PDA

View Full Version : A morality question?


Logical
07-05-2007, 12:47 AM
If you were ordered to unleash a Nuclear Bomb on an enemy could you do it?

Could you as an individual take on the responsibility of killing potentially millions? When I was younger I felt the answer was an easy yes. As I grow in wisdom my moral compass says it might not be easy to do. In fact I doubt I could do it. Could you?


Additional info at the request of posters. You don't know who is targeted. Your area has not been hit by a Nuke but it was hit by a large bombing incident where 100s died. You will not be directly protecting your family.

Silock
07-05-2007, 12:49 AM
Depends on the circumstances.

milkman
07-05-2007, 12:50 AM
The question becomes how many lives would be lost if you didn't.

If the answer is larger, by a considerable margin, then yes, I could.

Guru
07-05-2007, 12:50 AM
The only way to know is to be at the button when the order comes through.

luv
07-05-2007, 12:51 AM
No. If I had a specific target in mind, I would search out a way to narrow down my hunt. I would not hurt potentially innocent people who might/might agree with the viewpoints of my enemy.

el borracho
07-05-2007, 12:56 AM
Maybe. You need to define the scenario in more detail for me to decide one way or the other.

Discuss Thrower
07-05-2007, 12:57 AM
If you were ordered to unleash a Nuclear Bomb on an enemy could you do it?

Could you as an individual take on the responsibility of killing potentially millions? When I was younger I felt the answer was an easy yes. As I grow in wisdom my moral compass says it might not be easy to do. In fact I doubt I could do it. Could you?


Yes, if I was going to without a doubt protect the ones I care about by doing so... That becomes hazy when you factor in Nuclear Winter, however.

pr_capone
07-05-2007, 12:58 AM
If you were ordered to unleash a Nuclear Bomb on an enemy could you do it?

Could you as an individual take on the responsibility of killing potentially millions? When I was younger I felt the answer was an easy yes. As I grow in wisdom my moral compass says it might not be easy to do. In fact I doubt I could do it. Could you?

If I were still in the Army and I got an order to push the button. Yup, I would push the button without a second thought.

Now... having to GIVE that order is something completely different.

Logical
07-05-2007, 01:28 AM
If I were still in the Army and I got an order to push the button. Yup, I would push the button without a second thought.

Now... having to GIVE that order is something completely different.

Interesting point.

Silock
07-05-2007, 02:23 AM
Maybe. You need to define the scenario in more detail for me to decide one way or the other.

That won't happen. Logical likes to make posts where everything is black or white, and there is no gray area.

Bob Dole
07-05-2007, 02:58 AM
So you're asking whether we think we're Harry S.?

Logical
07-05-2007, 03:19 AM
So you're asking whether we think we're Harry S.?Yes pretend the Buck Stops with YOU.

big nasty kcnut
07-05-2007, 03:38 AM
Bomb it. Cause if you could be assured that you could stop bloodshed on our troops yes you do it.

ChiefJustice
07-05-2007, 03:51 AM
Yes pretend the Buck Stops with YOU.

Well,the Man from Independence wasn't ordered to do anything.

I'm not sure which scenario you are asking us to imagine.

If i was a soldier like Slim Pickens in "Dr. Strangelove",then yes.
Later, at the war crimes trial,i could say that i was only following orders.


But,If you are asking what I would do if i was the one giving the order...that's when it becomes a moral issue.

With the scenario you presented,conventional bombing would be
a cheaper and safer idea.

Hell,I'd order a high altitude nuclear blast that would create an EMP
over said region before i would start destroying cities on a massive scale.

ClevelandBronco
07-05-2007, 04:02 AM
If you were ordered to unleash a Nuclear Bomb on an enemy could you do it?

Could you as an individual take on the responsibility of killing potentially millions? When I was younger I felt the answer was an easy yes. As I grow in wisdom my moral compass says it might not be easy to do. In fact I doubt I could do it. Could you?


Additional info at the request of posters. You don't know who is targeted. Your area has not been hit by a Nuke but it was hit by a large bombing incident where 100s died. You will not be directly protecting your family.


Yes.

Now ask me if I'd eat a pizza that was sent to my table by someone I trust.

DenverChief
07-05-2007, 04:56 AM
i could say that i was only following orders.




It didn't work for the nazi's


just saying

Jilly
07-05-2007, 07:24 AM
No, not ever

DeepSouth
07-05-2007, 07:27 AM
It would depend on how many beers I had before I was asked to push the button.

