Is the game still in development?

[klauss]

About changing the universe... if you fly into a battle and start shoting Kilrathi pilots... and you survive... then you're better than blair. The idea is that we'll try to make obvious the difference between civilian and military craft, and if you ever attempt such a thing, they'll blow you out of the sky.

AI changes are needed, though, so that if you don't shoot at them, they may choose to ignore you.

Basically... you won't have the problem of a lone player changing the universe because it's just an impossible task.

But... if that's not enough... that won't matter either because it's not a game. There's no precious storyline to preserve, or unscripted story arcs to avoid... if it happens... it happens. The dynamic universe will take care.

A mod based on WCU, however, would have to take the steps to prevent it.

Oh... and you don't have ideas for a WCU mod?

WC1 Remake
WC2 Remake
WC3 Remake
WC4 Remake
...

Need I go on?

 

[scheherazade]

going back to the olden days before spirit was around, there was a mmorpg sort of concept for WCU.

In this multiplayer mode, all people together had the ability to change history.

The server would have the option to reset time at the end of some cycle, and restart the game.
(possibly crediting players with the value of their items, or simply saving them to be unlocked as the respective technology became 'timely'. that part was still T.B.D.).

basically, you COULD interfere. there would be story line missions, and AI generated missions(if the game went totally off-story lines), in which players could enlist and take control of certain ships.

these missions would happen as events, and in the mean time (between story events) people could play in a privateer style. When an event was coming up, the game would inform everyone that they have a chance to enlist.

fleets would be sizeable, so no single person could show up and change everything. it would require guilds, and the like.

single player was to be that also, but as I said, one person wouldn't do much.
The player if enlisted (in single player) could go story mission to story mission without the 'real time' in between.


the point was, allow both, in a creative way.
mmorpg concepts have gameplay that lends itself to organized history changing.
each server would be a history instance.

server configuration options would allow infinite time, or forced story vistories (somehow the ai gets dumb for the side that needs to lose. a virtual 'blair' *could* be incredibly hard to kill (10 people mobbing him wouldn't do it)), etc.
it would be up to the server operator.

in any case, this concept never went anywhere.

the WCU people picked up on the WC-fusion idea and took it their own way (and rightfully so since they were the only do-ers in this process).

in any case, i'm still keen on the mmorpg concept for WCU, and i will try to continue the multiplayer development in a short while.


to make an analogy :
consider world of warcraft. you quest (might pvp along the way), and you goto PVP zones to just fight to your hearts content.

in WCU mmorpg it would be :
you mission (and might pvp along the way), and you goto war zones to affect the human/kilrathi conflict (and... pvp along the way).

for character creation, it would be nice to allow making characters on both sides.
possibly not at first, since it would require much planning, and isn't something that could just be thrown in easilly (some design needed).

(some may hate these ideas, some may not. whoever wants to run a server could set things up however they want)

summary :
in any case, the basic single player wcu concept was to play the story missions of all of wc, and be able to privateer all in between.
multiplayer, because instanced, and entirely up to the server operator to set the rules, would be basically a playground for people to log on and have fun with each other.

whatever has gone on in between, i dont know. i've been too busy in RL to mess around with stuff. but that was just an early concept.

-scheherazade

 

[Bandit LOAF]

the WCU people picked up on the WC-fusion idea and took it their own way (and rightfully so since they were the only do-ers in this process).

As offensively and stupidly as they've done everything so far, Spiritplumber et al. would be even further from having a passable game if it weren't for the giant efforts of every aspect of the community. The fact that they think of themselves as an island unto themselves doesn't make it so.

(I'm also pretty sure this "development kit" idea is the design document they had Cyberion and I write...)

For the record, however, I disagree with Brad and company about 'interfering' with the games. Let people do what they want - just make it a fun and interesting challenge. (Speaking to the specific analogy, Origin itself developed a game where if you did amazingly well you could end World War II by killing a Japanese leader instead of dropping the atomic bomb...)

 

[klauss]

Sorry for the offtopicness... but I can't help myself when I see this kind of things:

(Speaking to the specific analogy, Origin itself developed a game where if you did amazingly well you could end World War II by killing a Japanese leader instead of dropping the atomic bomb...)

In RL, you don't have to be doing so much better... they were already going to surrender.

PS: offtopicness? Take a look at this thread... this is the wildcard thread.

BTW: Why doesn't the forum allow me to type the abbreviation of Laugh Out Loud?

