A militaristic & Scientific nation for expansion pack

[aaglo]

Originally posted by UberKruX
the only way to beat the japanese was to hit them at home, we had to show them their ruler was not a god. they estimated that a mainland invasion of the heavily fortified island chain known as japan would kill about 5 million american soldiers. so we nuked and asked them if they were done. they said no, so we did it again, and said "hey, we can do this forever", and they gave up...

I don't know the truth about 5 million american soldiers "would be killed"... But that's what the soldiers are for - to kill and be killed. And USA nuked ONLY CIVILLIANS. If that is not terrorism, then what is...

[JamesJKirk]

I would be tempted to place the Americans as Commercial/Expansionist, and move the Germans to Commercial/Militarist, since there're just those few infamous examples of large scale expansion, and even then nothing permanent, or on the scale of the US, Russia, or even the British and French empires. I know the US in this case would have the same specs as England, but I think it fits the US better: The expansion is obvious, and I can see why industrious would be tempting, but if one were to look at the times the US has used force over it's history to exert it's power and affect foreign policy, it's been for typically commercial reasons, eg: Mexico in the 1910's, Cuba after the Spanish American War, Haiti and Dominican Republic from the 1910's thru the 30's, Iran in 1953, and Guatamala in the 30's and in 1954, just to name some.

As for England? I dunno, I'm sure there's something that fits better

and for the Scientific/Militaristic combo, I think it fits Greece well, especially with Alexander as the leader

[Pyrodrew]

aaglo:I don't know the truth about 5 million american soldiers "would be killed"... But that's what the soldiers are for - to kill and be killed. And USA nuked ONLY CIVILLIANS. If that is not terrorism, then what is...

Your "soldiers are... to be killed" comment says how little you weigh a soldier's life compared to a non-soldier's life. Hint: if a war doesn't end citizens (often teenage boys) become the new soldiers instead of citizens. I'm glad you're no military leader in real life.

Japanese had/have a tremendous amout of pride & patriotism (they still refuse to fully apologize for PearlHarbor). Even after the 1st nuke (which demonstrated it's power) they STILL had an extreme resistance to surrender, while ignoring the Allies warnings. Thus searching for & nuking 2 military locations (and it's not like there were mini-nukes) instead would have caused to war to last LONGER, more lives lost & possibly cause even more nukes to be used (which then you would be crying about that). America never nuked Tokyo or used it more than was needed to END the war. America also later helped Japan rebuild to become the economic power it is today. I would like to see the WTC terrorists rebuild the WorldTradeCenter! I guess you don't know what terrorism is... the numerous citizens from other countries that were in the WTC (including 300 or so Britians) and their families, sure do.

[Rosacrux]

About the Greek attributes, well, some things needed to be said:

What we today know as Greek civilization is primarily a product of one city/state, Athens, and secondary of the Greek colonies in Minor Asia (Ionia) and Magna Graecia (South Italy/Sicily).

The militaristic aspect of the Greek civ was represented fairly by the Spartans, who did not have any other impact whatsoever beyond the founding and maintenance of the best army the ancient world has seen (for its size, that is, the Spartans never have been able to field more than 12.000 hoplites - a significant number but ...frankly, kinda ridiculous compared to the numbers of even the Greek kingdom of Macedonia (about 30.000 men at it's peak).

So, the militaristic aspect of the Greek society is represented only by one single city/state and one that had no other achievements to show and did not even hegemonized the Greeks for a significant period (only after the end of the Peloponesian war and for a rather short period) due to inner problems (to give you an idea, the free citizen/slave ratio in Sparta was 1:12... that would be an adequate reason for them not to be extremely willing to leave their home when a slave revolt was highly possible).

On the Alexander issue... well, not even the Macedonian were militaristic. Alexander's army was an army of conscripts, "allies" from the rest of Greece and some mercenaries (from Thrace, Illyrikon, Crete etc.) and not a professional army, like the Spartan force.

The fact that Alexander was a great conqueror does not overule the other - much more significant - aspects of the Greek civilization. And by the same manner, France shoul be militaristic (Napoleon) British too (numerous "conquerors" there...) Persia (Cyrus the Great) and many, many others.

OTOH the ancient Greeks were second only to the Phoenician when it comes to trade. They traded goods from Kolchis (today Odyssa) to the Giblartar straits and beyond (to the north).

Marseille and Nicae in France were originally Greek trade centers (later thriving Greek colonies) and also numerous cities in Hiberia.

