Would you push the button?

[Jingles]

Imagine the year is 1981. You are either the President of the United States of America, or the General Secretary of the Soviet Union (it doesn't matter which). The opposing side in the cold war has just launched a pre-emptive strategic nuclear strike on you and your allies. You have minutes before thousands of warheads impact on your country's soil. Only you have the power to push the button and unleash Armageddon on the enemy in retaliation.

But would you do it? Would you condemn millions to death simply to strike a parting blow? Or would you spare them?

It's an interesting conundrum that I was asked today by someone, and I honestly don't know what I'd do if I was put in that situation.

[CamilleBonparte]

In that situation my opponent would have committed genocide and the mass slaughter of innocents with his act. This question comes off to me as "Would you be willing to do the same?" The answer is no.

[Squiggle]

In that situation my opponent would have committed genocide and the mass slaughter of innocents with his act. This question comes off to me as "Would you be willing to do the same?" The answer is no.

Yeah, I agree. I would retaliate of course, hitting military installations and such, whatever I could do to slow my enemy down and limit their destructive power. But I wouldnt kill millions of innocent people.

[Enemy of the State]

Honestly the situation is akin to punishing a murder by randomly shooting anyone you see on the street in hopes that one of them is the murderer.

[Tacitursa]

Honestly the situation is akin to punishing a murder by randomly shooting anyone you see on the street in hopes that one of them is the murderer.

No it's like one country attacking another country and the other country retaliating. Pretty straight forward.

Over 40 million civilians died during world war 2, According to alot of people here, It would of been better if the allies just stayed at home and watched TV while hitler mass murdered millions and took over the globe.

Imagine what would have happend if hitler had nukes and you guys were in command of allied forces.

[Squiggle]

No it's like one country attacking another country and the other country retaliating. Pretty straight forward.

Over 40 million civilians died during world war 2, According to alot of people here, It would of been better if the allies just stayed at home and watched TV while hitler mass murdered millions and took over the globe.

Imagine what would have happend if hitler had nukes and you guys were in command of allied forces.

Um...no one said they'd just take it up the ass, they said they wouldnt butcher millions of civilians for no discernible purpose, but to get back at "them". If a nuclear war happened, there isnt much left to win a war over. Human civilization is basically bye bye, so theres no reason to nuke. Civilian targets can be, in limited degrees, necessary to win a war. But this is a apocalyptic scenario, not an actual conflict in the traditional sense.

[Ältester der Motten]

Imagine what would have happend if hitler had nukes and you guys were in command of allied forces.

I'd have surrendered.

I mean, if I had to choose between 2 milliard people and every civilization -even the concept of civilization- being eraditacated by nuclear bombs, and milions suffering from the radiation even centuries later or 150 million dying and suffering from Nazi terror, I know I'd choose Nazi terror.
I couldn't really live with my decision either way, but this way I'd know I was responsible for the death and suffering of much less people than if I were to "push the button".

Sometimes decisions just ARE easy. This is one of them. Remember this is not about dropping a bomb or two on some important cities. It's about unleashing hell.

This is also still totally ignoring the devastating effect a worldwide nuke party would have on the rest of life and the planet's atmosphere.

If I didnt retaliate the millions of my countrymen who survived would be vulnerable to a second strike or worse...(they have just butchered millions, can you really guarantee they wont annihilate the rest if I leave there military intact?) Do I condemn the rest of the world to soviet rule?

Are you sure you thought about what you wrote here?
"Hey, I don't want you to annihilate everyone, so I'd rather do it myself! Showed ya, sucker!"

Besides, I don't know on what planet you lived, but on my planet the Soviet union was preferable to nuked wasteland.

The end does not justify the means. The idea that it does is the root of all evil.

Could you please elaborate? The way you presented your argument wasn't very convincing.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

No it's like one country attacking another country and the other country retaliating. Pretty straight forward.

Over 40 million civilians died during world war 2, According to alot of people here, It would of been better if the allies just stayed at home and watched TV while hitler mass murdered millions and took over the globe.

