«12. . .2,1512,1522,1532,1542,1552,1562,157»
No. Also, as a mod, I'm obligated to quickly tell y'all: this is a friendly debate. Let's keep it that way. I know everyone means well, just try not to cross any lines, because this is sometimes a sensitive topic.
No. Nobody has right to claim lives nor reduce them to statistics
Of course. It mitigated a worse catastrophe, and ended the war. From his place, I would have done three just in case to be honest.
I love the pacifistic idealism...but this was a war, and these decisions need to be made.
^
I am watching.
I agree with the person that said it should've been dropped in either military outposts, or into the ocean (would've caused a flood yeah, but still more diminishable in damages)
I would have kept the Hiroshima and Nagasaki targets, personally. As for the third one as a backup, somewhere in Northern or Central Japan. Tokyo was already mostly obliterated by firebombing so that'd be pointless.
I'd have hit Kyoto, probably, ngl.
I'm writing from a perspective without hindsight. Basically, not knowing if Hiroshima or Nagasaki would bring Japan to the capitulation, I would've been certain obliterating the ancient imperial capital would have.
Kyoto would never have been approved for bombing. It was considered too central to Japanese culture. Truman removed it from the list as soon as he saw it.
It was removed from the list because the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, had traveled there and influenced Truman's decision not to target the city. General Leslie Groves had insisted multiple times to hit Kyoto, but Stimson shut him down. Had *i* been Truman, I would've overrode Stimson and hit Kyoto is what I'm saying.
I am a Christian and have deontological values. Those nukes wouldnt have flied anywhere
Raiding is actually an official part of NationStates gameplay according to Wikipedia. It evolves around being the the most endorsed executive WA delegate in the region, so you can ban the governor and proclaim yourself the sole supreme leader of X region. This is how raiding has been for most of the history of the game, making governors the best counter to raiding as there was no way to size their authority. Sure, there were successors, but what were you going to do, hack the governor's computer and make them abdicate?
However, there is also another counter. There are two types of WA delegates, executive and non-executive. Executive authority is what allows officers to appoint and dethrone other officers. Giving this authority to a new delegate is extremely risky as he could remove your authorities and ban you. This is a bigger fear if your region has a large community of players as it gives the raider more motive to seize control.
Defender Regions
If you've been caught up in regional conflicts you have probably heard of defender regions. These are regions that have dedicated their armed forces to retaliating against raider regions that have captured a region. One example and probably the most famous example of a defender region would be 10000 Islands, one of the oldest defender regions in NationStates history. You can normally telegram the leader of defender regions if your the former governor of a newly captured region. However, be careful, because you don't want to get in the path of a defender region's quest for power rather then goodwill
Raider Regions
And of couse, raider regions. I can name a few, The Communist Bloc, The Black Hawks, the West Pacific. What do they do? They ambush innocent regions or regions that don't fit their ideals, with mabey 10 or even 20 and above wa nations. After the region is raided, they turn it into a stronghold of *insert name of raiding region here*. Both raider and defender regions will also forge alliances of other raider defender regions, often resulting in massive confrontations.
What is not raiding?
-Spam
-Puppet Spamming
-Telegram spamming
-Creating alt regions
-Impersonation regions
-Hacking
Raider regions are often seen as outlaws and barbaric, but technically, they're just playing the game. What do you think?
I'd like to increase the patriotism of my nation state
Thank you, thank you... We understood your position the first time. You don't care neither for foreign civilists nor for foreign cultural heritage. That's the reason why it is important to exclude some people from decisions of that magnitude. We see: it could have been worse! Thank you, again.
Kyoto wasn't bombed not because it was culturally important but because it had already been razed to the ground by the conventional firebombing campaign by the US of Japan's cities.
I might implement government structure and economic reform in Homide to return to socialism and give even more power to the people
Hijjma, The Grand Kingdoms, and Tabako
Duodez: Warning for flaming. I'm disappointed, you're normally pretty cool and I barely just said to keep it friendly.
To evreyone else: Don't do that.
Edit: Before I get accused of bias or anything else: I agree that the bomb should not have been dropped. However, it is logical to say that Kyoto should have been a target in the case of the bombings, and there was nothing offensive in the statement Duodez was responding to.
This region is literally me fr
Good grief. I’m the third longest resident here without ever moving or having ceased to exist. That makes me feel old. 🙂
Hijjma, The Grand Kingdoms, and Laforeia
You are only as old as you mentally feel. I am 55 chronologically, but still 35 mentally.
Hijjma and Justin Fashanu
I think four wouldn't have even been enough. I'd do five, but just for safe measure six would give an additional safe guard.
that is, assuming a invasion would be necessary in the first place considering the newly involved soviet union
I had to google what "flaming" means. I would like to comment on that:
I reacted to the fourth (or fifth) Message that repeated pretty much the same content. If it is not possible to react to such statements in the way I did, a discussion is neather practical nor true to me. I normally react different/stronger to the implication of mass murder, war crimes and implicit contempt of the cultural heritage of mankind.
If it is no problem to verbally drop a nuclear bomb on civilians multiple times but forbidden to critice such verbal barbarism with a more or less snarky comment, I would like to protest against such a policy - strongly.
It was my will and intent, not only to disagree with such a cold, inhumane statement but to draw a line that those ideas will be challanged. The political strongman attitude, that leaves no doubt about the disregard of human lifes, is nothing I can tolerate.
Shameless self-promotion. INCOMING!
page=wonder/wid=1000174
(I suck at sudoku, and I am too lazy to learn. Please upvote for internet love.)
«12. . .2,1512,1522,1532,1542,1552,1562,157»
Advertisement