Skip Towne
07-05-2007, 07:40 AM
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Chief Chief
07-05-2007, 07:43 AM
And just what would be the consequences if one were not to follow the order given by the President of the United States?

tmax63
07-05-2007, 08:00 AM
During time of war you can be shot for failure to follow a legal order. Doesn't happen but it could. As for pushing the button, I could do that. Not every nuke is going to destroy the world and vanquish mankind. We have conventional bombs that are more powerful than some of the battlefield nukes now. They are just another tool in Uncle Sam's toy box for protecting us and our interest in keeping our way of life intact.

Duck Dog
07-05-2007, 08:08 AM
If you are the type of person who can not push the button then you have no business being in that position in the first place. National security is no place for the timid and weak.

Jilly
07-05-2007, 08:13 AM
If you are the type of person who can not push the button then you have no business being in that position in the first place. National security is no place for the timid and weak.

ummm...that's true, but just because I person can't push a button that will kill others doesn't mean they are timid and weak.

stevieray
07-05-2007, 08:21 AM
Could Billary?

The Red Sea
07-05-2007, 08:34 AM
In the end I'll go with the..if killing "The Millions" save MANY MIllions lives...then of course its worth it its only"logical"

I like the point of Being the "one" who actually pushes The button might be the hardest part.
I'll remind you that many countries in the past have used trickery during executions so that not just One person is left with the thought He executed the accused.
Firing squad with only 4 real bullets 10 guns..5 gaurds hitting the electric chair trigger & only one really works.
It was just enough so that no gaurd in his mind new for "Sure" he was the one..supposedly it helped but in a way I doubt it.It only made more feel guilty inside I would think.
If you had say 10 people who were in the ranks that Had the official right to hit the button I'd simply ask for a volunteer is all if none then the Fake trigger & order all 10 to hit it.


I know this is sort of apples to oranges but hey what the hell...just for fun..

Star Trek fans remember the line.

Spock is explaining his actions to James Kirk. The Vulcan entered a radiation-filled section of the U.S.S. Enterprise, even though to do so meant certain death. It was the only way to bring the main engines back online in time to save the lives of his shipmates.

Fighting the effects of the deadly radiation Spock rasps, "It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Kirk finishes the statement for his friend, "Or the one."

But that was fiction. In real life selfless acts are diminishing and will soon be gone forever from our society. Selfishness rules. Me first rules. So that no single individual will be offended, we will offend the entire strata of society.


Logical I often ponder over your serious black & white posts..however I rarely reply even though I love a serious chat with friends over the stuff you put on here.
However a message board is a very hard place to make back & forth points & to nail it down to a "logical solution"
Again However though half the fun of the planets message board is talking out stuff like this & other misc crap like Poop & what not! :)

It makes the Planet what it is good fun & some serious chat as well..Oh yeah & our beloved Chiefs too!

Here at home I'd be hashing out your question over some party material getting buzzed with friends and getting deeply into the topic.


Ehh...my post runs long I'm out of here!

boogblaster
07-05-2007, 09:08 AM
Is it the RED button or the Green one ...

Buehler445
07-05-2007, 09:12 AM
I think if it were them or me, I could. But I really haven't ever been in a situation close to that, so I can't say for sure.

Logical
07-05-2007, 03:45 PM
In the end I'll go with the..if killing "The Millions" save MANY MIllions lives...then of course its worth it its only"logical"

I like the point of Being the "one" who actually pushes The button might be the hardest part.
I'll remind you that many countries in the past have used trickery during executions so that not just One person is left with the thought He executed the accused.
Firing squad with only 4 real bullets 10 guns..5 gaurds hitting the electric chair trigger & only one really works.
It was just enough so that no gaurd in his mind new for "Sure" he was the one..supposedly it helped but in a way I doubt it.It only made more feel guilty inside I would think.
If you had say 10 people who were in the ranks that Had the official right to hit the button I'd simply ask for a volunteer is all if none then the Fake trigger & order all 10 to hit it.


I know this is sort of apples to oranges but hey what the hell...just for fun..

Star Trek fans remember the line.

Spock is explaining his actions to James Kirk. The Vulcan entered a radiation-filled section of the U.S.S. Enterprise, even though to do so meant certain death. It was the only way to bring the main engines back online in time to save the lives of his shipmates.

Fighting the effects of the deadly radiation Spock rasps, "It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Kirk finishes the statement for his friend, "Or the one."

But that was fiction. In real life selfless acts are diminishing and will soon be gone forever from our society. Selfishness rules. Me first rules. So that no single individual will be offended, we will offend the entire strata of society.


Logical I often ponder over your serious black & white posts..however I rarely reply even though I love a serious chat with friends over the stuff you put on here.
However a message board is a very hard place to make back & forth points & to nail it down to a "logical solution"
Again However though half the fun of the planets message board is talking out stuff like this & other misc crap like Poop & what not! :)

It makes the Planet what it is good fun & some serious chat as well..Oh yeah & our beloved Chiefs too!

Here at home I'd be hashing out your question over some party material getting buzzed with friends and getting deeply into the topic.


Ehh...my post runs long I'm out of here!

Outstanding post and very well thought out.:clap:

Fish
07-05-2007, 03:50 PM
http://theswca.com/images-art/bradley-clock-talking-strangelove.jpg

All the way down baby....

Simply Red
07-05-2007, 03:52 PM
In a NEW YORK Minute.

Lots of variables to consider first though.

Mr Luzcious
07-05-2007, 03:58 PM
"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority." - Stanley Milgram

In other words, probably.

Donger
07-05-2007, 04:04 PM
If you were ordered to unleash a Nuclear Bomb on an enemy could you do it?

Could you as an individual take on the responsibility of killing potentially millions? When I was younger I felt the answer was an easy yes. As I grow in wisdom my moral compass says it might not be easy to do. In fact I doubt I could do it. Could you?


Additional info at the request of posters. You don't know who is targeted. Your area has not been hit by a Nuke but it was hit by a large bombing incident where 100s died. You will not be directly protecting your family.


Yes.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 04:52 PM
No, most people are not their govt.
It will only encourage others to want a nuke and thus more use of such weapons. I consider it criminally irresponsible.

At one time I supported the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not since I found out Japan was trying to surrender at which point even that was unecessary to save lives and end that war.

KC Jones
07-05-2007, 05:18 PM
This conversation reminds me of Ender's Game. Great read for those of you who like sci fi - a classic.

Donger
07-05-2007, 05:20 PM
No, most people are not their govt.
It will only encourage others to want a nuke and thus more use of such weapons. I consider it criminally irresponsible.

At one time I supported the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not since I found out Japan was trying to surrender at which point even that was unecessary to save lives and end that war.

Trying to surrender?

KC Jones
07-05-2007, 05:30 PM
Trying to surrender?

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Donger
07-05-2007, 05:37 PM
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Yes, I know. But if one wants to surrender, one just does. The Japanese were trying to negotiate.

Skip Towne
07-05-2007, 05:46 PM
Yes, I know. But if one wants to surrender, one just does. The Japanese were trying to negotiate.
And one faction was trying to overthrow the powers in charge so they could fight to the death.

Donger
07-05-2007, 05:49 PM
And one faction was trying to overthrow the powers in charge so they could fight to the death.

I'm not sure exactly to what you are referring, but the Japanese did reject the Potsdam Declaration, which outlined the surrender terms.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 06:20 PM
Yes, I know. But if one wants to surrender, one just does. The Japanese were trying to negotiate.
They were trying to "negotiate" terms of surrender. That's saying the same thing as trying to surrender or end the war on their part.

On June 22,1945 the emperor met his ministers, saying "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them." --wiki They tried to negotiate a peace through the Russians too.

The fanatics attempted a coup d'etat by conducting a full military assault and takeover of the Imperial Palace but was quickly crushed on the emperor's order.-- wiki

US wanted "unconditional" surrender without the Emperor ever returning to power. This does not morally warrant nuking civilians wholesale nor when there are attemps at "negotiating" surrender...or whatever semantics one wants to use.

But let's say you're correct, all we had to do was show them the bomb or drop it on a base with no civilians as the link suggests as a demonstration. These bombs were dropped mostly on civilians.

Other than that, this digression is off the subject. I only mentioned it because I don't think these things are warranted unless under extremely rare conditions. The situation per the thread starter and even Japan don't cut it for me unless you want to believe "court historians" or politicians who will justify some of the most criminal acts.

Skip Towne
07-05-2007, 06:29 PM
The little bastards didn't even surrender after the first bomb. We had to show it to them again.

Donger
07-05-2007, 06:31 PM
They were trying to "negotiate" terms of surrender. That's saying the same thing as trying to surrender or end the war on their part.

On June 22,1945 the emperor met his ministers, saying "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them." --wiki They tried to negotiate a peace through the Russians too.

The fanatics attempted a coup d'etat by conducting a full military assault and takeover of the Imperial Palace but was quickly crushed on the emperor's order.-- wiki

US wanted "unconditional" surrender without the Emperor ever returning to power. This does not morally warrant nuking civilians wholesale nor when there are attemps at "negotiating" surrender...or whatever semantics one wants to use.

But let's say you're correct, all we had to do was show them the bomb or drop it on a base with no civilians as the link suggests as a demonstration. These bombs were dropped mostly on civilians.

