metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But the vast majority of people you would be killing would be totally innocent, and what exactly would be accomplished?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You, as President, Responds How?
- Thread starter metis
- Start date
But the vast majority of people you would be killing would be totally innocent, and what exactly would be accomplished?
Others would think hard before doing it again. We learn greatly by our mistakes.
We also suffer irreparable, tragic losses by way of our mistakes. As well as by those of others.
Not interested, personally.
Not interested, personally.
If we didn't we wouldn't learn better.
You actually believe that if we let a country bomb us without penalty, they wouldn't find it easier to do it to other countries or that a nastier country would now believe it was OK for them to do it.
I would be proud of my decision if necessary, it would protect future generations.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But if the think-tank that was headed by Carl Sagan was correct, there might not be an "again". And sending a message is more acceptable than killing maybe billions of human lives and possibly literally wipe all human life off the planet?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, mere retaliation that kills millions to billions more innocent people is somehow moral?
Some scales of mistakes also do not allow us to learn better. This is one of such, far as I can tell.
I don't think that is a fair model for the situation described, that is all.
It seems flawed in that it assumes that the penalty for the decision to send bombs at all is surviveable and somehow worth the consequences.
Assuming there would be any, or that they would be at all protected by your decision, sure.
It just seems a very odd belief to hold from here where I stand.
And is that the case being discussed here? I don't think it is, not at all.
It is rather a nightmarish existence (which may well end up being doomed anyway) against an even worse one.
All I can say is, it is who I am. Be glad I am not president and that the attack is not happening.
I am!
Assad91
Shi'ah Ali
Morality isn't the subject. It's survival. Survival of my country, my family, my life.
If an enemy attacks us with a nuke, they didn't care for morality.
The civilian innocents don't deserves to die. Not at all. But they will kill you just as quickly if you threatened their way of life, family, country
If so, then I don't think either side much deserves to live. And they just might get their just deserts.
Assad91
Shi'ah Ali
So, what would you do? Let your country fall and people slaughtered and subjectes to oppression?
I told what I would do earlier in this thread, but let me just point out that I don't think this is even a matter of countries at such a point.
Come to think of it, it would no longer be a matter of oppression either.
But it would definitely be a matter of embracing morality or falling short.
I wonder if it's possible to counter-nuke? To nuke a nuke? Take down a nuke in air with another nuke?
Sending nukes to them wouldn't do anything but waste time and useful energy. I'd try to find a way to prevent nuclear touchdown.
Sending nukes to them wouldn't do anything but waste time and useful energy. I'd try to find a way to prevent nuclear touchdown.
The terms of the OP wouldn't give you that much time, since the launch has just happened.
To take out most of the nukes in flight would require a massive deployment weapons
we don't have yet. So....you're CHEATING!
dust1n
Zindīq
I don't think that it's really a question that very shortly after the beginning of such an exchange, both countries will virtually cease to exist in all abilities to function, and most land would be utterly destroyed. Food shortages and materials being tossed into the atmosphere would most assuredly kill anyone else left off, save a few hardcore survivors. It would be the end of the story within a couple of weeks.
If only we had someone as dedicated and willing as the kamikaze to fly up there and shoot it in mid air to blow it in the sky, better than touchdown right?