Japan=Nukes?

[UncleBuck]

Hey Black Jack Shelak, is that a sign that In November Canada is Invading Vermont?

[:'(]

[Arnir]

She's not that bad looking.

And to steal a line, "Is it any wonder why the world hates Candians? Trying to tell everyone how to live. Why don't they just mind their own business." [:D][:D]

[mdiehl]

Damn Nazis are everywhere, but you are history in November...

That's a little over the top. UNCS is a provocateur, IMO, not a black shirt. "Nazi" borders on the edge of a mortal insult. Since there's really no way to hold someone responsible for insults delivered electronically, they shouldn't be used at the drop of a hat.

I say this as one who has been given offense and, at times, given it back. It's not worth the mess that it causes.

That attachment... fascinating. A slap in the face that makes you want to look twice.

[Oznoyng]

Dead is dead. People die in war. Soldiers and civilians alike. All this talk about "weapons of mass destruction" is irrelevant ***wrt to WW2***. We killed similar numbers of people using nukes as we did fire bombing in Germany. The appoximately 200,000 Japanese that died in the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were just as dead as those that died in firebombing of German cities, the bombing of London, the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, etc.

War is not about nobility. It is about winning with the fewest losses that you can. If I have a better weapon and I am at war, I use it. Objectively, I should use any weapon that allows me to destroy my enemy while surviving myself. If a weapon allows me to kill my opponent without risking myself, I would be a fool not to use it. And they would be fools not to surrender. We did not keep using Wildcats when we had Corsairs - and we would have stopped using firebombs if we had more nukes.

WW2 was not just about killing each other's tanks, ships, and planes - it was about removing your opponents ability to wage war. It included the farms, ranches, oil wells, mines, foundries, and factories that supported the war effort. And it included the civilians that made the weapons, grew the food, and raised the soldiers. I doubt anyone here would argue that the reason the Allies won the war was the United States. We had a huge, self-contained economy that was untouched throughout the war and only got better at turning out the weapons of war. Without the US, Europe, Russia, and Asia would be German/Italian/Japanese provinces.

The body count on the other side does not matter. What matters is the one on *my* side. For that reason, I do not believe Olympus would ever have happened. Japan would have simply become one vast nuclear wasteland. As soon as we got the bomb, one of two things had to happen to end the war: Japan had to surrender, or we had to get sick of the slaughter. As an American, I am simply glad that they gave up and we didn't have to slaughter more of them than we did.

[kaleun]

And that, just about sums it all up!

[Mr.Frag]

As an American, I am simply glad that they gave up and we didn't have to slaughter more of them than we did.

I don't really think that is just an American sentiment. I think you'll find everyone would agree with that point.

[Bandkanon]

The Japanese Home Guard had lots of weapons. Old turn of the century rifles and lots and lots of sharpened bamboo spears like you see in "The Seven Samurai". THe IJ High Command was planning a national kamikaze campaign against Operation Olympic and Coronet. I think they really meant it when they announed to their people "Let one hundred million die together..." The Bomb was defintely the least of two evils. It saved Americans and Japanese from killing another.

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]

Gee I guess I should just agree with everything you say, and never talk about anything meaningfull

typical liberal. Speak crap about USA where its only just " reasonable discourse " and ppl cannot safely inform you that you are full of shit (w/out you crying to the mod like a little girl). If you wanna talk shit, take it to Mad Cow [8|]

[eltaco]

I guess everyone fails to forget about the nuke question is.....................


The usa warned japan also of delivering a weapon of "great destruction"

and in modern day we warned other countries we would invade way ahead of time ie ...iraq

do other countries do this?

also General billy ............says sadam used chemical on iran because being outnumbered 5 to 1

what about the people of northern iraq ? 5k dead his own people?