Other than that, this digression is off the subject. I only mentioned it because I don't think these things are warranted unless under extremely rare conditions. The situation per the thread starter and even Japan don't cut it for me unless you want to believe "court historians" or politicians who will justify some of the most criminal acts.

The fact is that the Japanese rejected the Potsdam Declaration. They then accepted it only after being forced to by the emperor, who only acted AFTER Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

HemiEd
07-05-2007, 06:38 PM
The little bastards didn't even surrender after the first bomb. We had to show it to them again.

They are going to win in the long run though, the way its looking.



Oh, its a world market, thats right.

Otter
07-05-2007, 06:39 PM
Let's put things in perspective here, the use of kamikazes, the Bataan Death March, executing, experimenting and torturing American POWs, murdering between 3 and 10 million Chinese, siding with the Nazis and the list goes on and on.

Please, let's not make them out to be noble boy scouts who deserved to be treated like so.


To answer the question, if I put myself in a position where I needed to push the button I'm 99.9% sure I could.

Skip Towne
07-05-2007, 06:43 PM
They are going to win in the long run though, the way its looking.



Oh, its a world market, thats right.
Yes, they are going to win. I was born in June '45 and some of my first toys were little cars from Japan. They were held together by tabs, not screws. When you took them apart it said "Schlitz" on the inside. They are very industrious little f*ckers.

HemiEd
07-05-2007, 06:45 PM
Yes, they are going to win. I was born in June '45 and some of my first toys were little cars from Japan. They were held together by tabs, not screws. When you took them apart it said "Schlitz" on the inside. They are very industrious little f*ckers.

I had the same toys, then the "6 transistor" radio. Its all a plot I tell ya.

*edit* at least we beat them in a hot dog eating constest, finally.

Donger
07-05-2007, 06:48 PM
But let's say you're correct, all we had to do was show them the bomb or drop it on a base with no civilians as the link suggests as a demonstration. These bombs were dropped mostly on civilians.

A demonstration, eh?

Well, for one, what would happen if it were a dud? Giving the Japanese a physics package would have been a bad idea.

Two, I assume that you'd be willing to fly that mission? "Okay, Japanese. We are going to show you our new weapon. The plane carrying it will arrive over Tokyo Bay at 0700 hours on Thursday. Please don't shoot at it."

Can we assume that you are also opposed to the firebombing of Tokyo, too?

Skip Towne
07-05-2007, 06:50 PM
I had the same toys, then the "6 transistor" radio. Its all a plot I tell ya.

*edit* at least we beat them in a hot dog eating constest, finally.
I didn't think they had the first transistor radios. The transistor was invented by a team of scientists from Bell Laboratories in 1959 I think. So it was probably '60 or '61 before we had those. And I don't think the Japs had any silicon anyway.

KC Jones
07-05-2007, 07:54 PM
I heard them people are really good at making things really tiny too.

milkman
07-05-2007, 08:07 PM
I had the same toys, then the "6 transistor" radio. Its all a plot I tell ya.

*edit* at least we beat them in a hot dog eating constest, finally.

You guys were lucky.

I had a rolled up sock.
We called it a ball.

Skip Towne
07-05-2007, 08:36 PM
You guys were lucky.

I had a rolled up sock.
We called it a ball.
Phobia had only one Army man.

ClevelandBronco
07-05-2007, 08:43 PM
Phobia had only one Army man.

And that soldier was a concientious objector who could only do paperwork stateside.

milkman
07-05-2007, 08:45 PM
Phobia had only one Army man.

I could pretend that my sock-ball was a grenade and blow his Army man up!

Skip Towne
07-05-2007, 08:46 PM
I could pretend that my sock-ball was a grenade and blow his Army man up!
He'd just build a fort out of his only Leggo.

milkman
07-05-2007, 08:52 PM
He'd just build a fort out of his only Leggo.

Well then, he has a Leggo up on me.

ChiefFripp
07-05-2007, 08:54 PM
No.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 09:27 PM
Yes, unless by "[y]ou don't know who is targeted" you really mean that this would be a randomly targeted nuke which would make my answer no.

HemiEd
07-05-2007, 09:28 PM
You guys were lucky.

I had a rolled up sock.
We called it a ball.
ROFL I think those cars cost a dime.

