You are the President of the US with two options before you... which do you choose

  • Thread starter Thread starter thechrismyster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thechrismyster said:
although he would have been capable of coming up with an answer to a simple a/b question.
Click to expand...
Only, as in real life, this is not a simple a/b question and can never be such a thing.

This is why hypothetical questions do not work very well in ethical/moral questions.

I also noticed that you colored the a/b choice with your parenthetical comments (judgements really).

It is not a fact that the assassination of a countires leader is easy or that even if it is successful that the change you wish to happen will happen.

Also, negotiations have worked successfully in the past.

No president acts in a vacuum.
 
really, people, it’s not that hard of a question. a or b. act or wait.

i know people love conjecture, but being time sensitive, and thrown in your lap… the military is waiting for an answer…what would you do?
 
chrismyster
So if you kill this leader guy and the nuclear explosion occurs plus the “innocent” country strikes back creating a civil war in the original country. So you end up with 1.2 million killed in the innocent country plus 1.0 million killed in the original country did you do a good thing?

A) 2.2 million die
B) You mind your own business

Which is it A or B ?
 
Texas_Roofer said:
So if you kill this leader guy and the nuclear explosion occurs plus the “innocent” country strikes back creating a civil war in the original country. So you end up with 1.2 million killed in the innocent country plus 1.0 million killed in the original country did you do a good thing?
Click to expand...
read the intel report in the original post. there is a 95% chance of success for an asassination. the military coup would be sucessful once the dictator is nuetralized.
The original country is in financial ruin, the social class has no chance for civil war, they don’t even have food to feed themselves. the west would provide humanitarian aid after the coup feeding the masses.

"minding your own business’ is not an option. you have to deal with the original post and within the guidelines i’ve set. A or B.
 
This is great! I haven’t laughed this hard at a thread in a while! It brings me back to playing ‘army’ with my brothers when we were kids. (“No way, Logan, you are so dead! I threw a grenade at you!” “Yeah, but I had my laser shields on at the last minute, deflecting the grenade, so you’re dead!”)I love it!
 
Um… am I really suggesting something ridiculous when I say that there are always other options?

You make it sound so simple, A or B, 1 or 2, kill him or negotiate. I promise you, there are other things you can do which do not require both of these things.

Perhaps siezing control of the nuclear weapons would be an option, bombing that site, perhaps. Or setting up defenses to shoot down the warhead, if at all possible.

There are options, usually when neither answer is ideal, there is a better one that hasn’t been presented.
 
I voted for B. First of all, as president, I would be sworn to defend my country…not police the entire world. You haven’t mentioned that this country to the south is an ally, so that I don’t know. You also don’t specify to “who’s” south the country is a neighbor, the US or the outlaw with the nukes? Or what proximity the strike would have to the US. I would work with the country that is being threatened and, with 36 hours to work with, I believe the attack could be avoided either with negotiations or a last minute “pre-emptive strike”. The chaos that could surround an assination of a leader that is that close to launching a nuclear strike could itself be destabilizing, so I would think the assination attempt may be too little too late. At the point in time you present, I would think negotiations, a pre-emptive strike to disable the nukes and/or the threat of retaliation would be the best courses to take.
 
I can’t see that assasinating him would guarantee safety for anyone. Another leader would just take his place and be justifiably paranoid about our intentions.

I think it would be a lot easier, more effective, and more justifiable to take out the nuke than it would be to take out the leader. Leaders are a lot more mobile, easier to hide, and more easily replaced than intercontinental ballistic missles.
 
Come on, we need more responses than this!

A. One life or 700,000? And you know he’s gonna aim those nukes at you next. Also, for a biblical perspective, how many times in the OT did God tell the Israelites to not only conquer their foes, but kill the women, children, and livestock too? God knows sometimes you have to do what you have to do to keep evil from spreading. This is not a case of a personal grudge, it is to prevent a war!
 
I voted negotiate. It is not our responsibility to ensure the safety of the neighboring country’s citizen but the leader of that country. However, if the President of the threatened nation called and specifically requested our assistance, I’d authorize the military action as it is a pre-emptive defense of the citizens of an ally upon request from their legitimate government.
 
Wendy-Kay said:
This is great! I haven’t laughed this hard at a thread in a while! It brings me back to playing ‘army’ with my brothers when we were kids. (“No way, Logan, you are so dead! I threw a grenade at you!” “Yeah, but I had my laser shields on at the last minute, deflecting the grenade, so you’re dead!”)I love it!
Click to expand...
NO WAY! that was a neutron grenade and lazer shields don’t work against them…

Logan
 
:banghead:

Most people really can’t follow simple direction. that is one of the problems in our society. to all you who responded with thought. thanks.
to all those who couldn’t answer a simple question… meh.
 
thechrismyster said:
:banghead:

Most people really can’t follow simple direction. that is one of the problems in our society. to all you who responded with thought. thanks.
to all those who couldn’t answer a simple question… meh.
Click to expand...
Now you starting to understand responsibility! !
 
thechrismyster said:
:banghead:

Most people really can’t follow simple direction. that is one of the problems in our society. to all you who responded with thought. thanks.
to all those who couldn’t answer a simple question… meh.
Click to expand...
Some people refrain from answering because they do not like either of the choices.

If I asked “The milk is getting warm because it is left outside the fridge, what should I do?”

A) Throw the milk away

B) Haul the fridge over to the milk, open the door, and while catching the milk between the door and the fridge, flip it up, open the door, let the milk fall in, and close the door.

You would be shouting “Hey, just put the milk in the fridge”

Restricting people to hypothetical situations that do not mirror reality serves no purpose.

Peace and God Bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top