Either Obama surrenders or 10,000,000 Americans could die...

I'm currently sitting in my ethics class. It's extremely boring and my professor is deaf and senile.

So I'm going to pass the time with a little moral dilemma.


Let's say that some Christian terrorist group somehow acquires an array of nuclear and chemical weapons. They disperse these weapons with followers throughout the US in what they consider to be the most "liberal" cities. Let's just say LA, The Bay area, Seattle, Minneapolis, Washington DC, Cambridge, Chicago, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston. Maybe a few others. But at least 10,000,000 people are at risk.

They then announce that they plan on detonating these weapons in the cities. And, for the sake of argument, lets just assume that we know that their threat is legitimate and they are fully capable of following through.

However, the group declares that if Obama and his cabinet resign and hand themselves over to a small group of the Christian terrorists, the weapons will not be used.


Several issues arise from this situation. I don't know that the answer is black and white.


What do you think should happen?

You may have been watching too much of that glorified torture tv program "24" or whatever it's called.

Hekate

This is an imminent threat. If the demands of the terrorists are not met, they WILL detonate their weapons.

I realize that this scenario is extremely unrealistic. It's simply a philosophical exercise.

Once you start they will just ask for more. If 10,000,000 have to die, including myself or my family to maintain our freedom, then so be it. Just avenge us swiftly and with utter brutality.

So I got my laugh for the day. :D

Yes, Mr. Bauer is dead.

who saved the day. That's what happens in fictional scenarios.

As he was already dead the terrorists didn't bother looking for him because they knew he was dead, however death is hardly a problem for comic book super heroes. Afterwords Cap goes to Orlando and saves Marvel from the Disney buyout.

He is dead.

Death does not hinder comic book super heroes.

His soul, material being and any future potential are annihilated.

All other super heroes attempt to fight Ann Coulter and fall victim to the same fate. Humanity is alone.

Everyone knows that Captain America doesn't drink! Your game is up, Red Skull!

as you hoped as Captain America used his indestructible shield to stop the Coulter Medusa.

Ann Coulter morphs into an infinite amount of Ann Coulters and begins to destroy the earth.

He then continues the work Coulter started by absorbing the world for energy.

(because damn it I'd rather be destroyed by Galactus than Coulter.)

How do you kill gumby? You can't stab/shoot him...the hole only seals up. Smash him and he pops right back into shape. Freeze him and it only slows him down. Blow him up and he's a bunch of little gumbys that run and reform. He melts and once again he reforms under fire. You can't imprison him. He walks right through the bars and even flows right through pipes. He can even walk into any book (with his pony pal Pokey too!)

He's like the T1000 without the homicidal inhumanity and with a great big heart!

Yes, truly only Gumby can save us from the Terrorists!

Mr. Clokey. The world needs your creation to stop the terrorists!!!

He will be missed.

n.t.

I am not mocking. I just want to make sure I get what you are saying.

"Exitus acta probat."

The neocons get a taste of their own medicine.

If someone is holding a gun to someone else's head (as in your example) and saying 'You must do XYZ or I'll pull the trigger, don't make me do it'...the fact is that the person holding the gun with a finger on the trigger is the one who's responsible. Saying that someone else's action (or lack of action) is going to 'make them' do something they don't want to do is a trick, one of the oldest tricks in the book, in fact.

The moral thing is to refuse their demands and engage such an enemy aggressively. Yes, there's a risk that they'll go through with their threats and kill millions. But frankly, anyone willing to undertake such behavior is entirely likely to follow through anyway even after they get what they want - to believe otherwise is to think that a group of people who have (in your example) announced their willingness to blow up 10 million people are trustworthy folk who can be taken at their word.

makes the person morally responsible for whatever happens.

But again, you're letting the person with the weapon define the moral dimension, when they're basically just blackmailers.

See: Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada.


www.freethefive.org

---

Surely they'd not want to cause the "demise" of all those unborn babies now would they?

The benefits outweigh the cost.

When it's 10 million "innocents" (or whatever the number was in the OP) they can't.

Nyet.

The likelihood of the attack being successful is much greater than the possibility of them messing it up.

If they have the capacity and we can be sure they intend to exercise it if their demands are not met (perhaps they already blew up Berkeley already), there's no reason to assume they're going to waste all that effort and hand over the detonators if their demands are met - why not just take possession of the cabinet AND blow up all the liberals anyway?

But the point is that we may be able to save lives and buy ourselves some time if we give in to their demands.

You know, in the example you describe you're basically saying the bad guys are intending to commit murder either way, of either a very large # of people or a very powerful subset of people. Although I live in one of the cities that would get blown up in your example, I'm inclined to think there's a very high possibility that they'd blow it up anyway. I mean, what reason is there to think such people are negotiating in good faith?

