StarDestroyer.Net BBS

RAH! HYPOTHETICAL SENARIO TIME!! RAH!!!

Inspired by the Time Travel Threads

A Random act of Magic teleports the Main archipelago of Japan as of now (Iwo-Jima, and those Islands that the Yanks Attacked not Included) back to 1943. All ww-2 Japanese forces outside of Japan stay were they were, but most of Japan is now the Anime watching, Cheeseburger and Pizza Eating, Democratic and all around Really, REALLY weird nation that it is today.

And No, no one knows of this to start off with, save for some 7 year old kid in Maine named Steve.

So what happens.

Spellchecked for your Viewing Pleasure

Zor

All of today's Japanese nuke plants are shipped back to 1943?

We're screwed.

And like most of these stupifying scenarios you come up with.

They last for a bit of time and grind to a halt...let alone the whole problem that they now aren't in the same military run as they were before.

And yes, they have Nuclear plants?

And?

Are we even going to go into the silliness that they can insta convert plants into bombs?

Ghost Rider wrote:And like most of these stupifying scenarios you come up with.

They last for a bit of time and grind to a halt...let alone the whole problem that they now aren't in the same military run as they were before.

And yes, they have Nuclear plants?

And?

Are we even going to go into the silliness that they can insta convert plants into bombs?

How long do you think it would take? They would have the fissile material and the scientists with all the technical know-how required to make the bombs.

Not to mention that Japan is the only overseas licensed BUILDER of F-15's with Japanese engines and avionics (over 200 in service) ... sounds like a bad 1944 for the B-29's.

Then poses this question...they tear down their plants and replace it with what?

Just because you have modern tech doesn't mean squat if your numbers are still low and the modern part are relatively rare.

My problem is that unlike the transplanting of America, most these countries don't have th resources to engage on warfare that WW2 showed and when it comes to that, it's like going "We give them all modern rifles!!". There's an effect but nothing earth shattering by any level.

Ghost Rider wrote:Then poses this question...they tear down their plants and replace it with what?

Just because you have modern tech doesn't mean squat if your numbers are still low and the modern part are relatively rare.

My problem is that unlike the transplanting of America, most these countries don't have th resources to engage on warfare that WW2 showed and when it comes to that, it's like going "We give them all modern rifles!!". There's an effect but nothing earth shattering by any level.

Not sure I understand the question ... no need to tear down anything, you reprocess some fuel into bomb-grade material and off you go.

The interesting questions are more political than technical ... from a technical standpoint, Japan would have the industrial base and knowledge to dominate the theater almost immediately. The political question is, knowing what they know about the future, what would they do? Sue for peace? Would Japanese nationalists convince the population that Hiroshima is inevitable unless they do it to us first, and plunge Japan back into militarism?

No weapons or munitions production, a constitution that prohibits aggressive military action, etc. etc.

They surrender quickly and anime is unleashed upon the world decades early.

Steve is institutionalized by his God-fearing parents. Try as they might, they can't 'beat the devil out tha boy', and he goes on to be lobotomized and live happily ever after.

Petrosjko wrote:No weapons or munitions production, a constitution that prohibits aggressive military action, etc. etc.

No 'offensive' weapons production ... however, they make top-quality fighter-interceptors and other hardware that would make them impregnable against 1940's tech.

As our own dear President has so recently demonstrated, you can stretch the definition of 'self defense' to include pretty much anything.

Chmee wrote:The interesting questions are more political than technical ... from a technical standpoint, Japan would have the industrial base and knowledge to dominate the theater almost immediately.

No, they really don't. They don't have any significant weapons production to work with, especially not on the scale it would take to supply their warfleets and aircraft.

The US would have a bitch of a time digging out the necessary resources to support its military from that era, let alone a modern and demilitarized Japan.

Chmee wrote:

Petrosjko wrote:No weapons or munitions production, a constitution that prohibits aggressive military action, etc. etc.

No 'offensive' weapons production ... however, they make top-quality fighter-interceptors and other hardware that would make them impregnable against 1940's tech.

As our own dear President has so recently demonstrated, you can stretch the definition of 'self defense' to include pretty much anything.

That is an immese stretch given they can only kill so much, and America has far more armament then they have planes.

And really let's not go "they'll shot down everything" fallacy.

Not every culture is like the US, dumbass. The Japanese we know and love and stare at oddly today would not go along with unleashing atomic hellfire on anyone. They'd most likely sue for peace immediately, and they'd get damned nice terms from a US that's busy elsewhere.

Chmee wrote:No 'offensive' weapons production ... however, they make top-quality fighter-interceptors and other hardware that would make them impregnable against 1940's tech.

As our own dear President has so recently demonstrated, you can stretch the definition of 'self defense' to include pretty much anything.

Assuming they could handle the sheer mass of US forces at the time, which is just mind-boggling in hindsight, at best they're essentially reduced to guarding the home islands. Which means no import economy, and they wither on the vine.

Howedar wrote:Not every culture is like the US, dumbass.

How convincingly you make the point that you have no point. Or courtesy.

