Poll: Who would you save ?

[Yokillernick]

Hello Escapists. Today me and my friend were having a discussion about the value of a human's life. So I asked him "You are the president of a country. Another country launches 2 nukes towards your country. One nuke is headed towards a city which has 1,000,000 civilians whereas the other one is heading towards your field army which has 4,000,000 soldiers. You can only shoot down one nuke. Which one do you shoot down ?"

Surprisingly he answered that he would stop the nuke going for the civilians, thus saving 1 million lives but leaving the 4 million soldiers to die. I answered the exact opposite saving the soldiers but he said that made no sense. His reason for picking the civilians was because he says that the soldiers would be willing to die for the civilians as the role of a soldier is to fight for the civilians and if the civilians die then there's no point. However, I said that it didn't matter that they were soldiers, they were still human lives and I said I didn't see the logic to forsake 4 million soldier lives for 1 million civilian lives. Also I said that if the soldiers die then who would protect the civilians. After that we kept going round in circles saying that the soldiers would willingly sacrifice themselves for the civilians and all that.

So who would you save, the soldiers or the civilians and why ?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Is there a dog?

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

 

[Yokillernick]

There is no dog. The scenario stands as presented.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Save the civilians. When you start getting into nuclear war, ground troops really aren't that useful. Since we'll be retaliating with a nuclear strike of our own, there isn't much point in having an army to occupy anything. Besides, this leaves our dreadfully high unemployment rate room to go down, as the army needs all sorts of new recruits now.

And that doesn't even go into the fact that soldiers signed up knowing that there was the potential to be killed while on duty. The civilians didn't. The only place that you have any moral quandary is the numbers, and even still I'd argue that saving the civilians is the greater good.

 

[DoPo]

Wait, nukes? I'm confused now - where is the whirlpool here? And who is drowning? What river can fit, like, 5 million people? Or are you drowning? In which case, how are you still able to shoot down missiles. Ah, got it now, you're badass, but because you're drowning, and the damn dog doesn't want to cooperate, you can only shoot one missile down yourself. Sheesh, you should have phrased it correctly.

That aside, I chose the soldiers.

 

[Esotera]

I fucking hate the amount of people in the UK, so I'd probably save the soldiers and kill the civilians (with bonus points if the city was London or Birmingham). Then I would use my 4 million soldiers to start a bloody world war, thus whittling down the global population down to a more pleasant level.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

There is no dog. The scenario stands as presented.

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

 

[Andy Shandy]

Wait, these people aren't drowning? I refuse to answer this question!

Ok, fine, I will.

I'd save the civilians. For one, the army is a very male-dominated group, whereas the civvies will be a lot closer to 50-50 so it makes re-population easier, and plus the civilians are more likely to have a greater variety of skills than the army. Not to say that people in the army can't have wildly varying skills but I'd say there'd be more with the civilians.

 

[Rose and Thorn]

I would probably save the civilians. Isn't it after all the soldiers duty to die for their country?

 

[almostgold]

And that doesn't even go into the fact that soldiers signed up knowing that there was the potential to be killed while on duty. The civilians didn't. The only place that you have any moral quandary is the numbers, and even still I'd argue that saving the civilians is the greater good.

If you're fielding an army of 4 million in a single city,against a nuclear equipped nation, that is most definitely a scenario where a draft exists. In that case, saying a civilians life is worth more is essentially saying, "Because you happen to be a young, physically qualified male, your life is worth less than 1/4 of those people over there".

Not that I'm advocating illing civilians in war, I've just always thought that the presence of a draft raises some interesting questions about who its 'okay' to kill.

 

[Genocidicles]

The soldiers. There are more of them, and they are probably better equipped with the skills necessary to survive in a post nuclear world, should the war escalate.

 

[White Lightning]

What kind of question is this? Save the Soldiers, that way you can launch a counter offensive and get sweet tasty revenge on whoever launched the nukes.

 

[Lucem712]

Neither! Some Presidents just wanna see the world burn!

I also escape to the bunker underneath the Presidential Manor >

 

[Colour Scientist]

Is there a dog?

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

Yes, surely there is a dog trapped in a whirlpool somewhere.
Or maybe the soldiers are trapped in a whirlpool while the civilians are falling off of a cliff and you have to decide if you should change the route of the train so it hits the dog instead of the nukes.

 

[senordesol]

Why are there 4M Soldiers on one base? That's just stupid.

It would depend on how strategically vital the civvie city was and how strategically vital the soldiers were. I'm assuming you'll be in a position to bring a world of hurt with several dozen divisions of freshly pissed-off troops; so I lean on saving the strategically vital assets first.

Their job isn't to die for their country; it's to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his.

 

[DugMachine]

I see no whirlpool or dogs of any sort in this thread. I r disappoint.

Hmm this is a tough one. Soldiers... I guess? I mean I don't see the point of ground troops if it's a nuclear war but that's still 4 million to 1 million. Soldiers are people too

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yes, surely there is a dog trapped in a whirlpool somewhere.

Or maybe the soldiers are trapped in a whirlpool while the civilians are falling off of a cliff and you have to decide if you should change the route of the train so it hits the dog instead of the nukes.

OMG. I don't know WHAT to do now. Are there many dogs in the blast radius of the nukes?!

 

[Colour Scientist]

Yes, surely there is a dog trapped in a whirlpool somewhere.

Or maybe the soldiers are trapped in a whirlpool while the civilians are falling off of a cliff and you have to decide if you should change the route of the train so it hits the dog instead of the nukes.

OMG. I don't know WHAT to do now. Are there many dogs in the blast radius of the nukes?!

All of them but some of them could be child molesters and burglars and they may not be worth saving.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

All of them but some of them could be child molesters and burglars and they may not be worth saving.

If a dog is a child molesting burglar that's the fault of the owner, not the dog.

 

[Colour Scientist]

All of them but some of them could be child molesters and burglars and they may not be worth saving.

If a dog is a child molesting burglar that's the fault of the owner, not the dog.

Well, presumably the owner is in the train, the whirlpool or falling off of a cliff so either way they'll get what's coming to them.