Nuclear bomb

[Gámbller]

Are people really saying no to this? Damn. You could find 10 people willing to give their lives up for a few hundred thousand in no time.

+1

I assume you would have to do the killing by your own hand ie. with a gun and staring those innocents you are going to kill. If theres really young children in those 10 victims and all victims are unwilling to be sacrified, I really dont know would I be able to do it. I wouldnt do it, if whole world would know about this "execution" and that I was the killer. Even if it was some "inside"-thingy, that info has a risk to leak and someone would hunt me down for killing those innocents even if it would save thousands of people. But then again, if I think this way, I am not willing to sacrifice my life for thousands of people.

tl;dr: Would kill, if nobody wouldnt know that I was the killer.

[BoomChickn]

I would... more people left alive in the end.

[Brettshock]

Easy answer,
Me Chuck Norris, Mr T, Kurt Russell and Steven Segal would fly in a stealth plane kill all the guys and defuse the bomb while it's in the air before it hits, holding nothing but a hunting knife...Kurt Russel will probably die...

Why not let Chuck Norris die? That guy's a dick.

[Deleted]

Yes i will , kill 10 and save x1000 more people .

[Catta]

True, but at the same time, even with the patient's consent, you're invoking survivor guilt onto those that receive the help. It's not black and white.

not talking about the others, talking about you, the one who reads this, choice of doing nothing or actively killing others but saving others at the same time

[therealpeni]

lol, hell no.

in fact, it sadly enough would be good if half of the human population would be gone, more room for nature, and just about anyone could live in a good condition.
thing is, once u start thinking bout who would have to go and who to stay, none would count himself

[PriestAlisha]

Honestly if you tried to get 10 people to volunteer you'd have to prove to them that the only way to stop the bomb would be to forfeit their lives. Otherwise, if you went out and killed 10 people, stopping the bomb, thus nothing happens, you'd spend the rest of your days either rotting away or executed depending on the state. So you're better off asking would you sacrifice 9 other people, and yourself, to stop a nuclear bomb on a city you cared about.

[pickley]

watch out, dealing with a regular psychopath here...

Killing 10-100 people so millions can live does not make you a Psychopath

[Brettshock]

not talking about the others, talking about you, the one who reads this, choice of doing nothing or actively killing others but saving others at the same time

If I were the doctor I'd do my job and be there for the people in need, and try to give them solace in their final moments. If everyone went 'hero mode' to try to save as much people as possible, the line between 'hero' and 'insane' starts to fade. If every doctor out there started doing this, and they're praised for it, or feel morally justified, they'll start pushing the boundaries farther. Those boundaries are there for a reason.

[Theelol]

ofc, even 10000<1000000

[Deleted]

No because I wouldn't have the balls for it.

But because i'm on the internet i'll say yes because then i'll be famous and girls will like me.

[Deleted]

When i read the title i thought of 'KABOOM' lol, silly me :>

OT: I prefer not to... But 10 deaths compared to 100.000 others, yes. I would go for the hobos btw.

[Deleted]

every sane person have to say Yes
the rest is just trolls

i would go watchmen style
killing millions to save billions

[GKLeatherCraft]

okay then lets say it would save a 1000 people... just for the sake of argument

Yeh i reckon i still would at that point, the gaps pretty large still in comparison,but i would probaly only do it then if it would greatly benefit something, or if it was where i live, as 1000 really isnt much compared to saving hundreds of thousands/millions

At the end of the day this mainly comes down to "the lesser of two evils"

[Brettshock]

every sane person have to say Yes
the rest is just trolls

i would go watchmen style
killing millions to save billions

How is it sane to kill 10 innocent people to potentially save 20. As I've said before, the size of the nuke isn't specified. There are many small nukes that would cause a small amount of damage.

[Adam Jensen]

Yes.

Ten dead vs millions dead?

[Xalden]

Hell yeah I would. No doubt I would be the first one out the door and if it really came down to it I would offer myself as well. but to sacrifice 10 for thousands and even millions that could be saved? I honestly would probly grab my gun go outside anf scream "ONE" as i shot myself after 9 others... Just sayin... lol

[Catta]

Killing 10-100 people so millions can live does not make you a Psychopath

no, its the wanting to increase it to be 100 from 10 when theres no reason to do so

[anveena]

every sane person have to say Yes
the rest is just trolls

i would go watchmen style
killing millions to save billions

I don't know, kill 10 people or kill no one seems pretty easy for myself.

[Catta]

Yeh i reckon i still would at that point, the gaps pretty large still in comparison,but i would probaly only do it then if it would greatly benefit something, or if it was where i live, as 1000 really isnt much compared to saving hundreds of thousands/millions

At the end of the day this mainly comes down to "the lesser of two evils"

in that case people would be scared shitless of going to the hospital if they could be pulled into the backroom at any minute and have their organs taken