Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Watchmen
submitted by student - The book Watchmen takes place in Cold War era New York. America and Soviet Russia are close to nuclear war. The only way to stop the war involves killing half of NYC...would you do this in order to stop a nuclear war or would you save NY and allow the war to start? Why would you make your decision?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
if that was the only way to stop the nuclear war, then yes. but if there as another way, then no. a nuclear war could kill billions of people, which is way more than half of new york. alot of people would suffer if the nuclear war was not stopped. it would be awfull to have to kill half of new york but if it was to stop a nuclear war, the n ti would be worth it.
I would kill half of New York if it was the only way to stop the war. Its better for a little amount of people to die than have millions of people to die in battle. However if there was another way to end the war than I would choose to save New York. It would be a big sacrifice to kill half of New York but it would be worth it if it ment saving many more.
I wouldnt want to kill half of New York but if it was the only way to stop the nuclear war, then I would. Like Megg and ds11 said, a nuclear war could possibly kill billions of people! It would be the best decision to lose a smaller amount of people than the extremely large amount we would lose if a nuclear war took place.
I agree with Kendall, I would rather find another way to solve the situation, but if I had to kill half of NYC then I would. I'd rather have half of NYC killed then a whole nuclear war that would kill billions of people. The war can also turn into a larger war that involved more and more people, then the whole world would be in trouble and the war can last for a long time. This is a horrible decision, but if I were to choose, I rather sacrifice a smaller amount of people then a larger amount.
i agree with everyone. i would kill half of ny beacuse a nuclear war would kill a ton more people, or if there was a different way to go that does not involve killing anyone i would do that to stop the nuclear war from starting.
I probaly wouldnt be incharge of that descion, but if i was i would probaly let the war start, and not kill half of Newyork, unless i could pick the ones to kill like terrorists,but the war would deffintly start if i was incharge, we would have to take percaution and sighn like a peace treaty, but no way im going to kill half of Newyork city, for a thing we are no not certin about, we could stilll win the war
I agree with Kendall and Meg. If there was another way to stop this nuclear war other than killing half of New York i would probably consider going with that plan if it was better than killing half of the population. I would want to stop the war but there would have to be another way to do so. If i were ever put in this situation I would need to talk to people and get their opinions on things this large.
If it was the only way to stop a nuclear war i would because the consequence of a nuclear war would be much more severe then half of te population of NY being killed
I agree with ds11.If I had to I would kill half of New York. It is better to stop a very dangerous nuclear that will kill billions of people then save half of NYC. If there was another option other then killing many people I would choose that!
If this was the only way to stop the problem then yes I would and this might sound mean but we can recover it as a nation,together. I chose this side because it is more important to save, posibely, the nation then some of NYC. Also there might be more ppl that will move to NY and the population,as always, will keep on growing because I would have saved most of the nation instead of just some or most of NY.
I would kill half of new york. In a nuclear war billions would die so anything is better then a nuclear war. In the event of a nuclear war the entire nation would be at stake, not just part of new york and in this war chances are the whole city of NY would die.
Id stop the nuclear war. But frist id try a different way tht dosnt kill half of the people in nyc. If nothing else works id just stop it and risk half of the people in nyc
quick thought....what is u had to blow up monroe to stop a nuclear war...u wouldnt be able to tell anyone in monroe about it. Its easy to decide the fate of people u dont know. what about friends and family. remember u could save billons.
Unfortunatly I would have to kill half of New York . Even though hundreds would die it would be much better then if an endless nucleaur war begins. It may be morely wrong to lay waste to many differnt families but on the other hand it is better then having millions die and or become radiated.
i agree with charlie, I think i would have to go with letting half of nyc die because its better then having millions die. It would be horriable either way but i think this eould be better.
I agree with Charlie, though a lot of people would die if half of New York was killed, it is a number that is a small fraction of those that would die in the event of a nuclear war. If the war was allowed to occur, most of the human race would be wiped out and the rest would be forced to move underground and live a secluded life.
i agree with kendall. a nuclear war can kill alot of people so anything to preent that from happening is the best decision.