 

[scheherazade]

pacific strike

<rant>
only got half way through that.
what got me was that it came out after strike commander, and didn't have svga graphics. after playing SC, it just bothered me.
</rant>

-scheherazade

 

[Bandit LOAF]

In RL, you don't have to be doing so much better... they were already going to surrender.

I think just the fact that this always leads to a giant debate means that it's *not* something that can be justly claimed in a simple internet one liner.

 

[klauss]

I didn't want to start a debate... but I couldn't let go either.
I myself don't understand the reasons behind the dropping of the A-bomb. Just don't. Any historical piece I find supports the... ehm... hypothesis of the Japanese being ready to surrender. Now... why someone would choose to drop a bomb then accept the surrender instead of just accepting the surrender is way too much for me to understand - well, other than in a game, where dropping the bomb scores you points, that is

 

[scheherazade]

japanese :
blockaded
out of resources (using pine sap to improvise gasoline)
airforce - gone
navy - gone
army - some on home islands

not having any way to strike out, they weren't any danger to anyone.
nevertheless, they had not surrendered.
(note : japanese had already accepted all of the u.s. surrender terms but the de-throning of their emperor, at the time of the bomb drop)

what happened ?

u.s. drops bomb
japan surrenders unconditionally
u.s. lets japan keep their emperor.

the only thing that changed was :
a) u.s. satisfied their ego
b) russian troops already inbound on train to the orient had no reason to set foot on japan (which would have given them rights to claim territory in japan)

u.s. gets japan all to itself.

whatever conclusions you want to draw from that, that's up to you (whoever).

aside from pacific strike, armada also was open ended.
it didn't go as far as to meddle with the main story line, but a fan project could open that door. i certainly don't think it should be condemned for attempting to do something new (or for blending the lines of previous concepts). the goal should be to make a quality wing commander game that does what it intends to do 'well', while respecting the previous titles in spirit and feeling so as to blend in with the wc universe (the player should feel at-home, and familiar).

-scheherazade

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I didn't want to start a debate... but I couldn't let go either.
I myself don't understand the reasons behind the dropping of the A-bomb. Just don't. Any historical piece I find supports the... ehm... hypothesis of the Japanese being ready to surrender. Now... why someone would choose to drop a bomb then accept the surrender instead of just accepting the surrender is way too much for me to understand - well, other than in a game, where dropping the bomb scores you points, that is

You "couldn't let go"? Couldn't let *what* go, my describing how a particular video game works? I think there's a thread over at IGN about how Mario throws eggs at a purple dinosaur to kill it, you might want to go contest that.

And you're not even doing your historical revisionism properly. The I'm-so-cool amateur internet historian claim is that the US was wrong to drop the *second* bomb, because various sources claim Japan was willing to surrender after the first. That claim also goes that the second bomb was dropped to disuade the Russians - who wanted to (and then did!) enter the war and take contested islands north of Japan for themselves.

But seriously, "any historical piece"? Exaggerate much? There have been literally tens of thousands of books - and hundreds of thousands of papers - written on this topic. If your amazing lack of evidence were actually true, then a great many people are very, very bad historians. Heck, I can tell you from my own poor experience that even the briefest of looks into the subject is going to find you horrific period-written casualty predictions for Olympic and Coronet. The other side is going to argue that these were inflated -- but they certainly exist, and they were unquestionably what people like MacArthur were seeing at the time.

I don't know what I "believe" - but there's certainly lots of evidence that everyone thought, at the time, that the Japanese military would literally fight to the death. It's what they did throughout the island hopping campaigns, and it got all the more shocking as the fleet approached the home islands. They'd fight to the last man with bayonettes in places like Okinawa. That, plus the massive kamikaze response to these latter invasions certainly suggested to the Allied command that the Japanese were willing to go to extreme lenghts to oppose the final invasion.

The idea that the second bomb was dropped to disuade the Russians is an interesting theory, but it's kind of scuffed by all the idiotic conspiracy theorists who love it. There's no solid contemporary evidence for it, which is the biggest problem, and frankly it implies something that I don't believe -- that the American leadership were so smart that they knew exactly what would happen with the Soviet Union after the war. Things like the lack of American response to the revolt in Greece and the difficulty with which the Berlin situation was responded to suggest that the iron curtain took America as unaware as it did everybody else.

 

[Nomad Terror]

I really don't think this is the place for a ww2 pacific theatre debate....

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't have predicted it.

