lot. Especially since a good proportion of that number was civilians. I can't compare an atomic strike to another single event of firebombing that costed more lives and left more destruction, so please link a source.

The firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki created almost the same amount of casualities. Overall, firebombing caused more casualties than the atomic bombs. These numbers are easy to find.

Sure, you can twist it that way, but the problem is those were cities. You just can't label a city after its production and say "It's important, nuke it." As I said, I want a more isolated signifigant target, like a military base or a military harbour. I'm not being specific because I wouldn't know any potential targets of that era, but please enlighten me.

From Wikipedia:

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. . . Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without prisoner of war (POW) camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority.

Sure, we could have dropped a nuke in Tokyo Bay, causing very few casualties, and tried to scare the Japanese into surrendering. But we only had 3 bombs, and the Japanese had shown themselves to be fanatically opposed to surrender. Even after the bombs were dropped, some top Japanese generals STILL did not want to surrender. So by destroying important military targets, we were continuing to soften up Japan for the invasion that we could not be sure would be unnecessary.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I'd nuke, but also blockade just to be sure, even after they'd sued for peace.

 

[thenooblet22]

The firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki created almost the same amount of casualities. Overall, firebombing caused more casualties than the atomic bombs. These numbers are easy to find.

But you see, I am very lazy. It's not my job to find the facts for you. Give me a source and I won't argue with you here. But you must not forget, the deaths of impact also include the amounts of radiation that caused sometimes fatal injuries to thousands. Even if these firebombings can range up to this devastation, I still firmly believe that two wrongs don't make a right.

Sure, we could have dropped a nuke in Tokyo Bay, causing very few casualties, and tried to scare the Japanese into surrendering. But we only had 3 bombs, and the Japanese had shown themselves to be fanatically opposed to surrender. Even after the bombs were dropped, some top Japanese generals STILL did not want to surrender. So by destroying important military targets, we were continuing to soften up Japan for the invasion that we could not be sure would be unnecessary.

The stubborness of the generals doesn't prove much. As being the relatively first of its kind, I'm sure the detonating of atomic missles anywhere near the island would demoralize the Japenese, maybe even cause public unrest and revolt. Sure, this plan isn't perfect as you pointed out, but I'm just too sympathetic that I would risk it. I don't know how Truman did it.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I say blockade the Japanese.. errr, I mean the Bobanians.

1- The Japanese industrially were on there knees and close to starvation.
Still at that time miitarily the Japanses still had some 2 Million soliders on the mainland

2- The emperor wanted hes last battle a plan to bleed the US into negosiation by he use of suicide tactics on a massive scale. He thought he could make an invasion so costly the US would halt.

3- Had the US blockade remained and air superiority continue to paralysis the country. Japan would have continue to degrade day by day. A slow hemeragging of ability to resist. Moral was mixed some were very low and others wanting revenge. utlimately this would have broken japan.

4- The nuclear weapons did end the war. it help immediately redress the balance of power. especially communisim and an every oppotunistic stalin.
It also meant the japanese surrender bringing the war to an end without the crippling blockade and slow starvatiob which would also have cost a lot of civilian dead