The conditions are so bizarre as to have little or no bearing on the real world, and to ill-defined for the question to be answerable.
Poll: Would you wipe out a culture?
- Thread starter awesomeClaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I do not think its ok based on the given circumstances as these are short term issues and honestly people as well as their ideologies change over time. This is just as true for groups. So would you exterminate a group for some of their extremists examples today, and eliminate the next generation which would more than likely be much softer around those same edges?
There is only one circumstance when I think you can actually consider something like this and it is when those circumstances like those mentioned above have existed for not a generation or two but literally thousands of years and there is seemingly no end in sight for the same type of hateful behavior that is just as prevelant today as it was so long ago. If you see an example of a culture that has basically always been one centered around death and killing, debilitating greed, existence in a brutally oppressive state where the average person will always be little more than a slave, then and only then could it at least be considered, but even then its still not a guarantee for action. But it might be able to be opened for debate should the situation become extremely dire.
.... Or.. i could be my normal anti population self and say we are approaching 7 billion people on the planet with no signs of slowing down.. the more elbow room we can make the better because we ARE the only species on the planet with no natural predators so what is their in nature to thin our numbers out? Cause relying on disease to do it hasnt really been cutting it so far.
EDIT: But it is always sweet when you see a question like this and all the written responses are appalled by the notion, yet the poll results illustrate the people voting are pretty ok with it.
There is only one circumstance when I think you can actually consider something like this and it is when those circumstances like those mentioned above have existed for not a generation or two but literally thousands of years and there is seemingly no end in sight for the same type of hateful behavior that is just as prevelant today as it was so long ago. If you see an example of a culture that has basically always been one centered around death and killing, debilitating greed, existence in a brutally oppressive state where the average person will always be little more than a slave, then and only then could it at least be considered, but even then its still not a guarantee for action. But it might be able to be opened for debate should the situation become extremely dire.
.... Or.. i could be my normal anti population self and say we are approaching 7 billion people on the planet with no signs of slowing down.. the more elbow room we can make the better because we ARE the only species on the planet with no natural predators so what is their in nature to thin our numbers out? Cause relying on disease to do it hasnt really been cutting it so far.
EDIT: But it is always sweet when you see a question like this and all the written responses are appalled by the notion, yet the poll results illustrate the people voting are pretty ok with it.
1 million people? Well, for that number I would use chemical weapons combined with a ground force perimeter to prevent escape. Biological weapons are too inaccurate, and nukes leave the area uninhabitable for too long. Plus humans cannot be counted on for the majority of a mass execution such as this.
Not in the context you've presented, nor would it work in the context you've presented.
By wiping out a million people you're creating martyrs of them regardless of how you wipe out that culture people are going to take offence at the act and seek a way to reak vengeance upon you and your culture, even if they were (until recently) a part of your culture. Instead of killing 1 million to save a 10 million you've killed 1 million, doomed a 100 million more, erased an apparently promising culture and turned who knows how many people from various walks of life all across the world into your enemy, whether they're willing to kill you and yours or not.
All you can do is what the British did in WW2, show an enemy fairness, even kindness and willingness to act and sacrifice not only to protect yourself but the enemies own civilian population and culture. It is extremely difficult for an enemy to villify you if you go out of your way to help and protect those who, according to the enemies propaganda should be slaughtering and raping their way accross the country. this is something the armies of the 'west' seem to have forgotten.
By wiping out a million people you're creating martyrs of them regardless of how you wipe out that culture people are going to take offence at the act and seek a way to reak vengeance upon you and your culture, even if they were (until recently) a part of your culture. Instead of killing 1 million to save a 10 million you've killed 1 million, doomed a 100 million more, erased an apparently promising culture and turned who knows how many people from various walks of life all across the world into your enemy, whether they're willing to kill you and yours or not.
All you can do is what the British did in WW2, show an enemy fairness, even kindness and willingness to act and sacrifice not only to protect yourself but the enemies own civilian population and culture. It is extremely difficult for an enemy to villify you if you go out of your way to help and protect those who, according to the enemies propaganda should be slaughtering and raping their way accross the country. this is something the armies of the 'west' seem to have forgotten.
