Ethical question

[The .50 Caliber Cow]

You have been leading a country at war for a decade when suddenly a weapon becomes available to you. You now have the ability to remove your enemies culture from history, destroying them entirely and guaranteeing the war will never happen. There have already been millions killed in your war. Do you use this weapon to end everything and anything that was your enemy?

Wait are we talking about something that will wipe out there past with time travel bombs or something or is this just complete genocide and burning of cities/culture with super lazers from space?

This is an instantaneous destruction of everything and everyone from the opposing nation by means that are beyond your[footnote]as you are merely a politician.[/footnote] understanding.

Also assume the weapon is paradox proof.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

Yep, there are not ethics in war just the side that wins.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

I would say no. It's rare that using a super-weapon against an enemy nation is seen as a good thing in the eyes of history or in the eyes of others.

Ethically, still no. An opposing culture has every right to exist as an allied one. But I'm entirely anti-war, so I imagine I'd be too preoccupied fixing the BS the previous guy left for me to deal with...ending the war peacefully being a priority of course, but not at such a high price.

 

[bob1052]

Leading a war with ethics is a good way to get dead. Guaranteed your enemy wouldn't feel the same way.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

I'd say no. It's one thing to remove the threat, but to remove the culture entirely is a crime that goes beyond even genocide.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

I would say no. Sure, that's kind of what the Romans did and they pretty much achieved world peace...but still no. A pre-emptive strike against my enemy makes me the bad guy, and that will have major repercussions down the line.

Ethically, still no. An opposing culture has every right to exist as an allied one.

But it wouldn't be pre emptive the war is already going on. Also you have to remember if you win the war you get to write history so you don't have to be the bad guy.

 

[alittlepepper]

Pretty much what everyone else has said. Yes, I would. I think it's better that millions never existed than millions have died.
And if those people did still exist maybe they'd built other societies for themselves.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Yep, there are not ethics in war just the side that wins.

There actually are rules and ethics to war. That's why "war crimes" exist. EDIT: Wikipedia page on the laws of war. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war] /EDIT

OT: Nope. Wiping the existence of a culture from history could also change the culture of "my" country, and could possibly end up changing the fate and history of the entire world.

 

[Del-Toro]

Yes, in a hundredth of a second. I'd assume they would make the same call if our positions were reversed and even if they wouldn't, seriosly, fuck them, it's a war. I'm not going to risk subjecting my people to the consequences of defeat over an ambiguous, disembodied concept like "ethics".

 

[TheTurtleMan]

Sure, why not. We've already got millions dead, I don't think many people would hold animosity towards me for ending the war.

 

[Seriphina]

God no. You are therefore wiping out a species when you consider that all humans come from different areas of the world and have different shapes and whatnot. Killing a whole race of people is mental. Im not sure this is an ethical question.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

Wait are we talking about something that will wipe out there past with time travel bombs or something or is this just complete genocide and burning of cities/culture with super lazers from space?

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

I would say no. Sure, that's kind of what the Romans did and they pretty much achieved world peace...but still no. A pre-emptive strike against my enemy makes me the bad guy, and that will have major repercussions down the line.

Ethically, still no. An opposing culture has every right to exist as an allied one.

But it wouldn't be pre emptive the war is already going on. Also you have to remember if you win the war you get to write history so you don't have to be the bad guy.

Had amend my post, misread that the war was ongoing XD And that is true, but I imagine allied and neutral nations would be kind of shaken by my hypothetical comfort with genocide.

 

[shiig]

Why would you want to?
Either way there are going to be millions of lives ended, and grief will be everywhere. No one will understand why you did what you did, and you will be the (A Godwin's was inevitable, sorry) next Hitler. It's murder on a paramount scale. If you have the weapon, save it as your "end-all" for when the war turns against you. Use it's power to negotiate a ceasefire, a treaty, an allegiance, even just a threat that gives you total victory. The mere thought this power will cow your enemies and win you allies.

Fear is Power.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

I would say no. Sure, that's kind of what the Romans did and they pretty much achieved world peace...but still no. A pre-emptive strike against my enemy makes me the bad guy, and that will have major repercussions down the line.

Ethically, still no. An opposing culture has every right to exist as an allied one.

But it wouldn't be pre emptive the war is already going on. Also you have to remember if you win the war you get to write history so you don't have to be the bad guy.

Had amend my post, misread that the war was ongoing XD And that is true, but I imagine allied and neutral nations would be kind of shaken by my hypothetical comfort with genocide.

Sad thing is as long as your not using it on allied or neutral nations I doubt they would care, hell they would probably support it to keep it happening to them.

 

[Brandon237]

Me or my enemies? Many more years of war, or annihilation of those who fought against us?
As evil as it may be, I would use it.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Only if a high majority (e.g. 95%, sorry other 5%) of the enemy population supported the war against me. But even then I'd demonstrate the power of the weapon elsewhere to intimidate the enemy, then again they could then try and make their own version of the weapon.

 

[The .50 Caliber Cow]

Wait are we talking about something that will wipe out there past with time travel bombs or something or is this just complete genocide and burning of cities/culture with super lazers from space?

This is an instantaneous destruction of everything and everyone from the opposing nation by means that are beyond your[footnote]as you are merely a politician.[/footnote] understanding.

 

[Brandon237]

Yep, there are not ethics in war just the side that wins.

A good quote for this: In war it is not about who is right, but who is left.