Imagine what would have happend if hitler had nukes and you guys were in command of allied forces.

Hitler didn't want to take over the world.

[Strelok]

Yeah, I agree. I would retaliate of course, hitting military installations and such, whatever I could do to slow my enemy down and limit their destructive power. But I wouldnt kill millions of innocent people.

This. I see no reason why the appropriate retaliation would absolutely have to one that result in unaccountable slaughter. If you target the the specific locations such as what you cited, you can definitely reduce or minimize this effect AFAIK.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Nope, definitely not. What it comes down to is basically revenge in the form of genocide.

[Theseus1234]

Honestly? I might. If they were my sworn enemy I wouldn't want them to live very long. Plus I'd be bound to have some sort of arrogance in that sort of position which would prevent me from NOT pushing the button.

[Jingles]

Here's what a Russian friend of mine said when asked the same question:

Well, trust me, I'm not gleefully foaming at the mouth over it, either. But if someone sends nuclear warheads to destroy my family, my friends, my home, my home town, and everything that my country has worked for over the decades, just so that they can build more ing shopping malls and sell more sports cars and breath mints, you'd better believe I'm all about that Mutually Assured Destruction.

While I think that condemning millions to a horrible death is... unsavoury at best, in the heat of the moment, I think part of me agrees with him. And at the end of the day, maybe it would be the only way of hurting the bastard at the other end who pushed his button in the first place. I don't know.

[Phier]

Sometimes youtube delivers even better than you were expecting, I was only looking for the button.



Of course I'd push the button, I'd push it hard and I'd push it twice.

I'd rely on our contingency plans (which we had) to rebuild and I would not let the mothers who just killed a few 100 million of my people be the ones to march in and take control of those who survive, provided of course they didn't just murder them.

[Armenum]

No. I wouldn't resort to primitive 'eye for an eye' mentality. Yes many of my people would die, but that doesn't give justification for many more innocent people to die, regardless of their nationally, I mean at the end of the day we're all humans.

[Phier]

No. I wouldn't resort to primitive 'eye for an eye' mentality. Yes many of my people would die, but that doesn't give justification for many more innocent people to die, regardless of their nationally, I mean at the end of the day we're all humans.

And if phase II was a ground and air assault to finish the job?

Would you commit suicide of yourself and your people?

[Corvis]

This hypothetical usually assumes that your own country was the victim. What if your government was the one to start nuclear armageddon? Would you be fine with that other nation retaliating and murdering you and everyone you know because some s in your government like to blow things up?

[Armenum]

This hypothetical usually assumes that your own country was the victim. What if your government was the one to start nuclear armageddon? Would you be fine with that other nation retaliating and murdering you and everyone you know because some s in your government like to blow things up?

This.

[Theseus1234]

This hypothetical usually assumes that your own country was the victim. What if your government was the one to start nuclear armageddon? Would you be fine with that other nation retaliating and murdering you and everyone you know because some s in your government like to blow things up?

The whole premise of Mutually Assured Destruction relies entirely on the assumption that the other side would do the same to you (that is, the OP of this thread). The factors leading to initiating the armageddon aren't just moral in this case, but political as well.

[BunnyPoopCereal]

No. I wouldn't resort to primitive 'eye for an eye' mentality. Yes many of my people would die, but that doesn't give justification for many more innocent people to die, regardless of their nationally, I mean at the end of the day we're all humans.

I would love to hear your definition of human.

[Boyar Son]

Imagine the year is 1981. You are either the President of the United States of America, or the General Secretary of the Soviet Union (it doesn't matter which). The opposing side in the cold war has just launched a pre-emptive strategic nuclear strike on you and your allies. You have minutes before thousands of warheads impact on your country's soil. Only you have the power to push the button and unleash Armageddon on the enemy in retaliation.

But would you do it? Would you condemn millions to death simply to strike a parting blow? Or would you spare them?

It's an interesting conundrum that I was asked today by someone, and I honestly don't know what I'd do if I was put in that situation.

Yes. Civilians is just another military asset and I will have revenge for targeting me with WMDs.


The rest of you can rot with your morals.