Tough Decision

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Hypothetical scenario:

You are the president of your country(Alexania) that has been in a bloody war with another country(Bobistan) for several years because the queen of Bobistan hates all Alexanians and is so beautiful she can entrance the men of her country into mindlessly fighting your country. However, you can end the war by nuking the capital city of Bobistan(Bob City) where she resides. Unfortunately, besides the Queen and her small retinue Bob City, is inhabited only by noncombatants. There are 100,000 people in Bob City and they are all female, or under 16. or over 70. You have no way to pinpoint the Queens exact location so you have destroy the whole city to be sure to kill her. Once she is dead and word gets out the country will immediately sue for peace and the war will be over.

However, you have one other option. Since Bobistan is an Island nation, you could instead opt to completely blockade Bobistan with your navy. You have already completely destroyed Bobistan's airforce and navy and their capacity to create more ships and planes. Their army and militia is still well equipped and dangerous. Bobistan is completely self sufficient as far as food and medicines go so no Bobians will die because of the blockade just as the Bobians can't harm the Alexian blockaders. For the blockade to be successful, 100,000 Alexian men(who are drafted) need to be stationed at all times around Bobistan which is 3,000 miles away from home. After 10 years of blockade, the Bobistans will sue for peace because their Queen will become older and fatter and unable to use her looks to keep her country in the war.


So, what will you do? Will you kill 100,000 innocents of the other country or do you spend ten years blockading the other country?





This is a hypothetical scenario, so don't try to weasel out of this decision.

 

[angeleyes]

I'll spend ten years blockading, Odysseus spend ten years of his life to capture Troye.

 

[Phlegmak]

Hypothetical situations are generally ridiculous. However, this one is more reasonable than most. I voted to blockade.

 

[Synobun]

Blockade, the 100, 000 innocent people isn't worth it.

 

[Sidhe]

Blockade, if you've destroyed the air force there powerless anyway, and any land assault by them could be nothing less than catastrophic in that situation, they are a lame duck. You'd just bomb the Bejesus out of any army that came near yours, so just blockade.

Killing 100000 people is morally repugnant. I'd say the same about Japan too, since it's the same situation, they had no real airforce, no real navy and were pretty much dead in the water? But then this is theoretical not real, right?

 

[Babbler]

I send my crack team of ninjas into her country to kill her.

 

[warpus]

I say blockade the Japanese.. errr, I mean the Bobanians.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

No nuking and blockading?

I'll go for the latter then.

 

[Nylan]

Blockading, but only because of the guarenteed certainty of surrender and that there is no way they can break the blockade or kill our boys some more

 

[Mirc]

Obviously, blockade.

 

[sabo]

I'd say blockade but I dno't understand why it would take 10 years, even if they are self sufficient there is always something of value to get through trade, and would therefore upset the country if they were negated from getting those goods. What about cheap TV's and cars from technostan, or silk from silkwormograd, or cows and sheep from civ4apolis?

 

[Fifty]

blockade, nuke, rinse, repeat for fifty years.

 

[Perfection]

Surrender to the queen!

 

[Tycoon101]

Why are women/children/old persons considered noncombatants? It is best to assure oneself of victory and the end of a potential rival.

Besides, death by nuclear weaponry would be much less painful than death by starvation. Island nations cannot be expected to contain enough food to last for 10 years while blockaded.

 

[scipian]

Nuke. I think 10 years of combat would make this painfully worthwhile. I'd make sure to reward the survivor's families and point out that we did not wish to do so. This would save lives from starvation, disease, ill medical treatment, and all the associated costs of war. I'd rather have a fiery hailstorm than a slow, practically endless war of attrition.

 

[thenooblet22]

Outrageous, how dare you suggest we would ever nuke the Japa-ahem, I mean Bobistan...

 

[Perfection]

Outrageous, how dare you suggest we would ever nuke the Japa-ahem, I mean Bobistan...

The saying that further lives wouldn't be lost is quite questionable in the Japenese case.

 

[Cannae]

I think that we should send men over there... Or wait are all the inhabitants lesbians?

 

[thenooblet22]

Humor aside, this "hypothetical" situation doesn't fully reenact all of the conditions. The biggest of which was the enroaching beast of Uncle Joe who wanted a piece of those lands too. Also, you should the option for Alexania to bomb other targets besides cities. It would keep deaths minimum and show Uncle Joe who's boss

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Nuke, I don't need to spend any more resources on this war than I already have. My men deserve to come home, not sit in some foreign port for 10 years.