An ethical dilemma, which do you choose?

[Beet]

You are the leader of your small nation of 1 million people. There is a larger, more powerful nation which, for reasons out of your control, hates your nation and tries to chase it down with the object of destroying it. Fortunately, you have a reliable way of escaping his larger nation, but not before, every generation, that nation is able to kill off 10% of your population. This has been going on for as many generations as history records.

If, instead of fleeing, you choose to turn around and fight this larger nation, there is a 10% chance you will succeed, but a 90% chance your nation will be entirely wiped out, and there will never be another generation again.

If you continue to flee, your nation is 98% guaranteed to be able to survive indefinitely into the future, under the status quo, a 1% chance it will be wiped out anyway, and a 1% chance the threat will miraculously disappear.

Which do you choose?

[DC Al Fine]

Option two. Not out of any ethical reasoning. I'm just quite conservative when it comes to decision making.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Option two. Not out of any ethical reasoning. I'm just quite conservative when it comes to decision making.

[RFayette]

Moderate hero:  put it up to a vote and decide accordingly.

[DavidB.]

1967 proves the second option right.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Option two. Not out of any ethical reasoning. I'm just quite conservative when it comes to decision making.

1967 proves the second option right.

People seem confused as to which option is one, and which is two. Do you mind editing the options to "fight" and "flight"?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Moderate hero:  put it up to a vote and decide accordingly.

This. No leader, even if democratically elected and well-intentioned, has the right to make such a decision for the others. The choice belongs to all of the people.

I myself would probably vote option 2, and I suspect a wide majority would.

[°Leprechaun]

Option two is a no brainer.
Also, as a pacifist, it is the only option for me.

The reason that everyone is not a pacifist, is the simple reality, (a crazy one at that),  as was stated on the television series "All in the Family" (by a vigilante Jew) that "homo sapiens is a killer species".

[dead0man]

option 2, but work really really REALLY hard on figuring out a way out of this mess....wait.  Can we pick which 10%?


Did it just get cold in here?

[Vosem]

Second option, and I consider myself fairly hawkish. I don't think a choice with a 90% chance that your nation dies out is much of a choice at all.

[Ban my account ffs!]

option 2, but work really really REALLY hard on figuring out a way out of this mess....wait.  Can we pick which 10%?


Did it just get cold in here?

Yeah you know immediately that that would happen.

The result would be a society, where, at best, there was a lottery for those who would be killed.  But in reality they'd just start labeling people into various classes with the bottom 10% of classes always pushed out for the slaughter.  Whether this was done formally, or they just kinda let the slower people fall behind... the result is the same.

Option 1.

We live together or we die together.  Those motherf**kers over there will not destroy our society from within.

[dead0man]

option 2, but work really really REALLY hard on figuring out a way out of this mess....wait.  Can we pick which 10%?


Did it just get cold in here?

Yeah you know immediately that that would happen.

oh yeah.  I mean, in a perfect world you could weed out the weak and the dumb and potentially advance your society passed the one that keeps kicking your ass.....but that's not how it would play out.  (and even that is a bit funked up, hence the "did it just get cold in here?" joke).....I don't know...it's dark as hell to think about, but if you're going to lose 10% no matter what....a society probably should at least pick the old if not the ugly and dumb instead of totally random.

"grandpa Corky survived the purge, but the pre-med star of the Uni basketball team is dead?  That's not good."
"yeah, and Beet's Angel of Death passed over both McDonald's and Wal Mart entirely but got the Mayor's newborn and the town Rabbi."
"worst of all, Tom Hanks is gone, but we seem to have more Kardashians than ever!"

[vanguard96]

For everyone seeing as most are saying 'flight' what percentage of success would change your mind to 'fight'? 50-50, 30-70?

Also to the OP would the people be in one country while fleeing or spread around like in the real world?

[CatoMinor]

Other people's lives are not mine to give so two, while leaning heavily towards some sort of Ghandi option if possible. I know full well a Ghandi in this scenario would likely just be killed off by the aggressor.

[Mr. Smith]

Opt. 1

Little good can come from cannibalizing out a 10% to die as some kind of sacrifice and the cycle just continues

[136or142]

Consult with Captain James T. Kirk,  the first person to defeat the Kobayshi Maru test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

[The Puppeteer]

In general I prefer to avoid conflict but I will always stand strong for my convictions.