What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/NukeEM

SeptimusHeap
moderator
topic
06:24:01 AM Jan 3rd 2013
Former Real Life section was natter-filled: Removed.
     Real Life 
  • Of course, nuclear weapons have been used only twice in human history, during World War II, when the USA dropped two on the Japanese Empire, forcing it to surrender. Whether this was a good or moral decision is still hotly debated. We will leave it at that. However, there have been occasions in history where the use of nuclear weapons was suggested, and where, with hindsight, their use would have been a very stupid idea:
    • Had the double bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not succeeded in forcing Japan to its knees, the allied Operation: Downfall, the "Mother of all Campaigns", called for the use of eleven nuclear weapons on "X Day", hitting all of Japan's major cities and military hubs. It is fair to say that the campaign was not over-blessed with subtlety. Notably, this would have been almost as deadly to the Allies as the Japanese - radiation was still poorly understood, and many of the invading soldiers would have suffered cancers and health problems.
    • It is a persistent smear that General Douglas MacArthur advocated the use of nuclear arms against North Korea during the Korean War. He didn't, as the testimonies of Harry Truman and Richard Nixon can attest. He did (very briefly) consider a plan to irradiate Korea's northern border, thus cutting the nation off from China and the USSR, but refrained from carrying it out, because it would quite possibly have led to war with both powers.
    • In 1964, Barry Goldwater suggested using nuclear weapons in order to "defoliate" parts of Vietnam, so as to make it easier to expose Viet Cong soldiers fighting in the Vietnam War. As such a release would almost have certainly lead to nuclear war with the Soviet Union, and given the horrific damage inflicted by the (comparatively) milder chemical agents ultimately deployed, it is certainly a good thing that LBJ had the sense not to listen to him.
    • The infamous Davy Crockett nuclear bazooka was intended to allow the less-ready NATO forces in Europe to deploy in time to a Soviet offensive. It was to do this by being blind-fired towards oncoming Soviet formations, irradiating the ground in front of them for a short period and allowing the Allies a window of roughly 24 hours to scrape together enough forces to mount a proper defence. In addition to being operated and commanded by often-jittery NCOs and sometimes even Privates, with practically no oversight from higher commanders (like, say, heads of state), the vehicles it was mounted on were not fast enough to clear its lethal radius before it detonated. Do we really need to explain why this was a silly plan?
    • During the Cold War's Cuban Missile Crisis, a Soviet submarine captain, alarmed by the USN dropping practice depth charges on his boat (in itself a brilliant fucking idea), decided to launch a nuclear-tipped torpedo at the American flotilla, and was backed up by his sub's zampolit. Thankfully, his executive officer, in what was by all accounts an epic battle of rank-pulling, complained to the commodore, who ordered the sub to surface and find out if there was a war on - thankfully, there wasn't.
    • The pursuing of a nuclear weapons program by the Argentine military junta in the years preceding the Falklands War was apparently enough to scare the British into deploying a Resolution class SSBN to the South Atlantic during the conflict. Allegedly, the British also made it very clear to the military junta that the use of Argentine nuclear weapons (which, unbeknowst to the British SIS, didn't exist) on the British reclamation fleet would lead to Argentina being turned into radioactive glass.
    • Some especially moronic political pundits have suggested using nuclear weapons to fight the Taliban, or even to be dropped on Mecca as part of the War On Terror.
Achaemenid
03:46:51 AM Jan 25th 2013
edited by Achaemenid
If you read the section, the bullet points beneath the main example all pertain to separate instances in history. I put them as sub-points because I felt it looked better that way. If I was to re-add this section (and remove the final sub-bullet, which in hindsight is probably Flame Bait), but put each bullet as an example in its own right, would that be acceptable?

Unless I am misunderstanding the concept of Natter.

:)
darrenr
topic
03:52:05 PM Dec 8th 2011
On the main page, someone mentioned that there was one uninfected person left in the colony when it was nuked. I've racked my brains but no-one springs to mind. Does anyone know who it was?
back to Main/NukeEM

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy