Oh god absolutely. Again, from what I understand, even Churchill frowned upon it somewhat, as he was essentially saying “sod you French lads, seeing as your Navy can’t make its mind up, we’re going to sink you in Harbour”
Much less the Naval staff actually doing the shooting/sinking of a former ally.
Someone’s getting firebombed if they do.
I’m sorry, I just don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to give someone a ship (in game, of course) that they couldn’t build, didn’t build, got gift wrapped for them in replacement of something else, managed to practically make it unserviceable and practically worthless for anything other than scrap in 6 years. And only 2 of those were in “wartime” - throw in the bit about them saying “we couldn’t possibly sail it back, it’s unseaworthy” and it gives me a sour taste in my mouth.
I was referencing your last line particularly. Most of Japan would be gone, and moreover it’d be an irradiated hell hole by virtue of the fact I’d entirely expect the Americans to use Nuclear weapons on a tactical level, demolishing cities and the like. Not to mention (presumably) the vast numbers of long term deaths and injuries inflicted by radiation poisoning on US/Allied forces
The expectation at the time that the war in Europe ended was that the Pacific war would end about 18 months later. So roughly late 1946, if things went well for the allies.
I mean, it may sound reductive or simplistic, but what separates a nuclear bomb from just a really, really big bomb? If bombing civilian centers and factories is seen as a legitimate form of warfare, or at the very least an acceptable casualty, (as all sides had done in both World Wars), why was the nuclear bomb so different?
The United States had been bombing Japan for quite a while at that point, but it had been seen as a valid and acceptable form of warfare. The difference, however, between an atom bomb and a regular bomb is the level of destruction. But I would argue that anybody could have seen that bombs in the future would become even more destructive, and mankind’s technological advancements would lead to increasingly devastating weapons.
People had already accepted the horror that is warfare (with regard to bombing cities, as that was the status quo), but weren’t prepared for the logical conclusion to their beliefs to be displayed so forthright.
All the United States had done was to use a bigger bomb.
Am I the only one who thinks this battlepass sounds neat? I’m especially interested in the potential of the ground vehicle being a selection from old battle passes, there is some cool stuff in there.
It is my hope that in the next or near updates, we get a rework for subtrees. With the rest of BENELUX, ASEAN, and Chinese subtrees on the horizon, we need to seriously rethink how these subtrees are researched. I found a good suggestion on how to do this, from @MAUSWAFFE
That was still 78 years of non-stop military intervention, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan with much more being cared by casualties anticipated for a 6 months invasion campaign