So... scientific/commercial is right on spot when it comes to ancient Greek civilization and Firaxis made a great choice.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Your "soldiers are... to be killed" comment says how little you weigh a soldier's life compared to a non-soldier's life. Hint: if a war doesn't end citizens (often teenage boys) become the new soldiers instead of citizens. I'm glad you're no military leader in real life.

What I ment was that a soldier participating a battle knows this - the soldier can kill and can be killed. The civilians in the nuke-case had only the later option

Japanese had/have a tremendous amout of pride & patriotism (they still refuse to fully apologize for PearlHarbor).

Maybe the Japanese don't want to apologize, but Pearl Harbor was a military target AFAIK.

America never nuked Tokyo or used it more than was needed to END the war.

Like that would make the difference. Using a nuke agains civillians is a crime against humanity, no matter how small or big the target or the death toll.

America also later helped Japan rebuild to become the economic power it is today.

Yee-haw. Here comes the american capitalistic way of thinking things....

I would like to see the WTC terrorists rebuild the WorldTradeCenter!

So would I

I guess you don't know what terrorism is... the numerous citizens from other countries that were in the WTC (including 300 or so Britians) and their families, sure do.

As I see it, this is only a modern way of terrorism...

I'm glad you're no military leader in real life.

Well, actually I am (but in the reservist army, so does that count?)

[Pyrodrew]

aaglo:What I ment was that a soldier participating a battle knows this - the soldier can kill and can be killed. The civilians in the nuke-case had only the later option.... Using a nuke agains civillians is a crime against humanity, no matter how small or big the target or the death toll.

Again... soldiers are often made FROM citizens. Do you even know the ages many of those Japanese "soldiers" were?? If drafting kids & fathers to die in a long and bloody war is your 'better world of humanity'... you have serious problems.

aaglo:Maybe the Japanese don't want to apologize

Duh.

aaglo:but Pearl Harbor was a military target AFAIK

And again... nuking/bombing 2 military targets wouldn't have ended the war. Combined with your "death toll doesn't matter" logic, you are quite the bloodthirsty grim reaper.

aaglo:Yee-haw. Here comes the american capitalistic way of thinking things....

You don't like that the Japanese surpassed your country economically with America's help I can see. Well at least this is just a Civ game & you can start over... opps, guess not.

aaglo:this is only a modern way of terrorism

My hint gave that 1 away for you, but good guess.

aaglo:Well, actually I am (but in the reservist army, so does that count?)

I didn't think Osama bin Laden had a reservist army.

It is quite obvious you just want to bash America to make up for your own (or perhaps your own country's) inadequacies you need to hide/ignore. I want to applaud the civilized people here who don't start these "x country sucks" posts which only breed hate. Those who do, have my pity.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
It is quite obvious you just want to bash America to make up for your own (or perhaps your own country's) inadequacies you need to hide/ignore. I want to applaud the civilized people here who don't start these "x country sucks" posts which only breed hate. Those who do, have my pity.

Pyrodrew, is it really necessary to flame someone just because he doesn't share your opinion?

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
I didn't think Osama bin Laden had a reservist army.

..Says a person with weird sense of humour.

It is quite obvious you just want to bash America to make up for your own (or perhaps your own country's) inadequacies you need to hide/ignore. I want to applaud the civilized people here who don't start these "x country sucks" posts which only breed hate. Those who do, have my pity.

I don't want to bash America because of my inadequacies (which can be found abundantly ). I don't want to bash America at all. I just don't like the USA decision to use nukes in WW2. NOTHING can justify the use of nukes against civilians.

And you have misread between the lines. I've never said that any country sucks - or anybody.
If someone is offended by my posts - it wasn't my intention.

Peace

[Pyrodrew]

More

Ribbanah:Pyrodrew, is it really necessary to flame someone just because he doesn't share your opinion?

Please if I wanted to flame I would have used a blowtorch not a match And as UberKruX said making America sound like Hitler & saying "no offense" is hardly just. And calling America's actions terrorism about 1 month after 9/11 is very poor form.

Aaglo:Says a person with weird sense of humour

Did you see your so called humour? Before you take the sliver out of my eye....

Aaglo:I just don't like the USA decision to use nukes in WW2. I've never said that any country sucks

If your goal was to simply state how you "just don't like nukes" you wouldn't have went into the "yee-haw capitalism", etc. too. Thus you clearly were looking for other areas to bash & throw this thread off topic. And there is a BIG difference between feeling nukes should not have been used because [[insert any reason here]] & calling America's actions terrorism. Especially given recent events. I recommend using more tact in the future.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Ironwood
I'd have to agree with Tniem (and the Civ3 dev team) about America being Expansionist and Industrial.

