Debate 1,000,000 Lives

depends are there any big side effects like radiation or so,if not then the new weapon.(you should put a poll)

 

Is this a war for our entire country's survival?

 

I would send my troops in, and then as soon as they were entrenched, I would use the new weapon, effectively killing 2,000,000 people (my troops and the civvies).

 

Is there a consequence for being the bigger man and walking away like the other countries?

I would do neither and truce it up :]

But if I had to choose between or the other, I would probably choose to use the weapon.

If I didn't the public would find out and get angry at me for not using the weapon, and blame me for the deaths of their loved ones.

Maybe depending on the Circumstances my decision would be different.
Both scenarios are pretty horrible, but I guess it comes down to a them or you decision, so I'll go with the weapon.

 

Interesting question... the exact same one Harry Truman faced with the decision to drop the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Im guessing you got the idea from there)

Well in WWII, the world had already ceased war by this time in 1945, except for the USA and Japan. The US knew, by its Island hopping tactics, it could easily breach the main island of Japan, and overthrow their emperor, and thus end the war in Japan, however, they knew that the US death toll would be staggering, and that as another option, they could send into full effect the Manhatten Project, knowing it could end the war, but at a great price for Japan.

In the end Truman of course, (after Warning Japan of, "Total and Utter destruction" in the potsdam declaration) launched the first ever atomic weapon at the city of Hiroshima, resulting in the devestation of millions of civilian lives.



In this similar situation, I think I personally would follow in President Truman's footsteps, and unleash this great new weapon on the opposing country. In war, their is no murder, just the death of the enemy, and between OUR lives, and theirs, it'd make much more sense as a country desperate to end a war to not risk out own lives when a quicker finish is possible...

 

Interestingly enough, we can see what the other path would have been like by looking at the current conflict in the middle east.

 

A few things need to be cleared up:

1. The population of each nation.

2. Bomb side effects.

3. Nature of the civilians(likely to rebel).

4. Rest of the world's stance on the issue.

 

Also Hotpokka, the civilians killed will be whole range of people including women and children.

The soldiers go to war, knowing they may have to die for their country

 

That's the one I forgot.

Are they conscripted?

 

well, it was based on math, ide say bomb'em, as even if we lost the same each side, what about who your side killed? if we invaded, 1000000 of us would die, plust an amount almost equel to that in the other country, so it would be near 2000000, but a bomb, total death count: 1000000, of course, killing civies should only be done if all else fails

 

no weapon if the soldiers are volunteer soldiers they understood what could happen to them the civillians have no choice or say there innocent soldiers arent

 

I wrote an essay on this very topic around the same time it was posted, funnily enough. I had to argue in an essay whether Truman was justified or not in dropping the Hiroshima bomb, and following that, the Nagasaki bomb.

I took the side of bombing, and the situation with Japan was even harder to argue than your hypothetical 1,000,000 of them or 1,000,000 of us scenario. Japan was utterly unable to wage an offensive war at the time, having lost most of its air force and navy, and with its supply of oil running out. The war could have been ended with several years of blockade rather than invasion or bombing, so people arguing against the bomb point out the third option and say it would cost very few lives.

The problem was, Japan was totally unwilling to surrender, even though it knew it could be starved. The emperor had to be forced into surrender in order to save the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Japanese citizens from starving to death. Add to that the occupied territories in China where Japanese soldiers were raping and killing civilians, and you have even more lives being lost every day if you delay the end of the war.

The bombs, despite killing as many as half a million people, probably saved more lives than could have been lost in a blockade or invasion. Not to mention both blockade and invasion would cost more money to carry out than a couple bombing missions did, but I don't wanna be too heartless pricing lives in dollar terms.


As for your million them vs million of us situation, drop the bomb. That is the obvious choice every time because they have the option of surrendering and sparing those million lives, we only have the options of invasion and 1,000,000 dying, or bombing and 1,000,000 dying. They killed their own people by choosing not to surrender when warned.

 

I take issue with this argument....The first scenario fails to account for the lost lives of any enemy forces or civilians. In the first scenario, it is clear that your military will suffer severe and heavy loss of life. But what about the enemy? In invading the country conventionally, what casualties will they take? Once one takes this into account, it should be clear what the better course of action will be.

This is one of those "rock and a hard place" dilemmas- either way you will be condemning a lot of people to death. But, in light of the fact that the first scenario does not account for the death toll on both sides, it would seem that the second scenario would end the war, and result in far less lives being lost, ultimately.

In light of this, I would use the weapon.

 

Well, I personally would send in troops because they know that they are fighting and run a risk of dying. However, I understand were bomb people are coming from. I think it also depends on the type of civilians you are facing.

In WWII Japan, most of the japanese civilians were prepared to do anything to stop the american invasion. It would have been alot like the soviet invasion Berlin, Children, old men, and even women, would be fighting. If we had invaded Japan, it's estimated over 3/4s of the Japanease population would have perished, effectivley crushing Japan forever. Not to mention our own death toll estimated at about 2mill.

So, I think it depends on the factors invloved. If the war was between to modernized countrys that both would have submissive civs, than the soldiers are the better option. In most casses, this would be true. But in the case of WWII Japan I think usuing the Atomic bomb was the right thing to do.

 

It really would depend upon my countries safety, because who know they may get this new weapon and kill us all, so I think I would bomb them, I mean innocent life's, but it is needed to save your families, and everyone else in your army.

 

why didn't you just ask about the atomic bomb? anyway of course the politicaly correct answer givien by some is neither/truce/surrender. however power is a hard thing to get and lose. so dropping the bomb winning and an addition. completely kill all those in that nation. this would set an example to show what you can do. after set up a socialist government after it has correctly worked in.kill or banish government officals if they do not give up power to stop facism. this would create everlasting world peace. the killing of 1,000,000 or higher is for the greater good of the 6.3 billion others

 

The invasion - those men knew what they were getting into.