I agree with Ian. I would only kill someone as an absoloute last resort. Otherwise I would mayby send America into war because for all wars except vietnam America has won. I'd say that America would have a great chance of winning in that sitchuation
If I was the president, I would choose to kill half of new York. If a nuclear war were to start, there is a large chance that more people would die than just half of new York. It would be more important to save as many innocent people as possible.
I would not kill half of New York. Instead, I would just let whatever happens take place in a nuclear war.
The ends, in this situation, outweigh the means. To kill half of New York in the name of peace is not a situation that anyone would find desirable. But in the face of the possible annihalation of the species, the true humanitarion course of action is to "bite the bulet" and do what must be done
In this case, I would kill half of New York. Altough millions of lives may be lost,more people would die in a nuclear war. Tings would be blown up everywhere, and all forms of life would go extinct. If half of newyork was killed, the war woukld be kept in one place, and not travel throughtout the worl .
Yes because a nuclear war could destroy the world and to save it you would only have to kill half of nyc. The whole world would be billions of people. half of nyc is only a couple million people. You would save alot more people doing that.
This would be a dificult decition. However, if it came down to killing half of NYC or entering a nuclear war, killing half of NYC would be the better of the two. Although it would be a hard decision, the more reasonable thing to do would be to sacrafice the smallest amount of people. Therefore making the decision to kill half of NYC the better decision.
choosing whether people will die or live is a hard decision but i would kill half of new york who needs yankees fans anyway
8=====D
I would yet again kill 1/2 of newyork because it is not worth it to cause a whole war over something. New york is big enough anyway it would grow back
I hope I would never be in charge of something like this...I don't even like thinking about this topic but if it came down to a desicion it would be to destroy half of ny. It would be hard though...but overall I think this is the correct choice. Wars like that killed millions. Should we have the whole world sufffer or just one state? Sometimes we got to do what we got to do...but if a better choice arises I would go with that!
Like everyone posting their comments here, I would try my best to find another solution. If there was no other way, I would be willing to kill the 1/2 of NYC. I would be able to make this choice for one soul reason:
If I let the nuclear war take place, then many more people would die, the 1/2 of NYC only a small fraction of the total. Killing the 1/2 would save more lives from the suffering than allowing the nuclear war to happen.
Another quick comment, I totally agree with Anonymous, that is an excellent thought to bring up!
If killing half of NYC was the only way to stop a nuclear war then I would do it. Like Ian said a nuclear war is much more severe than killing half of NYC. Many more people would die if there was a nuclear war so it would be much better to kill half of NYC.
This would be a pretty hard decision, but if it was the only way then I probably would. I also agree with Ian because killing half of NYC is a lot less than the amount of people that could die in a nuclear war. Sad, but still the only way.
I would definitely kill half of New York. It would be better to take out half of New York, then maybe have the entire United States taken down anyway.
I think New York would have to take the fall. I think this because nuclear war would kill thousands of people maybe even a whole country. radiation would make post generations sick. I've heard a lot about the "end of the world" actually being caused by nuclear warfare. A small portion of the world would be much less catastrophic than the end of the world. even if that isn't accurate, a nuke was once used to blow up an entire city. This could mean half or all of New York city killed.
I agree with "I'm Joe King" in that New York would probably have to be destroyed. I think this because nuclear weapons have the power to kill hundreds of thouands more people than live in NYC, plus ( as Im Jow King said) the after effect of the Nuclear Radiation. However, even though fewer people would be killed if the war was prevented, I can't imagine what type of solution it would be to kill half of a city...can anyone who read the book enlighten me on what exactly the proposed solution to preventing the war is? I can't even imagine!
i woild blow up half of NY, because i rather let less people get hurt than the whole United States. i pefer half of NY. i think that is a better decision.
I would agree with megg because if it was the only way to stop a nuclear war then i would do it. If i did not blow up half of new york city then people could end up dieing and this death amount may be more than half of new york city.
in this situation i think that blowing up new york city would end in a better result.
i would do this and stop the war. why let people dye and dye and constantly live in fear when you can just kill a certain number of poeple. Everyones upset, then its over. Everyone can move on and start rebuilding. Its still sad and gruesome to kill ANYONE but if u HAD to make the choice..
Post a Comment