NationStates Jolt Archive

Some posters have been advocating the Mongol method in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

So, here's the question:
If you could magically end war forever by killing a certain perecent of the world's population, what would you consider to be the acceptable limit beyond which the costs outweigh the benifits?

Are you willing to kill 1? 10? 100? 1 billion? 6 billion?

The world already has way too many people. So, I chose 1 billion, because you get the best of both worlds: Lots of dead people, and world peace.

Do I have to kill them or do they just drop dead?

If you can choose any percentage, why wouldn't anyone choose 0%? Best of both worlds :D

None, for as soon as I start, where do I stop and how do I choose who should die?

None, for as soon as I start, where do I stop and how do I choose who should die?
What if it was just random people, but not you.

Some posters have been advocating the Mongol method in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

So, here's the question:
If you could magically end war forever by killing a certain perecent of the world's population, what would you consider to be the acceptable limit beyond which the costs outweigh the benifits?

Are you willing to kill 1? 10? 100? 1 billion? 6 billion?
Wouldn't that be pretty much everyone give or take a few million?

What if it was just random people, but not you.
Then HELL NO!

The problem with killing all the 'bad guys' is who is bad? How do you define this?

So thank you, but no.

Then HELL NO!

The problem with killing all the 'bad guys' is who is bad? How do you define this?

So thank you, but no.
Slow down, I didn't say "bad guys." I said random people. Could be good or bad.

Does this assume that no one will ever be born again? I'm pretty sure there is a jackass born every minute.

Slow down, I didn't say "bad guys." I said random people. Could be good or bad.
Sorry, I was tacking the bad guy part on.

I should have said, I can see the idea of killing the bad guys...

But randomly? You would reap both the innocent and the damned.

Sorry, I was tacking the bad guy part on.

I should have said, I can see the idea of killing the bad guys...

But randomly? You would reap both the innocent and the damned.
Right, that's what I was saying. Would you do it then?

Does this assume that no one will ever be born again? I'm pretty sure there is a jackass born every minute.
I think its more of a kill so many people that the rest are too afraid to act up ever again. Kinda like a teacher being really strict for the first week in order to show students that they need to behave, but easing up after that.

Right, that's what I was saying. Would you do it then?
As I said, HELL NO!

War is way too important to end; it must go on only such a “bad”* thing can drive technology, and instate discipline in the masses. to be truthful, if we take the racist parts out of the NAZI party then that would have been grate for Germany and the rest of the world.

*not the word I want but I can’t spell; praise be to spell check.

This is a tough question.

The answer is probably higher than you'd like to admit it is.

But, obviously, in real life, the question never manifests in such a clear-cut way.

As I said, HELL NO!
Not so long ago, I would say the same exact thing. But then something changed and I wouldn't mind seeing a billion or two people wiped off the face of the Earth. Provided they weren't my brothers or parents. Or me.

Kill everyone that'd end war forever cause there'd be no one left to fight. Seriously though killing for peace is like screwing for virginity. But alot of prophets have said WW3 would bring world peace. I guess there's some logic to this as a nuclear war would destroy most of the world's armies and once the anarchy killlings cease and the world stabilizes it'll be a good long time before anyone can rebuild the military sufficiently to launch any kind of major conflict. Hopefully though survivors of a nuclear holocaust would work hard to avoid repeating history's mistakes. But then again we said that after World War 2 and we, well, we didn't do that. Interesting question though, albeit a bit strange,morbid and disturbing.(but I like the odd questions however)

Kill everyone that'd end war forever cause there'd be no one left to fight. Seriously though killing for peace is like screwing for virginity. But alot of prophets have said WW3 would bring world peace. I guess there's some logic to this as a nuclear war would destroy most of the world's armies and once the anarchy killlings cease and the world stabilizes it'll be a good long time before anyone can rebuild the military sufficiently to launch any kind of major conflict. Hopefully though survivors of a nuclear holocaust would work hard to avoid repeating history's mistakes. But then again we said that after World War 2 and we, well, we didn't do that. Interesting question though, albeit a bit strange,morbid and disturbing.(but I like the odd questions however)
Welcome to the forum. :fluffle:

I would offer myself as a sacrifice if it would ensure world peace..but beyond that i wouldn't want any one else to die..

