Poll: Who would you save ?

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Depends really, I guess since you are asking the question the enemy doesn't have enough nukes to simply plaster you with a load more if they miss.

Unless the city has some vitally (and I mean vital) important production facilities then I save the soldiers. 1M civvies out of 70M population isn't much, the civilian population will bounce back pretty quickly. Considering our current armed forces stand at about 250K then 4M would be a massive, massive loss, 16 times our current military manpower, that's something you don't come back from.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Civilians. At least some of them won't be killers.

 

[senordesol]

Civilians. At least some of them won't be killers.

I'm curious, what do you mean by that?

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Civilians. At least some of them won't be killers.

I'm curious, what do you mean by that?

I mean that soldiers are trained to kill, and most have been part of a conflict. Thus, the soldiers will very likely be killers (this is of course a very broad generalisation).

 

[senordesol]

Civilians. At least some of them won't be killers.

I'm curious, what do you mean by that?

I mean that soldiers are trained to kill, and most have been part of a conflict. Thus, the soldiers will very likely be killers (this is of course a very broad generalisation).

Broad and incorrect. In the military (at least in the American Army) For every person expected to fill a combat role there are about 2.5 expected to fill a support role (mechanics, electronics, medical, clerical, cooking, and the like). So that means that less than a third of those 4M being killed would have ever killed any one or even performed in a combat capacity.

 

[Legion]

Is there a dog?

Usually in these questions I have the option to save a dog instead.

There is no dog. The scenario stands as presented.

I save the civilians then, as some of them might have dogs.

Made my day. Thank you.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Civilians. At least some of them won't be killers.

I'm curious, what do you mean by that?

I mean that soldiers are trained to kill, and most have been part of a conflict. Thus, the soldiers will very likely be killers (this is of course a very broad generalisation).

Broad and incorrect. In the military (at least in the American Army) For every person expected to fill a combat role there are about 2.5 expected to fill a support role (mechanics, electronics, medical, clerical, cooking, and the like). So that means that less than a third of those 4M being killed would have ever killed any one or even performed in a combat capacity.

But even if it's less than a third, it's still around 1M killers. Way more than you'd get from the civilians. And anyway, those others are supporting those killers, so they're not much better.

 

[SPARTAMARCUS]

Save the civilians. Soldiers are fighting for an overall ideal(most of the time). Those 4 million soldiers would sacrifice themselves if given the choice.

 

[Major_Tom]

Wait, I have a standing army 4 million strong and I put them all in one place? I'm an idiot.
I can't answer this question based on "value of human life". Is the civilian a big industrial centre? Is it of strategic value? Are those 4 million soldiers all I have or are they just a bunch of recruits and a tenth of my whole army? How much military ordnance is in the city?

 

[senordesol]

Civilians. At least some of them won't be killers.

I'm curious, what do you mean by that?

I mean that soldiers are trained to kill, and most have been part of a conflict. Thus, the soldiers will very likely be killers (this is of course a very broad generalisation).

Broad and incorrect. In the military (at least in the American Army) For every person expected to fill a combat role there are about 2.5 expected to fill a support role (mechanics, electronics, medical, clerical, cooking, and the like). So that means that less than a third of those 4M being killed would have ever killed any one or even performed in a combat capacity.

But even if it's less than a third, it's still around 1M killers. Way more than you'd get from the civilians. And anyway, those others are supporting those killers, so they're not much better.

The civilians pay taxes and manufacture materiel to support the killers so it seems to work out either way. And besides: those one million killers only kill when the State tells them to; if you don't send them into combat they don't kill anybody.

Also, are they not as well citizens and therefore precious blood of your nation, providing for her security? Who protects it if they're all dead?

 

[sethisjimmy]

Neither. I only save people from whirlpools, and only if those people are dogs.

 

[Frankster]

Depends on situation+city being affected.

If its a capital city like London (screw the jealous haters xD), then its not even about human lives anymore, its also about saving a world class capital, its history and cultural heritage, not to mention being the general command centre of the UK. Id cry genuine tears were the Natural history museum or the Tate gallery or Science museum wiped along with London, same as a Frenchman would weep at the loss of Paris and the Louvres or Americans would with...Im sorry im not familiar with your museums but you get the picture.