 

[klauss]

You "couldn't let go"? Couldn't let *what* go, my describing how a particular video game works? I think there's a thread over at IGN about how Mario throws eggs at a purple dinosaur to kill it, you might want to go contest that.

Must I explain everything to the last detail?
I had to comment on the RL counterpart.
I felt the urge to do so.
As you felt the urge to comment on what "couldn't let go" could and couldn't mean.

And you're not even doing your historical revisionism properly.

Hey... I'm no hisotrian. I never said I was. But I read some stuff about it, and I never read something justifying the dropping. Then again... for me... nothing justifies it. Hell... nothing justifies conventional bombing of cities.

The I'm-so-cool amateur internet historian claim is that the US was wrong to drop the *second* bomb, because various sources claim Japan was willing to surrender after the first.

Certainly. I was saying that the first one was unneeded as well.
But, that's easy to say in retrospective... harder to say at the time... which connects to one of your points, later.

That claim also goes that the second bomb was dropped to disuade the Russians - who wanted to (and then did!) enter the war and take contested islands north of Japan for themselves.

And if that's true, I would certainly consider that an atrocity. Wouldn't you?

But seriously, "any historical piece"? Exaggerate much?

You can't say whether I'm exaggerating or not without knowing the amount of historical pieces I put my hands on. They might be many, the might be few. You're a little hasty, aren't you? Well... you're right... they're not many. A few (quite comprehensive) books, actually, and internet stuff.

I don't know what I "believe" - but there's certainly lots of evidence that everyone thought, at the time, that the Japanese military would literally fight to the death.
...
That, plus the massive kamikaze response to these latter invasions certainly suggested to the Allied command that the Japanese were willing to go to extreme lenghts to oppose the final invasion.

Mostly, I would have said that was the case. But, then the second bomb proves you wrong. I mean, if that had been the case, they would certainly have not dropped the second bomb. If that was the case, the people who dropped the second bomb would regret it... yet they don't: they say they'd do it again. So... what are the motives? I really don't know, I don't expect to know. But I'm amazed at how little importance is given to that - two cities, blown to oblivion. Yet, the very people who dropped the bombs and are directly responsible claim (in an interview) that they aren't regretful of that fact. I don't know... but there's something wrong in that.

 

[klauss]

I really don't think this is the place for a ww2 pacific theatre debate....

Certainly.
This is getting out of hand.
I would lock this thread... it's tempting.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Hey... I'm no hisotrian. I never said I was. But I read some stuff about it, and I never read something justifying the dropping. Then again... for me... nothing justifies it. Hell... nothing justifies conventional bombing of cities.

You're applying conventional technology to a historic situation, though, and that just doesn't make sense. "Strategic bombing" in the 1940s meant dropping as many bombs as possible on a city in order to destroy a specific target. It wasn't viewed as some kind of necessary evil at the time and it certainly wasn't something that was practiced exclusively by any one side -- it was just how wars at the time were fought.

And if that's true, I would certainly consider that an atrocity. Wouldn't you?

Oh, not at all. As a historian I know better than to apply my own morals to condemn or support a historical situation.

You can't pick out one piece of history and say "oh, this was wrong!" without the context. You have to understand that in 1945 they had their own, different set of values -- there were aspects of war that *were* considered immoral... things like poison gas or unrestricted submarine warfare... but strategic bombing was completely accepted at the time by all sides, and all sides engaged in it.

You can't pick out events like that and judge them by modern standards for the sake of accusing the people of the time. That's just plain wrong. No one is saying we shouldn't read Plato because in modern times he's a child molestor -- it was an accepted practice at the time, and we accept that in looking back.

The argument will never be "is atomic bombing cities wrong in 2005?" -- it will always be "was atomic bombing cities wrong in 1945?" And that is a much more difficult question to answer.

You can't say whether I'm exaggerating or not without knowing the amount of historical pieces I put my hands on. They might be many, the might be few. You're a little hasty, aren't you? Well... you're right... they're not many. A few (quite comprehensive) books, actually, and internet stuff.

Oh, well, my apologies for not assuming you were ignorant.

If you actually just aren't educated on the subject... well, for one thing you shouldn't be interrupting unrelated threads with unsupported views... but mostly I think you're having some trouble with the language.

Saying "nothing I've ever read" isn't a way of saying you haven't read any books on the subject -- it's a way of gracefully suggesting that you believe there are no books on the subject. The reason for saying "nothing I've ever read" is to counter the other persons argument when they cite some obscure reference -- not to make up for being completely unfamiliar with sixty years of formal historical papers.