Petrosjko wrote:Assuming they could handle the sheer mass of US forces at the time, which is just mind-boggling in hindsight, at best they're essentially reduced to guarding the home islands. Which means no import economy, and they wither on the vine.

1943? We're not projecting much power at that point, the big night-raids by B-29's are still a ways off (depending on where we are in 1943).

IF ... and of course that's the political question ... IF the Japanese don't just sue for peace and pull everybody back to the Home Islands and try to figure out wtf is going on, then all they really need to do is focus on keeping the islands with potential B-29 runways out of American hands.

Since the Home Defense Forces include P-3 Orions with Harpoon missiles, the American carrier fleet would be in some serious trouble if the Japanese decided to take 'em out.

Chmee wrote:

Howedar wrote:Not every culture is like the US, dumbass.

How convincingly you make the point that you have no point. Or courtesy.

Of course it's no point that Japan wouldn't go wanton with nuclear fire if it had its present day political alignments, including their weak military use policies. [Japan, has, of course, been willing to conquer countries at the drop of a hat since 1945.] Oh wait.

The fact that Modern Day Japan's people feel bad, on a whole, about the war is a major factor, considering the RAR! TEKNOLOGICALL DOOOM! factor you espouse. They won't be reviving the Empire soon.

And they're extremely unlikely to use nukes even if they for some reason all get massive amnesia about Japanese civilian casualties during the bombing raids, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki- the memory is too vivid in the people and the circumstances too alien. Without a total revolution in the government, Japan will not use nuclear weapons. Knowing that you lost originally and that many of your people die is a fun thought on the people's minds- and the politicians.

If anything, the Japanese forces turn around and recounquer their hijacked homeland, and then collapse as the Allies take advantage of their withdrawals.

MRDOD wrote:The fact that Modern Day Japan's people feel bad, on a whole, about the war is a major factor, considering the RAR! TEKNOLOGICALL DOOOM! factor you espouse. They won't be reviving the Empire soon.

Some do, some don't, they're no more monolithic in their beliefs than we are. Do Americans 'on a whole' feel bad about Hiroshima? About Baghdad? Some do, some don't. Predicting which political element will dominate in such radically changed circumstances is pretty difficult. There are certainly radical Nationalist elements in present-day Japan that lobby for a return to Great Power status ... who knows what would happen if you gave them the pretext of Hiroshima being an upcoming event as a campaign platform.

Chmee wrote:Some do, some don't, they're no more monolithic in their beliefs than we are. Do Americans 'on a whole' feel bad about Hiroshima? About Baghdad? Some do, some don't. Predicting which political element will dominate in such radically changed circumstances is pretty difficult. There are certainly radical Nationalist elements in present-day Japan that lobby for a return to Great Power status ... who knows what would happen if you gave them the pretext of Hiroshima being an upcoming event as a campaign platform.

I can say with confidance that Japan's actions in the war, especially towards POWs and China, are not supported, if perhaps not derided either. I'm talking about the collective of average guys in the street in Japan, not the equivilent of a Neo-Nazi. Average guy isn't going to change, he's going to get confused and scared. The average american, conversely, is ambivalent about Hiroshima and is moderately supportive of Iraq II, even if he may not agree with the reasoning.

So you're saying that assuming that despite foreknowledge of extensive civilian casualties, the people suddenly become nationalist and decide to build makeshift nuclear weapons, destroy America who they already know is in the process of building weaponry and could smack their defense forces around by industrial might easily if not on a one-for-one basis, and not only that but are presented with their own destruction at the hands of the enemy in the future that will never again exist as a campaign platform.

Possible. It's more likely, though, that a massive social change does not happen in an organized fashion, and instead Japan goes into political chaos. Or they sue for peace.

Even if they did declare war on America, and used makeshift nuclear weapons in direct violation of public opinion against Nukes, they can win. Not toe to toe, but with instead a reverse Hiroshima.

And the Japanese People also have to stomach cooperating with Hitler. He's not exactly high on many people's favorites list.

MRDOD wrote: I can say with confidance that Japan's actions in the war, especially towards POWs and China, are not supported, if perhaps not derided either. I'm talking about the collective of average guys in the street in Japan, not the equivilent of a Neo-Nazi. Average guy isn't going to change, he's going to get confused and scared. The average american, conversely, is ambivalent about Hiroshima and is moderately supportive of Iraq II, even if he may not agree with the reasoning.

You'll have to speak for yourself on Americans 'generally' supporting Iraq II, I live in a city (Seattle) where Bush didn't even get 20% of the vote and I hardly know *anybody* who thinks it was a good idea ... most of us think it was a halfwitted, disastrous mistake. But that's another topic.

If I had to guess, sure, the Japanese would sue for peace immediately. But America's conditions are unconditional surrender, right? Is Japan ready for that? Re-occupation? America would consider the whole 'we're really not Imperial nitwits any more, we're peaceful!' claim a ploy, right?

Chaos is certainly the most likely result, agreed.