JohninGpt
07-05-2007, 09:29 PM
But let's say you're correct, all we had to do was show them the bomb or drop it on a base with no civilians as the link suggests as a demonstration. These bombs were dropped mostly on civilians.
Civilian casualties were not really taken into consideration by EITHER side in WWII. We bombed the hell out of Germany, Germany did the same to most of Europe, and Japan raped Asia and the Pacific. As a matter of fact, the branch of the Navy that I have belonged to for the past 20yrs was was brought about specifically because the Japanese were targeting unarmed US civilian construction workers in the Pacific.
I've spent some time in Japan and met some really nice folks, but there is no doubt in my mind that the 1930's-40's version of the Japanese Empire would have happily killed or enslaved every man, woman, and child in the United States if that is what it took for them to get to our resources.

milkman
07-05-2007, 09:32 PM
ROFL I think those cars cost a dime.

You and you're family had a dime to spend?

Lucky rich bastard!!!!

Logical
07-05-2007, 09:43 PM
Yes, unless by "[y]ou don't know who is targeted" you really mean that this would be a randomly targeted nuke which would make my answer no.

Interesting literalist view of my statement, I see your point. I think you can assume it would be on enemy territory.

HemiEd
07-05-2007, 09:55 PM
You and you're family had a dime to spend?

Lucky rich bastard!!!!

Christmas, we splurged.
I did have to walk 5 miles to school, up hill in the snow, both ways.

All kidding aside, I remember taking those cars apart as a little kid. Jagged edged stamped tin, very dangerous, probably never cleaned from their previous use.

What would our protectionest beurocrats think about them now? ROFL

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 10:01 PM
A demonstration, eh?

Well, for one, what would happen if it were a dud? Giving the Japanese a physics package would have been a bad idea.

Two, I assume that you'd be willing to fly that mission? "Okay, Japanese. We are going to show you our new weapon. The plane carrying it will arrive over Tokyo Bay at 0700 hours on Thursday. Please don't shoot at it."

Can we assume that you are also opposed to the firebombing of Tokyo, too?
That's not the point. Just seeing it without even detonation, right here in America, coulda brought about surrender too, especially with the mind set they were already in. I'd at least do that first. Still, there is much debate about the whole surrender point.

milkman
07-05-2007, 10:04 PM
Christmas, we splurged.
I did have to walk 5 miles to school, up hill in the snow, both ways.

All kidding aside, I remember taking those cars apart as a little kid. Jagged edged stamped tin, very dangerous, probably never cleaned from their previous use.

What would our protectionest beurocrats think about them now? ROFL

How the hell did we ever grow up?

Everything we came into contact with should have killed us.

Donger
07-05-2007, 10:10 PM
That's not the point. Just seeing it without even detonation, right here in America, coulda brought about surrender too, especially with the mind set they were already in. I'd at least do that first. Still, there is much debate about the whole surrender point.

Seeing what? The bombs themselves?

Anyway, I'm sure that the Japanese would probably not have been stupid enough to accept. Do you know the history of the Pacific Theater? Saipan, and the civilians throwing themselves off cliffs rather than surrender? Kamikazes?

Is this just because nuclear weapons were used?

HemiEd
07-05-2007, 10:17 PM
How the hell did we ever grow up?

Everything we came into contact with should have killed us.


Amazing, isn't it?
The strong survive! It has worked in nature for a while.

I laughed pretty hard the other day, when I saw a group of 20 somethings, adult bikers (pedal type) wearing helmets.

Nothing wrong with it, just struck me funny.

But then, the more I thought about it, they have probably never ridden a bike without a helmet. I am guessing they probably played soccer as a kid, as well.

milkman
07-05-2007, 10:24 PM
Amazing, isn't it?
The strong survive! It has worked in nature for a while.

I laughed pretty hard the other day, when I saw a group of 20 somethings, adult bikers (pedal type) wearing helmets.

Nothing wrong with it, just struck me funny.

But then, the more I thought about it, they have probably never ridden a bike without a helmet. I am guessing they probably played soccer as a kid, as well.

It is funny, and sad, at the same time.

If some dumbass can't ride a bike without getting run over, or falling off and hitting his head at 20 something, dumbass deserves to have his head cracked.

HemiEd
07-05-2007, 10:24 PM
That's not the point. Just seeing it without even detonation, right here in America, coulda brought about surrender too, especially with the mind set they were already in. I'd at least do that first. Still, there is much debate about the whole surrender point.

The reality of it, Americans were dying every day and barely holding on in certain places. The war needed to end and end right away. We had the tool to do it and it got used. End of story, no second guessing.

If they would have had it, they would have used it on us without hesitation. War is not nice.

HemiEd
07-05-2007, 10:26 PM
It is funny, and sad, at the same time.

If some dumbass can't ride a bike without getting run over, or falling off and hitting his head at 20 something, dumbass deserves to have his head cracked.

Well, those were my initial thoughts. ROFL