A question concerning morality

[kalad1]

I was thinking recently, and ended up on a rather interesting topic.

If you were the president of the US, and a new type of superweapon has been developed by a highly radical and volatile country, one that all intelligence points to having willingness to use this new weapon. If you were to face the decision between striking right away with an overwhelming nuclear salvo, or waiting things out, which choice would you make?

Keep in mind that this country probably has millions of people living in it, many of whom are probably innocent.

I will post my own conclusion in 24 hours.

[firepokemon]

Bomb it. Clearly. I'm the President of the Usa. I contribute to the death of millions of people each and every year.

How do I do this?

Easy. I go to war against countries ie. Afghanistan, Iraq. I ignore what other countries do ie. Israel and Lebanon. I ignore wars in africa. I pop up dictatorships around the world. I continue to fund half the farmers in the US, thus not giving african and latin-america countries a decent chance. I don't give enough aid worldwide. Thus why half of asia, africa etc are dying. As well as that I ignore big corporates that routinely pay low wages to workers in asia, who charge ridicolousy(sp) prices for goods and services and who tpocket basically all of the money for themselves, rather than paying fair incomes.

America is already contributing to the deaths of millions of people and so are every other western country in the world.

[Heald]

There's little need to use nukes. Assumedly, the components of this superweapon would be centralised in an installation in a half-mile radius. A lot easier just to either send in operatives to sabotage it or bomb it from the skies or send in cruise missiles. Nukes are only useful for killing thousands of people in one-fell swoop.

[Gengachu]

You have to wait things out, or you're as bad as they are. At the very least you need to get support from other nations before attacking.

[Razola]

You don't list nearly enough intel to make such a decision.

If I was President, I'd have you fired for even asking me to make such a blind decision.

[Razola]

America is already contributing to the deaths of millions of people and so are every other western country in the world.Those bastards in Chile!

[kalad1]

I guess I did leave out too much, alright, here are further details.

1. First off, what intelligence you have suggests that they already have a vast number of this weapon constructed.

2. They have obviously tried to keep this thing from leaking out, this means that the weapon is clearly not for discouragement purposes.

3. The devices are small enough that they could be spread out anywhere, and what intelligence you have can't pinpoint their location other than the fact that only one has left the country.

[Roy Karrde]

As the President of the United States you have a sworn duity to protect your people and your nation first and foremost. If these weapons present a clear and present danger to your country then you must use any and all measures to protect your people. Now while your situation is impossible to happen, seeing how any sort of super weapon would be leaked out in this day and age, and allow the UN to do their Paper Tiger dance and try to stop them. But in the end if this weapon presents the danger you have said, then most likely it would be a unanomous decision between several world leaders to take it out.

In the game of Super Weapons it is always US vs Them, and no matter if it kills one innocent, or a million. You have to realize that the destructive compacity of this weapon in the wrong hands, which it is in, in the situation you have described. Would mean that the death count would rise much higher than a million, and could possibly have concequences that could effect the world forever. Either way in the end it is the President's responcability to protect his or her people, not the people of other countries.

[Tyler and Hobbes]

Thing thing about it is, what hands are the wrong ones? Like, if you have the potential to wipe out an entire continent, and so do they.... what do you do in that situation? Do you crawl under your desk and start crying? Do you pretend that nothing is happening at all? I mean, morality is really stupid if it gets your own people killed. But then, say that you choose to bomb the other country. And later, you find out that it was all a big trick - they had no weapons, just words. What does that make you? But I guess it'd have to be the lesser of two evils that I'd choose - I'd bomb them. Or... maybe... If I send troops over there, in bucketloads, but don't really have them do anything... it'd just be keeping the country in check. And they really can't destroy their own country... But, being the President of the USA, I'd probably be a fascist bastard, in which case I'd have no morality...

Ho hum, end of post.

[RedStarWarrior]

fireguardian, quit being a flamer and troll or you will be banned.

I would still try to get more information from the international intelligence community. Once I have felt confident in the information from abroad, I would present the information before the UN with other world leaders (which, in this situation, would be many) so that a resolution could be sought. Of course, it doesn't matter if I am the president of the United States or the leader of some other country. Any weapons program of the nature you have described would be a threat to my country and its citizens as well as the rest of the free world.

[kalad1]

I would judge the situation to be too potentially dangerous to my country, and set aside my morals so that I could fulfill my duty to protect the country, order the attack, and I would then resign.

The reason I wouldn't try to work through something like the UN is that, despite the fact that the UN IS a good idea, every bit of time I let slip by is another chance for them to use these weapons.

Morals, in my opinion, DO have their place in the President's job, but one's duties as President are of higher priority than one's morals.

[Gengachu]

I wouldn't really say fireguardian was being a flamer or a troll unless George W Bush visits this forum.

[Leon-IH]

I fail to see why you wouldn't.

A swift strike on Hitler would have stopped World War Two, history is a lesson so learn from our mistakes.

[.hacker]

Two words: bomb it.

[lordsalamence]

Bomb it. Clearly. I'm the President of the Usa. I contribute to the death of millions of people each and every year.

How do I do this?

Easy. I go to war against countries ie. Afghanistan, Iraq. I ignore what other countries do ie. Israel and Lebanon. I ignore wars in africa. I pop up dictatorships around the world. I continue to fund half the farmers in the US, thus not giving african and latin-america countries a decent chance. I don't give enough aid worldwide. Thus why half of asia, africa etc are dying. As well as that I ignore big corporates that routinely pay low wages to workers in asia, who charge ridicolousy(sp) prices for goods and services and who tpocket basically all of the money for themselves, rather than paying fair incomes.

America is already contributing to the deaths of millions of people and so are every other western country in the world.



OMG! Bush comes to TPM!