A Doomsday Riddle - Page 17

On January 25 2010 12:29 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:
tho archer do you think my evaluatioins could make point in todays solvation of the riddle ?

On January 25 2010 14:03 ultramagnetics wrote:
My answer was originally "no", but now I am not quite sure.

My original logic is that even if my country/loved-ones were destroyed, the rest of the world would still be alive so why cause more destruction? i could (possibly) even survive and start a new life.

The issue is that there now is only 1 overwhelmingly powerful and selfish country that can easily bring the rest of the world into submission. Even though I wouldn't want to bring death to all of the civilians of that country, it might be better for the future of the world if that country was eliminated so it wouldn't dominate the world through its nuclear superiority.

Also, selfishly, my chances of survival (depending on the circumstances), would probably be better if that other country was destroyed. If they ever found out who I was, they would most certainly kill me.

So now I am thinking of pushing the button, and whats restraining me is:
Even though I could restore some balance to the world's power structure, the cost of doing that is killing the enemy countries civilians and causing much more direct damage then the original attack(assuming i am the us soldier vs russia, russia being carpet-bombed with nukes would directly effect europe, asia, and the middle-east, while the US being carpet-bombed would only directly effect central/north america).

My answer:
push the button... I think the world would be better off without an evil nuclear-bomb-dropping country controlling the entire world.