Ethical question

[Electrohydra]

Let's see... I am the leader of my country so I assume that either they are the aggressors or that I am the aggressor but for a good reason (yes, there are times when being the aggressor in war is OK), and that the other country refuses to negotiate/makes unreasonable demands. Also assuming they refuse to surrender/renegotiate after I showed them that the weapon was capable of. Also assuming I have about 50% chance of wining the war without the weapon, and that if the other side wins they will rape/pillage/burn/murder/enslave all my country, or a good part of it. Also assuming making a mini-version of the weapon or any other way of circumventing the issue is out, and that there are really only the two choices.

Well first I'd send propaganda messages in the other country so that all who want to GTFO can. Then I'd use the weapon. I did my best to minimize innocent casualties (even if yes, there will still be many) but as the leader of my people I have a duty to protect them, because that's what they elected me for (among other things).

Oh, and because if I was a politician, <URL=http://www.cracked.com/article_18777_5-scientific-reasons-powerful-people-will-always-suck.html>ethics would probably go out the window. But I'd still do it if I kept my sense of ethics.

 

[Raylas]

I would destroy the weapon. To retroactively destroy another culture would be crime far worse then even genocide. History is a precious treasure that belongs to the world, to destroy that would be cruel beyond imagining. It's one thing to destroy your enemy, but it goes far beyond even the most twisted sense of justice to destroy their art,their history, and their culture as a whole.

 

[Hawknight]

Wait a minute. I have access to Balefire? I'd do it. I would protect my own people at all costs.

Go Wheel of Time. I really need to get around to reading those again. One of the few long series of books I've read that where I can make it past the third or fourth book without feeling like the author is trying to force the story (See "The Sword of Truth" series).

OT: Personally, I don't think I'd be able to do it. I highly doubt this is a war of extinction unless your two cultures are the only two in existence. Otherwise I would have to assume that the rest of the world would step in once a victor had been declared. I suppose if I knew my country was facing complete and total eradication I may consider it more seriously, but completely wiping an entire race of people from history just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Dastardly]

Also assume the weapon is paradox proof.

It is not, however, immune to humanity. Erase one enemy in the past, and another will grow in its place over the time the other enemy is not there.

 

[health-bar]

yes i would. if there was no end in sight and I had the ability to finish it, I would.
my only regret is that now we can't harvest anything from the other civilization on account of it being obliterated.

 

[Ranubis]

Assuming the weapon is paradox proof (as if that could ever be proven), I stand by my earlier statement: Offer a final chance to surrender, threaten to use it, but not actually employ it.

No war is worth using such mass destruction.

But really, if the techies can make such a weapon, can't they design it just to target key individuals? Much better to remove the tyrant than the common soldier.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Hold on a second, their entire culture? Because could have incredibly drastic historical ramifications I can't even think of. No way. I mean, even if I just time nuked Canada or something it wouldn't be worth it, because then it could have turned out that Russia took over there instead, and then we fought a giant ground war that they won.

I don't think the people saying yes are thinking this through very well...

 

[Corporal Yakob]

Without a doubt. If millions of my own people have already been killed and the war has gone on for God knows how long then I will do whatever it takes to secure victory. If that means completely wiping out all trace of the enemy so that they never existed, so be it.

 

[irani_che]

for the sake of how many of your own people who will not have to die b/c of the war,
i would have to say its preferable.
the best thing would be to hit part of the nation if you can and scare the rest into surrender

 

[irani_che]

ideally it depends if you can to conquer or repel
if the former then you dont as you want to claim the lands, not turn them into wasteland, if to repel then you would do it and regret losing anything you wanted to retake

 

[OctoH]

Yes. Without question, and without hesitation. Some people would probably feel guilty about that sort of thing, but I am a soldier. Prevail first, then deal with the emotional consequences after.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

I would still try and end the war through negotiations, though if I had succeeded in that, I would still keep my hand close to the big red button for a few years just in case

 

[Jnat]

No, all those deaths would be for nothing in that case

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

I'd definitely hold on to it, but not necessarily use it.

I have a hoarding problem...

NO, MAGE, YOU DON'T NEED ONE OF THE >100 POTIONS! WALK IT OFF!




On a more serious note, there's no point in war if I have nothing left to conquer, I'd rather take control of most of enemies via forcing them to surrender, then I'd make use of their people, towns and armies for my own purpose.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Hold on a second, their entire culture? Because could have incredibly drastic historical ramifications I can't even think of. No way. I mean, even if I just time nuked Canada or something it wouldn't be worth it

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!

Why did you mention Canada? Do you Yanks fear us or something? Have we not provided enough syrup and manners?