A Doomsday Riddle - Page 10

On January 14 2010 06:10 InsideTheBox wrote:
I chose yes to nuking the initiators in the poll simply due to the fact that I know I'd probably be angry/depressed enough to be irrational about my decision. I think it's easy for people to talk about holding true to their beliefs about mercy and justice, but when it comes down to it, this is the type of situation where you can't know how you'd react until you've faced it. Of course that's not to say that everyone would walk the same path as me, but it's something to be considered.

On January 14 2010 04:51 Archerofaiur wrote:



Ya, wouldnt it be sad if a country witnessed the destructive power of nuclear weapons and DIDNT abandon war.

On January 14 2010 06:15 DeathSpank wrote:

ya it is sad you jackass

On January 14 2010 06:15 EchOne wrote:
Wow this thread is depressing. I thought I was morally bankrupt, but even I find the amount of support for nuking in this thread shocking. I've already harped on about how ridiculous the notion of vengeful mass destruction is, so instead of harping some more I'd like to ask those who would press the button: what are your reasons? What are you trying to accomplish? Why is this the best course of action?

I'd like to understand the motivations better, because all I'm seeing right now is "Humanity sucks, therefore extermination of humanity is perfectly acceptable."

On January 14 2010 07:16 HeartOfTofu wrote:


I don't see it as a better or worse course of action and to me, it has nothing to do with morality... What part of war is moral to begin with anyway? It's not vengeance; it's inevitable judgment. While it's ultimately a few individuals with their hands on the trigger, it all represents the human race. We're the ones that created the system, we're the ones that perpetuate it. We're the ones that squabble and fight and we're the ones that ultimately destroy each other and in doing so, destroy ourselves. War and violence isn't the exception, it is the norm. While it isn't always carried out with weapons, we fight everyday with one and the human existence is really one long power struggle. There's really not a lot that we as a species tend to value in this world.

However, there is at least the glimmer of hope in that we value our own existence somewhat, and that is really the only hope I see in humanity. Despite all the conflict and all of our lack of long term thinking, our own individual existence is the one thing that we hold sacred and so long as there is indeed something that we value, there is maybe some hope that we could value something else or at very least progress as a species even if it's just for the sake of our own personal survival.

However launching an attack knowing full well that it means your own guaranteed destruction along with the destruction of your nation to me pretty much represents that it's possible for an entire group of perfectly logical human beings that represent a major country to hold nothing valuable, not even their own lives or the country and people they represent. What further hope is there for humanity then, if this was ever the case? If there's no hope, then what's the point of continuing to exist? If there's no point in the continued existence of humanity, why hesitate to erase it? We would have essentially brought about our own end... Or would you suggest that I reward people for holding absolutely nothing in this world (not even their own lives) valuable? If I did that, do you think the world would be a better place should people survive anyway? I could not bear to live in a world where people actually benefit from valuing nothing, not even their own existence or their neighbors, and if such world were to exist the outcome would be inevitable and ultimately the same outcome that I would be bringing about by pushing the button in front of me.

I don't have a total lack of faith in humanity right now, but if the given scenario occurred, what little faith I do have would be dissolved pretty quickly to say the least... Is it a depressing scenario? Absolutely, but not because a lot of people would die, but because it would be the death of hope when we can't even care about ourselves.

On January 14 2010 07:53 EchOne wrote:
Hm this seems to align with what I gathered from your previous posts. I don't know if this attitude is the norm, and it's a pity no one else will clarify themselves. So you feel that the desire to exist is humanity's last hope? You feel this connects to the scenario in that this act of war is one with suicidal intent? Just trying to make sure I understand you here.

On January 14 2010 07:53 EchOne wrote:
This ignores the separation of people and government. Those who advanced the decision may have suicidal intent, and are definitely culpable, but that by no means guarantees that those they govern are similarly suicidal. NonY mentioned the peoples' responsibilities' to check the government, which may be fair in a select few modern governments. However governments with centralized and military backed power that will brook no argument have been the norm throughout history and are really nowhere near going extinct. A citizen choosing not to oppose such a government (one that would slaughter his family for opposing a national security decision) is in fact indulging in his own desire for survival.

On January 14 2010 07:53 EchOne wrote:
Furthermore, there's no guarantee that an aggressor government has simply consigned itself to self-destruction. With sufficient coverage, it could be aiming to preclude retaliation by having a perfect first blow. A lot of Cold War military development revolved around approaching yet avoiding this. Delivery danced with detection and we should all be thankful that there were always early warning systems capable of triggering retaliation before all delivery systems are crippled.

On January 14 2010 07:53 EchOne wrote:
Actual defense capabilities in this scenario notwithstanding, the aggressor government could harbor this, or other, motivations even if the aren't justified in truth, since it likely has imperfect information. It's not necessarily aware that you can retaliate. Sure, you can assure the enemy that retaliation is the only consequence, but lies are the bread and butter of politics, and the enemy can't afford to be gullible while being responsible for billions of lives.

On January 14 2010 07:24 Archerofaiur wrote:
We get it HeartofTofu, you have a god-complex and/or want attention and/or are depressed. Regardless I dont think we really need to spend time explaining to you the merits and redemptive qualities of humanity. We have enough Disney movies for that :p

On January 14 2010 08:50 igotmyown wrote:
I wouldn't call it a puzzle or a riddle, since you haven't specified how much damage one nuke would do, how many nukes it would take to "destroy" someone/everyone. A riddle implies you can reason out a solution, which you cannot do without knowing the damage potential.

On January 14 2010 08:51 seppolevne wrote:

Starting a thread in order to generate discussion and then attempting to quiet that discussion with personal insults is not the best course of action.