Mostly, I would have said that was the case. But, then the second bomb proves you wrong. I mean, if that had been the case, they would certainly have not dropped the second bomb. If that was the case, the people who dropped the second bomb would regret it... yet they don't: they say they'd do it again. So... what are the motives? I really don't know, I don't expect to know. But I'm amazed at how little importance is given to that - two cities, blown to oblivion. Yet, the very people who dropped the bombs and are directly responsible claim (in an interview) that they aren't regretful of that fact. I don't know... but there's something wrong in that.

The claim was (and still is) that Japan did not offer a formal surrender after the first bombing. That much is true. The "modern" claim is that Japan wanted to surrender, not that they did. There is no actual proof that the Allies knew this - or that it's even completely true. We know, for instance, that the military government went so far as to attempt a coup when the Emperor decided to surrender. The modern suggestion is that they should have *assumed* Japan was ready to surrender and not dropped the second bomb. The argument forms entirely around whether or not they had the evidence to assume this, and it is highly, highly debatable.

The counter argument, which is certainly supported by historical correspondances, is that the US believed Japan would 'see through' a single bomb. It was known at the time that an atomic bomb was an extraordinarily difficult thing to build -- and the United States felt that dropping a single bomb would not give the impression that it could actually produce them. The claim at the time was that they needed to show Japan that they were capable of dropping atomic bombs en masse if forced to.

(And it was actually a feint - the US could not at the time readily produce atomic bombs... there was no third weapon to drop if Japan didn't surrender after Nagasaki.)

Certainly.
This is getting out of hand.
I would lock this thread... it's tempting.

You can't start a debate and then be offended that someone disagrees with you.

 

[klauss]

You can't pick out one piece of history and say "oh, this was wrong!" without the context. You have to understand that in 1945 they had their own, different set of values -- there were aspects of war that *were* considered immoral... things like poison gas or unrestricted submarine warfare... but strategic bombing was completely accepted at the time by all sides, and all sides engaged in it.

I understand that.
But I understand that strategic bombing was aimed at crippling the industry... not the entire people. With conventional bombs, you had some aim... sure it was crappy, but since it was what was available, well, people accepted the consequences (and, may I say, people not directly below those bombs... ask anyone who lived through such bombings, and they will say it's evil).
But, an atomic bomb is different. You kill everyone. Not only destroy buildings... you kill more than you destroy. The radioactive effects take the destruction much, much farther, but not to things, to people. It's, in a way, like gas. It's odd that people didn't see that... or, rather, that they did and they didn't care. The ones who designed the bomb knew about the effects of the radiation, and that they would be mostly killing people. They didn't care - at least not enough to not drop the bomb. Of course, that was the mentality at that time, and that's what amazes me... such a different mentality... totally unacceptable by today standards.

You can't pick out events like that and judge them by modern standards for the sake of accusing the people of the time. That's just plain wrong. No one is saying we shouldn't read Plato because in modern times he's a child molestor -- it was an accepted practice at the time, and we accept that in looking back.

Perhaps you're right...
...but the interview of which I spoke was from a year ago... not that old. I would expect some mixed feelings from that people, not that sense of "It was the right thing, and I'd do it again without thinking".

Oh, well, my apologies for not assuming you were ignorant.

Apologies taken

well, for one thing you shouldn't be interrupting unrelated threads with unsupported views...

Hehe... it was jut an opinion... even ignorant people have a right to give an opinion.

You can't start a debate and then be offended that someone disagrees with you.

Noone got offended... I was referring to this thread starting with one topic "is WCU still in development?", then going to another (spirit's banning), then another (the title screen), and another (ship styles), and another, and another. Total lack of direction, mostly because the original question has been answered and the thread is left without purpose.

 

[scheherazade]

loaf : "The claim was (and still is) that Japan did not offer a formal surrender after the first bombing. That much is true."

yes, but there is more to it than 'no formal surrender' (more grayish)

they were in the process of negotiating surrender via russia. july 10, emperor asks russia to tell u.s. about intent to surrender. message delivered 2 days later.

august 8th, russia told japan it would enter the war (onthe 9th, next day), entirely a surprise to them.

until then, japan has been using russia to mediate surrender terms. essentially, it was 'in progress'. not official, but it was *probably* going to happen (i.e. they could have backed out).

the concern was that things were split. japan's military cabinet refused, and the civillian part of government was pressing to surrender. while they bickered among each other, the war dragged out, and continued to drag out even AFTER the two bombs. (more evidence that the currender talks would have dragged on fruitlessly without the bombs, or at least for much longer).

only after the entire cabinet voted for surrender on the 14th and the emperors pressure did the military leaders back down.

basically, the government, and the emperor had already started surrender talks.
the military wasn't inclined to listen to them.

it was a matter of how soon, rather than if. (without the bombs, it *could* have taken a while)

can't reasonably say that japan was [black and white] unwilling (if that's what you meant) to surrender.