Industrial/expansionistic fits us like a glove.

I see Americans much more as comercial than as expansionists.
They are able to sell or buy almost everything, including the moon or stars.
Who else in the world is able to sell assurance for Alien Abduction?
Who else in the world would legalized licences on anything, even common words like 'Windows'?
Who else in the world would believe the Eiffel Tower is for sale?
Who else in the world would dare to say from OBL "At least, he is not communist"?

In WTC, what was the T for?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Stuie





I'm pretty sure the estimate was 500,000 American soldiers; and then of course there would have been a huge loss of life for the Japanese - both military and civilians. That's still an unacceptable risk when an alternate means of ending the conflict with a lower loss of human life was available.
As for who should be militaristic/scientific, I'd agree with the updated official choice of the Germans.

Sorry Stuie but the estimate was 5 million not 500,000. The army came up with this number by taking a good hard look at casualties rates in previous battles and estimating the number of major battles it would take to subdue the home islands. If this number seems high to you then you need to remember that casualties are both killed and wounded and not just K.I.A..

[Dinner]

Originally posted by aaglo
I don't know the truth about 5 million american soldiers "would be killed"... But that's what the soldiers are for - to kill and be killed. And USA nuked ONLY CIVILLIANS. If that is not terrorism, then what is...

Aaglo,
How ever much I hate getting bogged down in a flame war I still felt compelled to tell you what an incredably ignorant statement that was. Just because a soldiers duty is to fight for his country doesn't mean his life has no value. Most soldier's in WW2 where conscripted and had no choice in the matter so the government and the military have an absolute moral obligation to preserve as many of it's citizens lives as possible; even if it means more of the enemies citizens will die.
Also Hiroshima and Nagasake were choicen because they where major manufacturing centers of war material. The two cities represented something like one quarter to one third of all Japanese production of items like tanks, ships, planes, munitions, and artillary. WW2 was total war and those two cities where military targets. By bombing those cities many more lives (both allied and Japanese) were saved then where killed.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by aaglo
Like that would make the difference. Using a nuke agains civillians is a crime against humanity, no matter how small or big the target or the death toll.

Aaglo,
Does it really matter whither a city is destroyed with one bomb or 10,000 bombs? In the end the city is destroyed and the death toll is catastrophic. I think in your zeal to embrase historical revisionism you have forgotten that Japan destroyed virtually every major city in China and that the Germans did the same to British, Russian, Greek, Yugoslavian, and other cities.
If you are fighting a life or death struggle and your enemy uses weapons of mass destruction against you and your allies then are you not justified in responding in kind? What the U.S. and other allies did in WW2 was neither worse nor better then the other combatants.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If you are fighting a life or death struggle and your enemy uses weapons of mass destruction against you and your allies then are you not justified in responding in kind? What the U.S. and other allies did in WW2 was neither worse nor better then the other combatants.

That is a tough question for any of us, Oerdin. My personal answer is "no".
But, justified or not, I have to agree with Aaglo that 'responding in kind' to terrorism is, by definition, terrorism, too.

Pyrodrew, you could have phrased your point the way you did just now, right away. But I think it is very just to speak about these matters, exactly because 11/9 is fresh in our memory. It is important to realize that terrorism is not 'something bad people do to good Americans', but something that can be done by anyone to anybody. Acts of terrorism are committed all over the world on every single day. It didn't start on September 11 and it won't stop with the downfall of the Taliban regime or Al Qaida. There is the danger that we will forget this once Bush declares victory, if that is going to happen.

[Pyrodrew]

Ribbannah: It is important to realize that terrorism is not 'something bad people do to good Americans'...It didn't start on September 11

Duh.

Ribbannah:I have to agree with Aaglo that 'responding in kind' to terrorism is, by definition, terrorism, too.

1st, as Aaglo pointed out PearlHarbor wasn't terrorism. It was an aggressive act on a military target that led to war. 2nd, Aaglo didn't say "responding in kind to terrorism... is terrorism", re-read the posts. We were talking about the nuke being considered terrorism, not what is happening in Afganistan... which is another WHOLE ball of wax.

If you or Aaglo want to talk about Afganistan, the Bomb, Terrorism, etc... why not just start a seperate Off-Topic thread rather than hijacking this one? And if you think it is "important to speak on these matters" than do it in a proper forum... not by hijacking a thread on a game forum.