Well as its not clear how these extremists of a smaller population of 1 million are going to wipe out 10 million people because extremists mostly make up less than 0.1% of a culture's population.. so yeah..
Anyway, extremism is only defending what you believe to be right and good through violence and destruction of the perceived enemy, the Taliban are viewed as extremists by the West and the Taliban probably believe the US and NATO armies to be the extreme wings of the Western political world..
So its all perception, these 10 million people being killed could be of a worse culture that rapes, pillages ect. so a smaller group of puritans or whatever killing savages might be ok..
To conclude: depends on the situation and whats going on but in most cases I would say avoid violence, try diplomacy, it has nicer results..
Anyway, extremism is only defending what you believe to be right and good through violence and destruction of the perceived enemy, the Taliban are viewed as extremists by the West and the Taliban probably believe the US and NATO armies to be the extreme wings of the Western political world..
So its all perception, these 10 million people being killed could be of a worse culture that rapes, pillages ect. so a smaller group of puritans or whatever killing savages might be ok..
To conclude: depends on the situation and whats going on but in most cases I would say avoid violence, try diplomacy, it has nicer results..
Yes, for one simple reason:
You do not need religion to be a good person. Ones that claim religion makes people do good things they wouldn't do if there was no religion, are ignorant.
Edit: A slight nuance: I would not whipe out a culture per se, I would whipe out the religion that drives them, without killing the people.
You do not need religion to be a good person. Ones that claim religion makes people do good things they wouldn't do if there was no religion, are ignorant.
Edit: A slight nuance: I would not whipe out a culture per se, I would whipe out the religion that drives them, without killing the people.
Biological weapons are typically deployed in same manner as chemical weapons. They can both be highly accurate, or not.Hashime said:
Or are you referring to the it uncontrollable nature?
As to the actual topic... no.
And waste a ton of resources doing so? HELL NO!
I'll just hire some mercenaries to deal with that shit. Saves me the agenda for a while and a lot of money and lives of the people I serve.
I can expect documentaries later, on how "cruel" and "ruthless" the methods of the mercenaries are. And that they are following my orders! *GASP!*
But in the end, NOTHING will be done against me.
Could I live with myself after that? Probably not...
I'll just hire some mercenaries to deal with that shit. Saves me the agenda for a while and a lot of money and lives of the people I serve.
I can expect documentaries later, on how "cruel" and "ruthless" the methods of the mercenaries are. And that they are following my orders! *GASP!*
But in the end, NOTHING will be done against me.
Could I live with myself after that? Probably not...
If 10 million deaths can be specifically and 100 % attributed to the culture, and these lives can - with a 100 % certainty - be saved by killing 1 million innocent practitioners of said culture (who do not in any way support or associate themselves with the violent elements), I'd still abstain.
If the culture itself isn't inherently discriminatory, then the non-violent practitioners are innocent and cannot be sacrificed. If on the other hand for any reason they're willing to (support a notion that it's ever right to) kill any other innocent, they of course deserve no better fate than they're willing to extend to these innocent others. So they better not be filth supporting the notion that it's right to kill people for being gay or adulterous or some shit. Still, the law is their refuge, their human rights must be respected even when they cannot be.
If the culture itself isn't inherently discriminatory, then the non-violent practitioners are innocent and cannot be sacrificed. If on the other hand for any reason they're willing to (support a notion that it's ever right to) kill any other innocent, they of course deserve no better fate than they're willing to extend to these innocent others. So they better not be filth supporting the notion that it's right to kill people for being gay or adulterous or some shit. Still, the law is their refuge, their human rights must be respected even when they cannot be.
The only thing to snuff out a powerful empire is an even greater empire, I'd take their treasures, kill the soldiers, spare the civilians and tell them that they make keep their religion but they will be under watch until we are sure they represent no threat.
People will die in the war, but if the battle can be won swiftly, there will be less casualties than their would've been had they been able to wipe out their neighboring nations.
People will die in the war, but if the battle can be won swiftly, there will be less casualties than their would've been had they been able to wipe out their neighboring nations.