The nuclear question?

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, 1./JG54_Lang said:

Will there be an option to nuke along the Yalu River per MacArthur's idea?

 

The Korean War - perhaps even more so than 1962 - is when we came closest to the use of nuclear weapons. It was a very real possibility.

 

I personally don't see an issue with depicting this as a potential outcome of the war. It was part of the reality of the situation, and we'd be avoiding the very real risks of this war, (and the tensions around it), if we didn't acknowledge the looming threat of these weapons. At least two flight sims have modelled nuclear weapons in the past, but they seem very applicable to this war where we were still learning how to fight proxy wars without nuclear escalation.

 

The main issues I see are technical:

- One would have to flatten a large number of buildings in the blast radius without causing the game to stall. One would need to light many other buildings on fire. Similarly, one might need to topple large numbers of trees.

- Then there is the challenge of modelling a large crater (29 metres deep and 160 metres radius for a Mk.4 airburst) which might require terrain deformation (although having it continue to smoke might allow obscuring this from the player).

 

[MajorMagee]

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I personally don't see an issue with depicting this as a potential outcome of the war. It was part of the reality of the situation, and we'd be avoiding the very real risks of this war, (and the tensions around it), if we didn't acknowledge the looming threat of these weapons.

No, it isn't part of the "reality of the situation" - as we're all aware, nuclear weapons were considered but never used. Saying nuclear weapons are the "reality of the situation" in order to acknowledge their looming threat, is akin to saying a ground war on British soil in IL2 is also the "reality of the situation" since that too was a looming threat for a while. Neither ever happened, so both belong to the realms of fantasy and have nothing to do with reality.

 

I don't mind if there's an option for some aircraft to take a nuclear payload, so that those who like alternative history stuff can do what they like. However I'd be very disappointed if nuclear weapons ever feature in the career mode or the default missions.

[Avimimus]

Well, arguably the use of nuclear weapons in Korea was a couple of decision makers away from happening, whereas an invasion of the U.K. simply wasn't in the cards (at least so long as the Soviets didn't surrender). It is much closer to 'what if a destroyer was hit instead of missed by a Stuka' in probability, than it is similar to counter-factual histories which are clear impossibilities!

 

But I completely agree with you otherwise - the default career and missions should avoid them. It'd just be interesting if there was an option for a small chance of the world ending (if campaign makers wanted to include that as a possibility).

[LukeFF]

Forget nukes, we need rocks as AA weapons:

 

[Aapje]

Impressive throw. If the guy had been American, he would have been a rich baseball pitcher.

[LukeFF]

Crazily enough too, I looked up the pilot's name and found out he later played the head Japanese pilot in the movie “Tora! Tora! Tora!”

 

Small world.

[ZachariasX]

On 7/1/2024 at 9:05 PM, Avimimus said:

It'd just be interesting if there was an option for a small chance of the world ending (if campaign makers wanted to include that as a possibility).

All you would need is a screen that reads "The world has just ended. Try again?"

 

If nukes were used, you know the right targets are not on that map. And that is why nukes are not an option. They weren't and the stil aren't. Nukes are the spectre you scare people (whose fear matters) with. They have no other real world use. (Except for doomsay terrorists and that is why you better guard nukes well.)

 

All you realisticly need in your campaign is a button "Make nuclear threats" and in easy mode, the enemy will withdraw a bit on the map, the easier the playmode the more he will withdraw. On hard, he'll ignore the threat of course. That is all the nuclear war there is.

[Lofte]

No, thanks))

 

 

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

If nukes were used, you know the right targets are not on that map. And that is why nukes are not an option. They weren't and the stil aren't. Nukes are the spectre you scare people (whose fear matters) with. They have no other real world use.

 

Ah! But that is how we see them a half-century later. A few people foresaw this potential dynamic, but they were a minority.

 

The viewpoint in the 1950s was very different:

 

(1) There was widespread interest in the use of nuclear weapons for civil engineering purposes.

 

(2) There was a widespread assumption that a losing side in a conventional war, even a proxy war, would be likely to use nuclear weapons. There were factions in the leadership which viewed the use of nuclear weapons as more acceptable or more inevitable. 

 

(3) The United States still had nuclear superiority (and stockpile numbers were low). This meant that a nuclear war appeared more 'winnable' for the United States. If Russia became involved in Europe, then Europe would suffer - but the United States itself was felt to be largely immune from retaliation. For reference, China didn't test nuclear weapons until 1964, and the Tu-95 and Soviet nuclear missile equipped submarines didn't enter service until 1956 - three years after the Korean War ended. So strikes against North Korean targets, and even China, were possibilities, and the only risk was that the Soviets would retaliate against Europe.

 

As for the actual war - the history of proposals for the use of nuclear weapons have a complex history, with many of them being drawn up but then discarded - and it is hard to assess how close they were to gaining support among the leadership in 1950-1951. MacArthur himself seems to have changed his opinion of what is own position was on the subject during the war several times. Interestingly, it appears that a major reason to avoid using nuclear weapons was conventional - North Korean positions were sufficiently dug in by the second half of the war that tactical use of nuclear weapons would have been expensive. They also assessed the use of nuclear weapons against tunnel entrances (and irradiation of transport routes using fissile materials without detonating atomic bombs).

 

What is more clear, is that the last proposals to use the weapons to end the war in 1953 were serious - it wasn't merely a bluff, and they were actively considering questions of how to deal with international opinion once the weapons were used.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Nukes would make a good interception practice mission. If the enemy drops one single bomb on target you instantly lose.

[JG27_Steini]

The work that needs to be done to develop nuke's and the desctructions of the map and objects is huge. And only for a single mission (-type)?

 

Come on guy's lets be realistic. What process should calculate all the desctruction made by the nuke? 

 

You dont need a nuke to simulate B29 nuke missions. Just let a bomber reach a current position and mission is accomplished.

[LukeFF]

And on that note, let's wrap it up.