By contrast what were the 4 million troops gathered in 1 place for if not a really important reason (speaking from an english perspective, numerial superiority has rarely been our thing), and would likely be the sum of the british fighting force? They must have been preparing for a major offensive that will win us the war if succesful (the likely reason why our enemy had to launch nukes in the first place), in which case even our capital might have to be sacrificed, but it won't be much of a victory.

The whole soldiers sacrifice/killer arguments fly straight over my head though, as you can see its really not what im considering here xP

 

[SecondPrize]

The soldiers all have mopp gear, so I'll save the dogs.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

The civilians pay taxes and manufacture materiel to support the killers so it seems to work out either way. And besides those one million killers only kill when the State tells them to; if you don't send them into combat they don't kill anybody.

Also, are they not as well citizens and therefore precious blood of your nation, providing for her security? Who protects it if they're all dead?

Well there'd be no reason to continue making weapons, and no more military budget. Progress! And who'd want to attack us anyway?

And besides those one million killers only kill when the State tells them to

That's really not a good reason.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Soldiers signed up for it. They knew the risks where they took the job. Civilians shouldn't have to suffer because of decisions made by insane politicians.

 

[senordesol]

The civilians pay taxes and manufacture materiel to support the killers so it seems to work out either way. And besides those one million killers only kill when the State tells them to; if you don't send them into combat they don't kill anybody.

Also, are they not as well citizens and therefore precious blood of your nation, providing for her security? Who protects it if they're all dead?

Well there'd be no reason to continue making weapons, and no more military budget. Progress! And who'd want to attack us anyway?

And besides those one million killers only kill when the State tells them to

That's really not a good reason.

And so what protects the civilians after all the soldiers are dead? The opposing force (whoever they are) has clearly demonstrated that they've got no problem killing civilians. So once your military is dead; what's to stop the opposing force from marching in and killing everyone?

At least if you preserve the soldiers there's still the possibility of a counter-attack and saving however many civilians remain (plus the fact that it's that many extra bodies to repopulate the country after the war is over).

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

And so what protects the civilians after all the soldiers are dead? The opposing force (whoever they are) has clearly demonstrated that they've got no problem killing civilians. So once your military is dead; what's to stop the opposing force from marching in and killing everyone?

Because those 4M soldiers did such a great job protecting in the first place, right? I mean, they can stop nukes and all... wait...
And if I keep them alive, what's to stop the opposition sending another nuke on them again?

At least if you preserve the soldiers there's still the possibility of a counter-attack and saving however many civilians remain (plus the fact that it's that many extra bodies to repopulate the country after the war is over).

Revenge is meaningless, and as was mentioned before in another post, soldiers are mostly males, so there goes that idea.

Look, we can be discussing this for all eternity if we keep going like that; the point is, there are pros and cons to both, and neither is a great choice, but I stand by my decision.

 

[sammysoso]

I'd save the soldiers, 4 million vs. 1 million?

That's not even close.

 

[senordesol]

And so what protects the civilians after all the soldiers are dead? The opposing force (whoever they are) has clearly demonstrated that they've got no problem killing civilians. So once your military is dead; what's to stop the opposing force from marching in and killing everyone?

Because those 4M soldiers did such a great job protecting in the first place, right? I mean, they can stop nukes and all... wait...
And if I keep them alive, what's to stop the opposition sending another nuke on them again?

At least if you preserve the soldiers there's still the possibility of a counter-attack and saving however many civilians remain (plus the fact that it's that many extra bodies to repopulate the country after the war is over).

Revenge is meaningless, and as was mentioned before in another post, soldiers are mostly males, so there goes that idea.

Look, we can be discussing this for all eternity if we keep going like that; the point is, there are pros and cons to both, and neither is a great choice, but I stand by my decision.

Well I'd like to keep the discussion going (after all, what's a forum for?).

First, the most potent concern: If you're concerned that the opposition will just send another nuke, what's the point of stopping either? They'll just hit you again.

Also, I think you're not being exactly fair to those soldiers; they go where they're ordered. If you, as head of state, failed to order them forward to stop the circumstances that perciptitated the launch of nuclear ordinance; that's not their fault.

Further, this isn't about revenge: this is about defense. I'm assuming in this scenario that there is more than just one civilian city in this little nation of ours and therefore still further people to protect. By launching an immediate counter-attack you can still protect the remaining civilians by pre-empting further launches by invading the enemy nation and taking out their launch facilities and crippling their military capacity so they don't threaten you again.