-scheherazade



Quote:
Originally Posted by klauss
Noone got offended... I was referring to this thread starting with one topic "is WCU still in development?", then going to another (spirit's banning), then another (the title screen), and another (ship styles), and another, and another. Total lack of direction, mostly because the original question has been answered and the thread is left without purpose.

true. the thread has derailed.
instead of closing the only active thread in this zone, how about we just get back to the wc:u topic.

me : thinking wc:u from now on (in this thread). no more wwII comments.

-scheherazade

 

[scheherazade]

(moderator plz delete this post)
-scheherazade

 

[Frosty]

I understand that.

I don't think you do, because you keep trying to do precisely that.

The radioactive effects take the destruction much, much farther, but not to things, to people. It's, in a way, like gas.

The radioactive fallout from atomic weapons is overblown. Trust me when I tell you that the crushing shockwave and blazing fireball that immediately follows are the true purpose of and benefits provided by a nuclear warhead. The radiation is far less destructive; it's more the cherry on top of your Total Victory cake than anything else.

Of course, that was the mentality at that time, and that's what amazes me... such a different mentality... totally unacceptable by today standards.

And there you go attempting to apply your standards on people and situations from a completely different era. You just can't do that and be taken seriously.

Furthermore, I think it's important to keep in mind that the "conventional" bombings of axis cities proved far more lethal and destructive than the atomic deployments at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A great many more people suffocated and burned to death in the horriffic inferno that was Tokyo than were instantly smashed into dust by A-bombs before they ever knew what hit them. How would you rather go?

Let's do a little role play... Pretend you've been engaged for years in a global war that you didn't start, but were damn well going to finish. Victory is in your grasp - you can take one of three courses of action:

• Land a massive force of ground troops on the enemy mainland and capture territory city block by city block, while in addition to the usual suicidal fanatic soldiers, your men are forced to square off against the elderly, women, and children. Victory is certain, but millions of people are going to die. Choose this option if you actually give a shit what a bunch of jerks on the Internet are going to say about you, but rest assured that they'll still find something to condemn you for.
• Escalate your campaign of strategic bombing until you've knocked down every city in the enemy homeland, and then bomb the rubble until someone surrenders. Or until nobody is left alive - whichever comes first. Choose this option if you believe, as Curtis LeMay did, that A-bombs aren't really necessary. Because conventional bombs will kill everyone pretty quickly anyway.
• Utilize a new weapon that every major player in the war has been striving for since the war began. You're the first to complete a couple, and if you use them right, you just might be able to bring this whole mess to a close before the year is out. Choose this option if you believe the psychological impact to your enemy from witnessing one plane do almost as much damage as an entire bomber formation might be very persuasive in convincing him to surrender.

I'm eager to know what kind of jackass you are. Are you the jackass who'll actively persue a pyrrhic victory? Are you the kind of jackass who just wants to kill everyone with fire? Or are you the kind of jackass who jumped into this discussion without a full appreciation of history, and now has to admit that he was wrong?

I'll bet you don't pick option c, even though that's the right one.

Hehe... it was jut an opinion... even ignorant people have a right to give an opinion.

While that may true in most contexts, you're ignoring the fact that an opinion formed in ignorance is worthless anyway.

Total lack of direction, mostly because the original question has been answered and the thread is left without purpose.

Hi, welcome to Internet.


Second-guessing decisions made 60 years ago - by people far more qualified than we - is foolish. Within the context of the situation, the decisions made were logical, and the outcome was nowhere near the worst possible, so I don't see why there should be a problem.

true. the thread has derailed.
instead of closing the only active thread in this zone, how about we just get back to the wc:u topic.

This kind of post is precisely what

is for. Use it.

 

[klauss]

I don't think you do, because you keep trying to do precisely that.

No... I'm trying to arrive to the conclusion (which I think is true - but can't prove) that dropping the A-bomb was wrong even in that era, but fear from one side, submission from another side, and pride in power from another side has made everyone shut up.