Not so long ago, I would say the same exact thing. But then something changed and I wouldn't mind seeing a billion or two people wiped off the face of the Earth. Provided they weren't my brothers or parents. Or me.
At a billion people, that's a 1 in 6 chance, not good odds.

But no, I cannot condone just killing people for peace.

I would offer myself as a sacrifice if it would ensure world peace..but beyond that i wouldn't want any one else to die..
What if you had to allow me to eat your innards in front of your children? Would you still do it?

At a billion people, that's a 1 in 6 chance, not good odds.

But no, I cannot condone just killing people for peace.
Well, if there was a magickal shelter that would protect us, I would do it. Otherwise, it would be like playing Russian roulette;)

every seems to think that killing a billion people is a good idea..sure use nukes to kill off of the "idiots", reduce the pop of the world..but what about all the rotting corpses? that would undoubtedly cause widespread pandemics, killing off more people..maybe even to the point of the human race facing extinction..grand idea:rolleyes:

What if you had to allow me to eat your innards in front of your children? Would you still do it?


well it would be horrible for them to see..but if i knew it meant that they(my future children) could be sure of peace for their lives, i'd do it.

every seems to think that killing a billion people is a good idea..sure use nukes to kill off of the "idiots", reduce the pop of the world..but what about all the rotting corpses? that would undoubtedly cause widespread pandemics, killing off more people..maybe even to the point of the human race facing extinction..grand idea:rolleyes:
it's called quarantine.

it's called quarantine.


yeah like you could contain it in every corner of the earth...especially in like china... or africa...

Seriously though killing for peace is like screwing for virginity.
How else are you going to make more virgins?

How else are you going to make more virgins?


cloning?

To have and understand peace, one must have conflict, just as the knowledge of good comes from the acknowledgement of evil. Peace can never be assured, therefore, because there must always be a balancing force for it.

None. You can't make the world peaceful. It has to do that itself.....

*thinks*

I'd kill a billion if I got to choose who. 500 million Indians and 500 million Chinese. I got nothing against them, but they're messing up the balance of power.

*thinks*

I'd kill a billion if I got to choose who. 500 million Indians and 500 million Chinese. I got nothing against them, but they're messing up the balance of power.

You're priceless.

Make sure you only kill the old ones though...

*thinks*

I'd kill a billion if I got to choose who. 500 million Indians and 500 million Chinese. I got nothing against them, but they're messing up the balance of power.


are you serious? :eek:

are you serious? :eek:

Well, I probably wouldn't actually do it, but on paper, yeah. I mean, take 3 random people from anywhere, and odds are that one of them will be either Indian or Chinese. That's fucked up. I miss the good old days when there were 5 million people on the whole planet. >_>

Well, I probably wouldn't actually do it, but on paper, yeah. I mean, take 3 random people from anywhere, and odds are that one of them will be either Indian or Chinese. That's fucked up. I miss the good old days when there were 5 million people on the whole planet. >_>


like 50 KYA?

like 50 KYA?

Say what now?

Say what now?


thats when there were like 5 million "people" 50 thousand years ago..but i totally disaggree with your view..I think everyone..no matter who has power, should be allowed to live. personally the more people there are the more a chance i have at getting laid by a hot chick(since women out number men)

To have and understand peace, one must have conflict, just as the knowledge of good comes from the acknowledgement of evil. Peace can never be assured, therefore, because there must always be a balancing force for it.
So if everyone stopped fighting, we wouldn't have peace because there would be no conflict. Makes sense to me. Bring on a world with no peace or conflict, and I'll be happy.

None, for as soon as I start, where do I stop and how do I choose who should die?
Yeah...

Not so long ago, I would say the same exact thing. But then something changed and I wouldn't mind seeing a billion or two people wiped off the face of the Earth. Provided they weren't my brothers or parents. Or me.