Chmee wrote: You'll have to speak for yourself on Americans 'generally' supporting Iraq II, I live in a city (Seattle) where Bush didn't even get 20% of the vote and I hardly know *anybody* who thinks it was a good idea ... most of us think it was a halfwitted, disastrous mistake. But that's another topic.

If I had to guess, sure, the Japanese would sue for peace immediately. But America's conditions are unconditional surrender, right? Is Japan ready for that? Re-occupation? America would consider the whole 'we're really not Imperial nitwits any more, we're peaceful!' claim a ploy, right?

Chaos is certainly the most likely result, agreed.

That is completely another topic, but Washington is a State and not a Country. That's like asking what Tokyo thinks- most other countries compared to America are understandably more compressed in regional differences, what with less region to work with.

America might consider the entire thing a ploy, but the overnight skyscrapers, technological development, and all the toursits from countries that may not even exist yet, along with the futuristic planes, changed people...

They may not believe at first, but they will- there's no denying strange stuff is going on. 1943 is too near Pearl Harbour, so occupation probably would occur, though. I don't know if Japan would really accept reoccupation- they may just make a stand at ceasefire and see if America takes the bait.

Chaos is natural, considering the events. I'd assuming with no resupply from the islands, the Imperial Navy and Imperial Army eventually lose steam. With the "death" of the Emperor at the hands of this time switch, the current one may even be able to order them to stop, or they could consider him a false emperor and just keep going. You never know...)

Chmee wrote:

Howedar wrote:Not every culture is like the US, dumbass.

How convincingly you make the point that you have no point. Or courtesy.

Golly gee, when you take a single sentance out of context, it doesn't mean the same thing. What a fucking revelation.

Howedar wrote:

Chmee wrote:

Howedar wrote:Not every culture is like the US, dumbass.

How convincingly you make the point that you have no point. Or courtesy.

Golly gee, when you take a single sentance out of context, it doesn't mean the same thing. What a fucking revelation.

There was no context in which the 'dumbass' comment was necessary, why get insulting in a discussion of hypotheticals? It just implies that you are so lacking in confidence in what you say that you need to make personal attacks to convince yourself of your 'rightness.'

Try making the argument without getting personal, it's always more effective.

Chmee wrote:

Howedar wrote:

Chmee wrote: How convincingly you make the point that you have no point. Or courtesy.

Golly gee, when you take a single sentance out of context, it doesn't mean the same thing. What a fucking revelation.

There was no context in which the 'dumbass' comment was necessary, why get insulting in a discussion of hypotheticals? It just implies that you are so lacking in confidence in what you say that you need to make personal attacks to convince yourself of your 'rightness.'

Try making the argument without getting personal, it's always more effective.

He wasn't being personal...people here are just more blunt then not.

So he wasn't commiting anything more then adding a certain color to his comments.

He did add the fact that all you did as a retort was point out his profanity and tried to commit an Ad hominem fallacy by going "You're being a jerk."

Actually, facts don't change. You see, I can say "two plus two equals four" or I can say "you're a fucking idiot for not believing that two and two equal four". Both are factually correct. It's frankly not my concern that you're so thin-skinned that being called a dumbass makes you recoil (especially when you present the asinine argument that Japan will preemptively nuke other countries). If you intend to stay here, you might want to grow some balls.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chmee wrote:

Howedar wrote:Golly gee, when you take a single sentance out of context, it doesn't mean the same thing. What a fucking revelation.

There was no context in which the 'dumbass' comment was necessary, why get insulting in a discussion of hypotheticals? It just implies that you are so lacking in confidence in what you say that you need to make personal attacks to convince yourself of your 'rightness.'

Try making the argument without getting personal, it's always more effective.

He wasn't being personal...people here are just more blunt then not.

So he wasn't commiting anything more then adding a certain color to his comments.

He did add the fact that all you did as a retort was point out his profanity and tried to commit an Ad hominem fallacy by going "You're being a jerk."

I'm more than used to blunt, but pulling out comments like 'dumbass' and 'retard' is just a red flag for somebody who has nothing intelligent to say, and worse still knows it. It's superfluous to the Nth degree.

It has nothing to do with being thin-skinned, its simply the ability to recognize a weak mind at work from the usual signposts. People who have something worthwhile to say don't say crap like that unless they're given a reason. I can flame with the best of 'em, but usually it's a waste of everybody's time. What's it get you? The feeling that you could 'dominate' somebody on a chat forum? Ooooooo, impressive.

Chmee wrote: I'm more than used to blunt, but pulling out comments like 'dumbass' and 'retard' is just a red flag for somebody who has nothing intelligent to say, and worse still knows it. It's superfluous to the Nth degree.

It has nothing to do with being thin-skinned, its simply the ability to recognize a weak mind at work from the usual signposts. People who have something worthwhile to say don't say crap like that unless they're given a reason. I can flame with the best of 'em, but usually it's a waste of everybody's time. What's it get you? The feeling that you could 'dominate' somebody on a chat forum? Ooooooo, impressive.

So is commiting an ad hominem. If you're going to learn one thing it's that profanity has little regard but cut and pasting and attacking the person rather then their argument will raise their ire much worse then promoting miss manners idealogy.