I just had a rather sick idea for a WWII scenario...

[smellymummy]

I wonder how many players went through the pacific ww2 conquest as the USA, rushed to build the A bomb... and then grinned when they gleefully dropped it on Japan. or just a regular civ game, build massive amounts of nukes and just blast the AI to bits.

why is nuking a people to nothingness perfectly acceptable, yet talking about recreating the holocaust in a game is so politcally incorrect that people jump up and down yelling close the thread, as if they we're victims of it. no one seems to care for the millions of russians, chinese, etc that also died during that period.

I think the idea overall is good, just not all that original. It's just dressing up something in the game, and that apparently some people find that dress very disgusting. besides, wouldn't this thread have been better in the creation forum?

[Antrine]

I hate to see this thread litter the Creation Forum, however it is mostly a graveyard and this would then find a nice place among the dead...

You’re noting hypocrisy in regard to Atom Bombs and such is valid. So do we slide down and keep to the gutter with all this? As way of background, I was involved in ‘what if’ war games in the military a few decades ago (gee how good time flies) and we concluded that both politically and environmentally there is NO SUCH THING as a WINNABLE nuclear war or even the USE of only ONE bomb, anywhere at anytime against human populations.

Why? First, no matter who you are, it is instant political suicide.
Second? There is virtually nowhere populated that is also a valid target that would not poison your friends (or shall I say ‘former’ friends) and not as well poison yourself eventually in ways very hard to calculate.

World awareness and morality simply would fry the ‘offender’ who hurled such a weapon. Conclusion, our nuclear weapons are near worthless. This is why we in US have been pushing conventional upgrades right and left.

I do not play nuclear scenarios they leave my stomach sick.

[smellymummy]

personally, I love them

[Antrine]

Don't worry smellymummy I will stay clear of your fantasy worlds, even as errant Titan god next life when I take to wandering around a bit more.

[Switch]

There is a difference, socially, between nukes and holocaust in-game: nukes were a weapon of war, intended for the purposes of war. The Holocaust was a personal, direct hate-crime, commited not out of war or survival (although the nuke was more to stop the war so the USSR didn't get Japan), but simply out of bigotted hatred. It's about the purpose of the atrocity that defines the social acceptance in a game, not how actually disgusting it is.

[Tassadar500]

All I can say is:

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Antrine
You’re noting hypocrisy in regard to Atom Bombs and such is valid. So do we slide down and keep to the gutter with all this? As way of background, I was involved in ‘what if’ war games in the military a few decades ago (gee how good time flies) and we concluded that both politically and environmentally there is NO SUCH THING as a WINNABLE nuclear war or even the USE of only ONE bomb, anywhere at anytime against human populations.

Sounds like the old Cold War mentality (and impossible to verify short of actual use of many bombs). Bush believes, chillingly enough, that they can be used without the world coming to an end.

[Tassadar500]

What does this have to do with the thread? Stick it where it belongs: The OTF

[Dis]

yes there has been renewed talk of using tactical nukes.

and believe it or not they could have their uses. Even the MOAB is not very good at breaking open mountain bunkers. A tactical nuke really is the only way.

In most cases it would be political suicide.

But Bush is crazy enough to use it to get Osama Bin Ladin. Although using that kind of weapon would make it difficult to prove you killed OBL. As for political fallout, he would survive. It's not like he cares what France thinks anyways.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
What does this have to do with the thread? Stick it where it belongs: The OTF

Using atomics is a sick idea for a WWII scenario.

[smellymummy]

as if caring about what france thinks is important

[Vince278]

Originally posted by smellymummy
as if caring about what france thinks is important

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by smellymummy
as if caring about what france thinks is important

More important than caring about what America thinks, that's for sure.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by smellymummy
as if caring about what france thinks is important

Presumably you mean from an American viewpoint?

[Last Conformist]

The other difference 'tween the holocaust and the use of nuclear weapons is that the later served a purpose that translates into something a Civ player will want to - defeating external enemies - while the former, in Civ terms, was purely self-defeating. Give a player nukes, and he'll happily use them to kill the AIs. Give the same player the opportunity to spend considerable resources on killing off parts of his own population for no material gain, and he won't use it. You'd have to introduce some ahistorical incentive - like Kuciwalker's culture idea - to make it worthwhile.