Quick to sacrifice others, so long as you are spared any pain.

*thinks*

I'd kill a billion if I got to choose who. 500 million Indians and 500 million Chinese. I got nothing against them, but they're messing up the balance of power.

You have a lot more thinking to do. Go put your nose in the corner until you've thought your way through.

Yeah...

Well god does it by sticking a pin in a map. It's usually in africa, but it could just as easily be India or the Middle East.

Well god does it by sticking a pin in a map. It's usually in africa, but it could just as easily be India or the Middle East.

What is this god you speak of and what bearing does it have on me?

;p

Well, I probably wouldn't actually do it, but on paper, yeah. I mean, take 3 random people from anywhere, and odds are that one of them will be either Indian or Chinese. That's fucked up. I miss the good old days when there were 5 million people on the whole planet. >_>

At what point in history do you think the planet was primarily white/European?

How far are you willing to go to ensure world peace?

I would walk 500 miles.

What is this god you speak of and what bearing does it have on me?

;p

Provided you are not in africa, india, or the middle east, none. Otherwise, 'ware the pin.

Well, I probably wouldn't actually do it, but on paper, yeah. I mean, take 3 random people from anywhere, and odds are that one of them will be either Indian or Chinese. That's fucked up. I miss the good old days when there were 5 million people on the whole planet. >_>

Yes, that makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

At what point in history do you think the planet was primarily white/European?


It has always been white...i mean even the single cell organisms we evolved from had blonde hair and blue eyes...and we all know Jesus was white...fools..

At what point in history do you think the planet was primarily white/European?

Clearly, when there was only five million people on the planet.

Black people came later.

Adam and Eve were Swedish.

Clearly, when there was only five million people on the planet.

Black people came later.


I was going to make a comment about feces...but never mind...i have better taste than that.

I would walk 500 miles.

And I would walk 500 more.

...and we all know Jesus was white...fools..

Well, yeah. But that's because he was english.

Well, yeah. But that's because he was english.


But i thought his "wife' mary magdalene moved to france..what kind of englishman would allow that to happen?

But i thought his "wife' mary magdalene moved to france..what kind of englishman would allow that to happen?

He was dead (-ish) at that point. So she did a bunk to the south of france with his life insurance. Typical.

He was dead (-ish) at that point. So she did a bunk to the south of france with his life insurance. Typical.


damn women..i bet she met up with peter, paul and john and had an orgy

damn women..i bet she met up with peter, paul and john and had an orgy
That whore:eek:

damn women..i bet she met up with peter, paul and john and had an orgy

Well what can you expect if you marry a groupie?

I would kill everyone for world peace.

atleast it might actually acheive world peace

Quick to sacrifice others, so long as you are spared any pain.
.
Umm...yeah, that's exactly what I said. I know it's wrong, but it's just the way I feel, so shoot me.

If you can choose any percentage, why wouldn't anyone choose 0%? Best of both worlds :D

Re-read the question. That isn't what I asked.

Do I have to kill them or do they just drop dead?

Does it really matter?

Wouldn't that be pretty much everyone give or take a few million?

That's why it's the upper limit. Someo0ne choosing that as their upper limit would be willing to kill 99+% of the human population to achieve world peace.

None. You can't make the world peaceful. It has to do that itself.....

That's why I said "magically"...

That's why I said "magically"...


Problem, dude. Problem is that in an age in which too many piddly-ass countries have nukes, wars have an increased potential to magically eradicate the entire human race.

What do you mean by the Mongol method? Surrender or die?

What do you mean by the Mongol method? Surrender or die?

It refers to the methods used by the Mongol Khans to ensure peace within the empire. It boils down to: when someone opposes you, slaughter every single man, woman, and child, no exceptions. The reference was to various people who have advocated use of nuclear weapons against Iran/the Islamic world.

Problem, dude. Problem is that in an age in which too many piddly-ass countries have nukes, wars have an increased potential to magically eradicate the entire human race.

Which is where the whole thread comes from.

