Nuke or invade? It's your choice.

Imagine it’s late 2021. Imagine that one of your children is at the point end of the American military. A foreign country has decided to test the new President and committed a grave outrage. America has gathered forces to invade and set things right and your child is a member of those forces. Your child is also an American citizen.

You suddenly hear that Air Force One has landed nearby. A few minutes later a local police officer and a member of the Secret Service turn up. The latter says, “The President requests the pleasure of your company.” Intrigued, you go with them to Air Force One. Before boarding, you are disarmed. Then you are ushered aboard and into the presence of the President and the President’s husband. The three of you are alone in the cabin. The President rises, shakes your hand, and says, “I’m sure you’re aware of the current situation. I have two options: America can invade and there are likely to be significant casualties, or I can launch a nuclear strike. I won’t go into any details of either plan for obvious reasons. And I ask myself, ‘How I can I risk the lives of so many Americans?’ I have no children of my own; your’s is one of of those there. So I ask you what should America do? Nuke or invade?”

How say you?

I voted invade since a nuke would likely kill innocent people. If you could guarantee that nuking only impacted military targets that might sway my decision.

Wow, we have a gay president in 2021?
Cool.

NUKE!

It’s item #4, subsection D, of the revised Gay Agenda #69691 date 08/13/2018

I decline the request and close/lock my door.

I hate to fight the hypothetical, but if the president wants to speak with me, there’s a problem and I want no part of it.

(post shortened)

In your scenario, is the President a woman, or a gay man, or something else? I’m just wondering why your choice of President would choose to ask the average person-on-the-street such an important question?

To answer your question, it would depend on which foreign country had decided to test the new President by committing a grave outrage. If it’s North Korea, I would recommend that the new President nuke ‘em because I believe their glorious leader is an unstable person and fuckin’ nuts. If it were some other foreign country, I would suggest that the President nuke North Korea and then inform the offending foreign country that they are next. I don’t know if the President or the President’s husband would accept my advice.

So this is about Chechnya?

Then I don’t have enough information to give you an informed opinion. Being president, you SHOULD have that information and access to experts on both the political and military ramifications. You wanted this job, so do it…Mr/Mrs. President. Good luck…and try not to screw the pooch…

He has the information; he just won’t share it with you.

I voted invade. Absent other information, I don’t see any reason to use nukes. The risks are too great, on several levels.

In Britain we are often consulted unawares by the puzzled powers that be for problems great and small *.

In this case I would advise him ** to invade. There is no excuse for irradiating tens or 100s of thousand of people and millions of animals as well as the good earth to save lives. Not even the life most precious of all to me. I’m not that vain.

  • For we are wise and wonderful.

** I think a gay will be elected president sometime before a lady is; hell, prolly a furry before then.

Right. So, I don’t have the information to make an informed opinion on the matter.

Is this question really supposed to be about a moral dilemma between killing tens of millions of innocent foreigners on one hand; and having the life of one’s child risked after s/he voluntarily joined the armed forces on the other hand?

I’ve got to say, if this thread is an effort to make people think hard about a moral question, it is a total failure in that respect.

Most polls are idiotic and useless but this one achieves new lows of febrile bootlessness in its unjustified dichotomy and pointless hypothetical moral versus personal conflict. The only thing that can be gained from consideration of this question is that is essentially impossible to make a strictly ethical decision to use nuclear weapons.

Stranger

Kill the president, hope that the VP is less bloodthirsty.

Oh yeah? Would you rather use nuclear weapons against an unnamed country for vague reasons, or have me drink a cup of tea?

Chew on that one!

What makes you think that tens of millions will be killed? You are not told projected casualty levels. You have the information in the OP. Speculation beyond that is just that: speculation.

Most rational and thoughtful l answer so far.

If the beverage in question came from the Nutri-Matic Drink Dispenser and was almost but not quite entirely unlike tea the answer would be evident and incontrovertible.

Because why would you bother trying to be informed about the potential consequences of such a decision? If possible, this poll just got even dumber.

Stranger

“Don’t ask me, I voted for Kodos.”

If few people will be killed in a nuclear war, then I estimate fewer will be killed in a conventional war.