Moral Question for you
- Thread starter zombiejoe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd launch the nuke. Somewhere in the deep south. If dogma, prejudice, and sheer stereotyping tells me anything; I'd only be killing a bunch of gun toting, racist, bigoted, ignorant, murderous twats. I'm sure a few 'enlightened' people might die, but at least I wouldn't. I also love that warm, quieting feeling that being a selfish hypocrite gives me.
Although I might decide on whatever city has the most nasty people, with some real power and influence. The Cheneys and Murdochs. I doubt there would be the critical density of such people anywhere to justify it, though.
Although I might decide on whatever city has the most nasty people, with some real power and influence. The Cheneys and Murdochs. I doubt there would be the critical density of such people anywhere to justify it, though.
Regardless of whether or not the terrorists promise to not nuke should I refuse, I wouldn't trust them. So I'd guess their nationality (if they sound like a 'big group terrorist' and pick the most likely hiding place that isn't heavily populated). Alternatively, a city in the U.S. (a small one, very, very small), that way America would retaliate and kill the terrorists and me (I figure, if I didn't choose, I'd die, my family would die and a potentially larger city of people would die, so by picking a small city I still die, less city-folk die, my family lives and the terrorists die).
.
Considering I'm liking myself far too much to self-sacrifice myself..
Goodbye, Southern Australia!
..Or Somalia, either or.
Goodbye, Southern Australia!
..Or Somalia, either or.
How big is the nuke? Are we talking city buster? Tactical nuke? Dirty bomb? And why are they letting me choose? What's to stop them from doing whatever the hell they want?
I am sorry the question is flawed. It is not an appropriate moral dilemma, though points for trying.
For the sake of your curiosity. Pyongyang.
I am sorry the question is flawed. It is not an appropriate moral dilemma, though points for trying.
For the sake of your curiosity. Pyongyang.
The problems I see are:
1.) Why get me, some random person to pick a city of my choice, if they have that type of ability they could pick any targets of value (Washington, New York, London etc...) with relative ease and avoid me being a smart ass and going for somewhere like Chernobyl.
2.) If I decide to die along with my family, what's stopping them from dropping the nuke regardless, or repeating the process with another person. - NOTE: I just saw the OP's edit, but I want to keep this in here.
3.) They probably won't allow you to choose an abandoned city.
So, cold, harsh logic dictates that I should choose a city to avoid something worse from happening.
So, let's say they'd allow me to choose a city as long as it has a population over a certain amount. The chaotic side of me says to go for a major city in world trade and see what the repercussions are. I'm also slightly curious to see how the world would react to this and what would happen to the country in question.
However, the most ideal path (in a matter of speaking) would be to target a place in the developing world which has a very high crime rate, homelessness and poverty in general. As this could attract attention to the rest of that nation and the world would bring along improvements to that nation somewhat.
That's my decision, I wouldn't want to kill my family as I have, obviously, deep bonds with them. While on the other hand I'd probably (for a while at least) feel rather disconnected when people I don't know would die.
1.) Why get me, some random person to pick a city of my choice, if they have that type of ability they could pick any targets of value (Washington, New York, London etc...) with relative ease and avoid me being a smart ass and going for somewhere like Chernobyl.
2.) If I decide to die along with my family, what's stopping them from dropping the nuke regardless, or repeating the process with another person. - NOTE: I just saw the OP's edit, but I want to keep this in here.
3.) They probably won't allow you to choose an abandoned city.
So, cold, harsh logic dictates that I should choose a city to avoid something worse from happening.
So, let's say they'd allow me to choose a city as long as it has a population over a certain amount. The chaotic side of me says to go for a major city in world trade and see what the repercussions are. I'm also slightly curious to see how the world would react to this and what would happen to the country in question.
However, the most ideal path (in a matter of speaking) would be to target a place in the developing world which has a very high crime rate, homelessness and poverty in general. As this could attract attention to the rest of that nation and the world would bring along improvements to that nation somewhat.
That's my decision, I wouldn't want to kill my family as I have, obviously, deep bonds with them. While on the other hand I'd probably (for a while at least) feel rather disconnected when people I don't know would die.
Hmm... Chernobyl. It's not like I'm going to make it any MORE radioactive. Also, not many people live in a nuclear nightmare like that, so I'd probably not be doing much damage to the local population.
Alternatively, I'd figure out where the terrorist's base was, and drop it onto them. That's what you get for letting your victims choose the targets.
Alternatively, I'd figure out where the terrorist's base was, and drop it onto them. That's what you get for letting your victims choose the targets.