It refers to the methods used by the Mongol Khans to ensure peace within the empire. It boils down to: when someone opposes you, slaughter every single man, woman, and child, no exceptions. The reference was to various people who have advocated use of nuclear weapons against Iran/the Islamic world.



Which is where the whole thread comes from.

Considering all of the above:

Go Mongol Option.

Why isnt there a "pie in the face" option?

And I'll just add that I find it worrysome that the poll currently stands at 7 people who wouldn't kill even one person if it ment an end to war and 14 who would kill billions, with a couple of votes in between. (The 14 WTF? votes are simply spoiled ballots.)

Nobody's willing to take a middle ground stance.

Why isnt there a "pie in the face" option?

WTF?

And I'll just add that I find it worrysome that the poll currently stands at 7 people who wouldn't kill even one person if it ment an end to war and 14 who would kill billions, with a couple of votes in between. (The 14 WTF? votes are simply spoiled ballots.)

Nobody's willing to take a middle ground stance.
*summons puppet*

Well, yeah. But that's because he was english.

Huh? Everyone knows Jesus was American. :p

If murder can prevent more murder, the 1bil+ please!

It really depends on what's at stake. World Peace is really impossible (unless you hit the 6 billion figure). However, if a horde of barbarians were coming to rape, kill, and eat everyone I cared about, I'd say kill however many it took. If there were 6 billion barbarians, then there would be a serious problem, but they started it; I just wanted to be left in peace.

Interesting thread, with the moral dilemma being very similar to the one that Dostoevsky had in his book The Brothers Karamazov. Wasn't too difficult to find the bit I was looking for -

"Tell me straight out, I call on you—answer me: imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, one child, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears—would you agree to be the architect on such conditions?. . . And can you admit the idea that the people for whom you are building would agree to accept their happiness on the unjustified blood of a tortured child, and having accepted it, to remain forever happy?"

I still find it a difficult issue though. Sometimes I feel that 1 billion+ as suggested would be what I would choose, and other times that 0 is the right option. At the moment I feel more that it is not justified, so I chose 0.

Huh? Everyone knows Jesus was American. :p

That's a mormon lie; and you know it.

Interesting thread, with the moral dilemma being very similar to the one that Dostoevsky had in his book The Brothers Karamazov. Wasn't too difficult to find the bit I was looking for -

"Tell me straight out, I call on you—answer me: imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, one child, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears—would you agree to be the architect on such conditions?. . . And can you admit the idea that the people for whom you are building would agree to accept their happiness on the unjustified blood of a tortured child, and having accepted it, to remain forever happy?"

I still find it a difficult issue though. Sometimes I feel that 1 billion+ as suggested would be what I would choose, and other times that 0 is the right option. At the moment I feel more that it is not justified, so I chose 0.


I seem to recall that 2 of the brothers did not agree at the outcome.

On may accept. Or may not. A reasonable and honourable man could decide on any of the 2.

I will happily agree that the one killing isn't justified.

But I may choose for the Other Option - out of fear, no, certain knowledge! - that another person with perhaps less honourable motives might decide to become the Architect.

The question requires a weighing-up of numbers of dead, the question of the number of innocent dead, etc... Tough. I'd just continue campaigning against wars, I think. :rolleyes:

It refers to the methods used by the Mongol Khans to ensure peace within the empire. It boils down to: when someone opposes you, slaughter every single man, woman, and child, no exceptions. The reference was to various people who have advocated use of nuclear weapons against Iran/the Islamic world.



Which is where the whole thread comes from.
Ok, that's what I thought.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/8624/colorvisualize1ke.jpg (http://www.vhemt.org/)

Why bother to end war? I chose zero because I don't mind it when people fight. One death is not worth world peace, because world peace would make life boring.

in real life...in real life.. you may try to kill some "problems" ..but sooner or later other problems appear.

That's a mormon lie; and you know it.


ironically enough, my mom told me that the mormons stopped by the house today, and she played the crazy act and scared them off..ahh the joy of terrorizing mormons.

Wouldn't that be pretty much everyone give or take a few million?

You can't kill everyone give a few million. That's more people than exist. So it would have to be take a few million.