The radioactive fallout from atomic weapons is overblown.

Not at all. Radioactive fallout is killing people even today. It's not only far-reaching, but also long-lasting. Let me find references about it I can quote... later.

Furthermore, I think it's important to keep in mind that the "conventional" bombings of axis cities proved far more lethal and destructive than the atomic deployments at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And I just said it was wrong too.

How would you rather go?

I don't know.

Let's do a little role play...

I don't know. I'm not in such a situation. Those situations are the kind that you can't predict: when the time comes, you make your decision, and it may surprise even yourself. I might be surprised, were I to find myself in such a position, to choose 'c' or even 'b'... who knows... none of them seem reasonable to me. I wouldn't have started the war in the first place.
But sure as hell, whatever my choice was, I wouldn't sleep at night.

you're ignoring the fact that an opinion formed in ignorance is worthless anyway.

I may not be able to back my opinion with papers and formal stuff. But I know what I'm saying. I don't want to fight over this... but it's not just the act of dropping the bomb. It's later not caring about having done so... no remorse... what kind of people kills millions of lives without showing remorse? Well, that's the kind of people making most decisions around the world... during WW2, and presently. I don't like that.

Second-guessing decisions made 60 years ago - by people far more qualified than we - is foolish.

Even more foolish is not to. Then you'll never learn anything.

 

[Halman]

No... I'm trying to arrive to the conclusion (which I think is true - but can't prove) that dropping the A-bomb was wrong even in that era, but fear from one side, submission from another side, and pride in power from another side has made everyone shut up.

Sure, fear is exactly what prompted the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fear that victory would come only with the complete destruction of the Japanese. And why did we think that? Was it because we'd spent 4 years fighting them to the last man in every engagment? Was it because US observation planes were photographing women and children learning how to use polearms?

No, you're right. We felt the need to show the world how strong we were after completely crushing both Nazi Germany and every off-island(and most of their home defenses) asset Japan had.

Or, we could prove the Japanese that further resistance was pointless. Not only did we not have to land troops to finish the job, we could prove our mastery of the atom over every japanese city and completely erase them from history.

The desired effects of the bomb were psychological, and in the end they were completely borne out. (This is why the crews of the bombers still say they would do it again)

Not at all. Radioactive fallout is killing people even today. It's not only far-reaching, but also long-lasting. Let me find references about it I can quote... later.

So is unexploded ordinance from every war we've used high explosives in.
(Case in point, they found unexploded mortar rounds in the downtown area of the city I live in, leftover unshipped munitions from WW2.)

And I just said it was wrong too.

I'm not going to debate the practice, as it was accepted by everyone involved at the time.

I don't know. I'm not in such a situation. Those situations are the kind that you can't predict: when the time comes, you make your decision, and it may surprise even yourself. I might be surprised, were I to find myself in such a position, to choose 'c' or even 'b'... who knows... none of them seem reasonable to me. I wouldn't have started the war in the first place.
But sure as hell, whatever my choice was, I wouldn't sleep at night.

See, on paper, in a very black and white sense, it's a very obvious choice.
A) Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of casualties(mostly KIA) on both sides. Likely the near total genocide of the Japanese.
B)Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Japanese casualties. The only american loss for this one is the expenditure of industry making the munitions we use to erase them.
C) Tens of thousand dead, a week interval to allow surrender, and then tens of thousands again. No loss for the attacking force.

I may not be able to back my opinion with papers and formal stuff. But I know what I'm saying. I don't want to fight over this... but it's not just the act of dropping the bomb. It's later not caring about having done so... no remorse... what kind of people kills millions of lives without showing remorse? Well, that's the kind of people making most decisions around the world... during WW2, and presently. I don't like that.

In regards to my above assertion

The dropping of the atomic bomb is literally the only sensible thing to do. And the 'monsters' you presume to judge because they had the fortitude to unleash horrors every single one of them realized, and the willingness to do so again after having witnessed the result, saw it as the only real option as well.(And I respect every single one of them. God only knows the nightmares and terrors these men lived with. But they're horrible amoral monsters, I forgot)

And I could find plenty of papers and DOD documents and so forth if I felt like I needed to.

But the fact is, the popular thing to do is condemn the United States of America on every possible front. Things we do now, things we've done, things my grandchildren plan on doing. But it's usually coming from people who haven't really bothered themselves to learn more than that the US did something to someone somewhere and we can call them all sorts of terrible things for having done so.