[general billy]

@Oznoyng, I like the way you wrote that, and I agree with you [:)]



@eltaco, I wouldn’t say that the Kurds are his very own people, they were a group of people that are in Iraq that wanted independence, and weren’t exactly trust worthy in the eyes of saddam since they helped Iran during the iran/iraq war. Too me, I see America doing the same, trying to suppress the kurd/shia(Islamic) uprising just like saddam, they are a problem for Iraq some would say. Using weapons of mass destruction shouldn’t be used [:-], but sometimes it solves the problem i.e. the A-Bomb. Instead of losing ur own men, why not just send the chemicals or radiation to kill them its saves a lot of work.
Infact the British was the first to try out chemical weapons on the Kurds [X(], it really solved their problems during their stay in Iraq.
http://www.againstbombing.org/chemical.htm

However today, we expect better from nations, hopefully no nation will ever use weapons of mass destruction again.

[Tophat]

What???

I wouldnt say that the kurds are his very own people, they were a group of people that are in iraq that wanted independence, and werent exactly trust worthy in the eyes of saddam. Too me, I see america doing the same trying to surpress the shia(islamic) uprising just like saddam, they are a problem for iraq some would say.



So are you also of the mindset that the "evil americans" have simply manufactured the current world situation?

[Ron Saueracker]

If this was such a universal technology, why are we still here? Let's just nuke everything! The US only had a few nukes by 1950...a country not touched by a bombing campaign, but many still think that Germany and Japan could have equalled the Manhattan Project?!? Read more than a few comics, people. Germany was barely able to function with synthetic fuels, Japan?...played with hard water coolants but could not manufacture decent material for aircraft production. No way these countries could have developed these technologies, considering the victors took so long.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: mavraam

ORIGINAL: Jack Shelak

Japan did have an atomic bomb program, how far they got no one knows:

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIn ... -abomb.htm

What I find interesting is that although Germany had deadly nerve gases (e.g. Sarin) and Japan had biological wepons, only the U.S. used weapons of mass destruction. Just an observation, call off the home guard!!

Churchhill wanted to use chemical weapons (mustard gas?) but was advised by his military experts that it was an inefficient way to bomb because it would just kill some people but not destroy idustry. Plus, Germans would have just had their workers put on gas masks during air raids and it would have been useless.

I'm sure the Germans came to the same conclusion. Certainly morality never figured in any of their decisions.

BTW, Japan did use bio-weapons against both Koreans and Chinese IIRC.

And one could argue that concentration camps and gulags were weapons of mass destruction of sorts.

And the Americans were willing to use mustard gas in Europe. The German attack on Bari Italy showed that the US was more than willing.

[rroberson]

Im reading The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb by John Ray Skates it goes into great depth regarding the possible invasion and the necessity of the bombs. I havent decided if he is bending his opinion to suit revisionist history yet, but I am enjoying the read....

[spence]

Every major belligerent in WWII was capable of waging chemical warfare. But every major belligerent understood that chemical weapons were not a battlefield wonderweapon likely to effect in any major way the strategic situation. They were worried considerably by the possible effect of their enemies using chemical weapons against their untrained and unprotected civilian populations.......so rather than give their enemy an excuse to do so the various countries refrained. Everybody was ready to retaliate should their enemy violate the unwritten agreement though (witness Bari).
I am pretty sure that even the Japanese refrained from chemical weapons use once they got themselves into a shooting war with countries that also had the means to retaliate in kind. Their uses of chemical and biological weapons pre-dated Pearl Harbor (I think).