I'd rather be inclined to say 'I know your type...even if we give you what you ask for, you'll set off the bombs anyway.'

If all those cities got nuked, you would only have a right wing shithead country left anyway. In which case I'd rather be right under the mushroom cloud and get it over with.

Liberty or death. Slavery is not life worth living.

Better to call the bluff, and if they do it, their conquest lies in ruins also. They will suffer from the fallout as well.


Once you give in, they will demand more. This was proven by the Romans, the Vikings, The Vandals, The Goths, The Huns, and The Mongols.

Hell, at least the Vandals put out a couple of decent albums :evilgrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHRu2mo7gxY

All nuclear, chemical and germ whatever stuff would have to disappear from somewhere first. Somebody would notice.

For the sake of argument, we are already past the point where they could be caught. The threat it imminent.

to sacrifice himself.

MAYBE Carter. And MAYBE Ford. He wasn't ever intended to be President in the first place. But I can't think of a single other one in my lifetime who I believe would do it, and I'm not enough of a student of history to speculate on what past presidents may have done.

If I were the president in that situation, I might be a bit more worried about my own ass, not to mention the lives of my family members. Surely the terrorists would kill us if we yielded. They have already shown how heartless they are.

So I would maybe say something noble like, 'we don't ever negotiate with terrorists' so I wouldn't look like such a selfish pig. Then, after the bombs went off, I would express self-righteous anger, horror and grief over the decimated cities and their unfortunate inhabitants.

After that, I would go into hiding with my family.

during the Warren Commission's "investigation". He knew what happened to JFK and wouldn't dare temp fate.

Describe a mechanism how they could verify their actions (to disarm the bombs) without being caught.

On edit: And if they could prove that the bombs exist in the location specified then again they're a lot closer to being stopped. And if they were unwilling to prove the bombs exist in the locations specified why would you believe them?

In order to be able to make a threat like this credible, your adversaries have to believe that there is some scenario under which the bomb will not go off. Merely threatening to detonate a bomb does not mean they are willing to follow through and thus it does not merit stepping down. Certainly negotiating with them would be in order, but giving into all of their demands would not necessarily be, especially since it is certainly possible they are willing to settle for less and that they are not truly willing to set off the bomb.

A situation that would merit him stepping down is if they attached the bomb to a doomsday device with no override mechanism ala Dr. Strangelove and the only way to prevent the device from detonating is if he and the cabinet stepped down. Of course in such a situation I would only consider stepping down, not necessarily doing it in every case. It depends on who would take over the government afterwards. If I simply have to hand over the government to say, the Speaker of the House, I would do it. If I had to hand it over to the Christian terrorists, I probably would not.

I'm assuming after Obama surrenders, they will establish a Christocracy of some sort? Blow me up, please.

More seriously: why trust that the terrorists will do as they claim? In particular, why believe that they won't kill the 10m people if their demands are met?

What will happen if their demands aren't met.

The armed forces would not submit to this. If they did, this they would be complicit before the fact, and this would be a military coup. If the armed forces are constitutionalist, then a "small group" could assume formal power, but could never exercise it. The police - would they submit to a fascist coup? What about millions of gun owners?

Obama would not submit, of course, nor should he do so. There would be no way to verify compliance with any "surrender" terms in any case. They could use the weapons any way in order to sow disorder and help consolidate their power over restless groups.

I would advise engaging the group in negotiations while preparing for a counter-attack. Also arming and mobilization of formal and informal armed military reserves. The consequences of an attempted fascist coup would be disastrous for the political right.

there is no reason to trust the statements of someone that would kill 10 million people.

And, beyond that, the earth is somewhat overpopulated anyway.

Just kidding, folks. Just kidding.

:P :sarcasm:

Missing in Action style

The bombs are already deployed. They know we are willing to cave into their demands. What is to stop them from making other demands? Anyone willing to go to the ends of planting nukes obviously has ambitions that go beyond a simple hostage taking.

But, ultimately it's Obama's decision, not mine.

If he and his Cabinet did resign, I'd certainly hope that President Pelosi would hunt down and publicly execute every last treasonous criminal connected to the plot.

:*

And, on your way home, STAY OFF MY LAWN.

Never surrender to terrorists. It encourages more terrorism.

With less corporate control over their lives, more people would be forced to think for themselves.

I'd say we'd take a sucky hit in the art world, but in the greater scheme, art stopped mattering to the majority's daily lives some time during the 1970s, when the entertainment industry whored everything out :(

They'd probably jump at the deal and give us something extra...

:P

And think how happy WE would be!!!