WHATS THIS STUFF ABOUT A CANADIAN INVASION OF VERMONT? INFILTRATING OLD ORCHARD BEACH AND CAPE COD UNDER COVER OF CONSTRUCTION HOLIDAY TO BOOT BEFORE STRIKING!!!!!!!!!!! PERFIDIOUS CANADIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kaleun]

I wouldnt say that the kurds are his very own people, they were a group of people that are in iraq that wanted independence, and werent exactly trust worthy in the eyes of saddam. Too me, I see america doing the same trying to surpress the shia(islamic) uprising just like saddam, they are a problem for iraq some would say

They WERE his own people; a different ethnic or religious group, but still as Iraqis as the Shia or Sunni. Did they want independence? Yes; so do the Norhtern Irish Catholics; Are they not UK subjects then? Of course the UK would never gas the Northern Irish, but that is PRECISELY the difference, the UK would not gas their own subjects, neither would Spain gas the Basques, or France the Corsicans (Two other countries with Independence seeking areas).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: andytimtim

this question has been bother me for awhile after finding out about this game...Can Japan build Nuclear Bombs and drop them on the West Coast?
-Sorry if this has been brought up before!!

In answer to the original question..., You gotta be kidding? The cost and effort the US
expended on the Manhattan Project EXCEEDED Japan's whole economic war effort.
Japan had about as much chance of creating an A-Bomb in the 40's as she did of
landing a man on the moon.

[swatter555]

"Japan did have an atomic bomb program, how far they got no one knows:

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIn ... -abomb.htm

What I find interesting is that although Germany had deadly nerve gases (e.g. Sarin) and Japan had biological wepons, only the U.S. used weapons of mass destruction. Just an observation, call off the home guard!!"

In this forum I am a bit surprised such discussions can be started. This isnt a game widely known in the popular culture. If your playing WitP, you are a history nut, plain and simple. Can a person's current political views influence a sane view of history?? I guess so.

The fact is, the dropping of the atomic bombs was horrible, and the long-term after affects devastating. People being burned into the sidewalk are not a thing I ever want to see. Yet, it saved many more lives then it took. I suggest that the above poster go back and read more books. You logic is rusty and you are far to biased to be taken seriously.

First off, Japanese culture prohibited surrender. Even after the atomic bombs were dropped, there was almost a successful coup which would have prolonged the war. If the Japanese thought they could kill Americans and possibly cause us to tire, they would have continued the fight to the very end.

The Japanese not only had a fully equipped army of at least a couple million on the home islands, they also mobilized a civilian militia which would have conducted suicide attacks on soldiers. From previous fighting experience with the Japanese, Allied casualties in the million range probably wouldn’t be unlikely. Also, from previous experience the Japanese would have taken 10x as many casualties, mostly dead. If the civilian reaction to invasion would have been similar to Okinawa, its possible millions of civilians would have committed suicide.

If a full-scale invasion of the home islands took place, I wouldn’t be surprised if 10 million Japanese died. The atomic bombs were certainly an evil, but definitely a lesser evil.

Even if my figures are cut in half, the argument is still just as strong. It’s a weird thing to say, in a larger scope, the atomic bombs actually saved millions of lives.

[swatter555]

"I wouldnt say that the kurds are his very own people, they were a group of people that are in iraq that wanted independence, and werent exactly trust worthy in the eyes of saddam. Too me, I see america doing the same trying to surpress the shia(islamic) uprising just like saddam, they are a problem for iraq some would say."

Wow, can we at least keep this related to the pacific theater during WWII? If your here and interested in playing a game like WitP, I assume you have a good interest in history. If this is the case, please try and keep your views rational and based on something. Lets keep popular culture and the brainless opinions the popular culture pervades out of here.

[rlc27]

The whole notion of "weapons of mass destruction" is a product of the past 5 years.
But I don't think anyone has ever adequately defined exactly what one is.
You could argue that a single bomb dropped from a B-17 is a "weapon of mass destruction."
The term simply did not apply back in '45, especially since we were at that time in a "world war." In any case, what people always forget are that the mass firebombing B-29 raid on Tokyo caused more casualties than *both* atomic bombs put together. That Germany would have used the bomb if it had it is nearly certain, recall the London Blitz and the V-2.

Some historians argue that dropping the bombs saved more Japanese lives than American ones, which I would tend to believe looking at how Okinawa turned out for the Japanese.

Not sure what everyone is arguing out.[:-]