Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

PURPLE

0 (0%)

ALERT

0 (0%)

(I need suggestions is what I'm saying.)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[Darvi]

The fact that bullets are cheaper is still irrelevant though. If you can be immunzied, vaccine, if not, bullet.

Unless you're like me and prefer plan K :V

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you do not accept the deal, it's irrelevant, because presumably the dictator will not have the opportunity to forcibly immunize OR shoot anyone.

Correct. The Leader wants the region, but he doesn't want it so badly that he'll risk the rest of his nation being exposed and infected through the invasion. Your supply of vaccine is the only way he can do this with any degree of assurance that Reston-H won't jump to the other regions under his control.

[Soadreqm]

If a vaccine exists, just how is the plague du jour breaking out outside the festering paranoid hellhole where they are refusing to use it? Can't you just immunize everyone, over and over again, forever?

Also, is it possible to get someone else to invade the country instead? Get the Security Council to classify the refusal to be immunized as an act of bioterrorism and formally declare war on Ebolaland. If we have to forcibly take over a country to get rid of a virus, I'd prefer someone other than the authoritarian police state infamous for its human rights abuses.

If unable to find a decent third option, I'd probably stick with the status quo, and refuse to take the deal. Cooperating with a power-hungry dictator in taking over a country of twenty million in order to wipe out a disease sounds like it'd kind of go against the spirit of the United Nations.

[Darvi]

Ah, but dictators can easily be disposed of. Relatively easy, at least compared to a highly infective illness.

[Taricus]

Because if this dictator is smart enough to take advantage of an event like this, I'd say he deserves the territory. And the virus stays dead.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If a vaccine exists, just how is the plague du jour breaking out outside the festering paranoid hellhole where they are refusing to use it? Can't you just immunize everyone, over and over again, forever?

The vaccine doesn't last a lifetime, just long enough to starve out the virus in an area, seven years or so. It's difficult to constantly immunize the world's population, which is about 9 Billion at the time this takes place.

Also, is it possible to get someone else to invade the country instead? Get the Security Council to classify the refusal to be immunized as an act of bioterrorism and formally declare war on Ebolaland. If we have to forcibly take over a country to get rid of a virus, I'd prefer someone other than the authoritarian police state infamous for its human rights abuses.

You're lucky that the Security Council is even giving you funding at this point. None of the permanent member's nations are close enough to the infected region for the temporary breakouts to be a real threat to them, and war is too expensive to be in their interests. They basically just don't care about Reston-H anymore.

[Darvi]

The vaccine doesn't last a lifetime, just long enough to starve out the virus in an area, seven years or so. It's difficult to constantly immunize the world's population, which is about 9 Billion at the time this takes place.

Well that would've been good to know.

Now the question is, how did other countries take care of non-immunizables?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Now the question is, how did other countries take care of non-immunizables?

During the Global Outbreak, 100,000,000 people were dying from Reston-H every year. The other countries were too busy freaking out over getting a cure before civilization collapsed to be concerned about paranoia. The infected region just happens to have been the last area to get a meaningful influx of vaccine, and by that point they had grown paranoid.

[Darvi]

So everybody else died?

I'd better not say anything lest I start a flame war.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh, you mean people who couldn't be immunized, not wouldn't. There's always Herd Immunity. The Leader just happens to be way too ruthless to want to rely upon that.

[andrea]

I wouldn't make such a deal with the local dictator.

However, if somebody asked me a vaccine, and I was a doctor, I am not sure I could refuse it, no matter who asks.

for me the question isn't if it is right or wrong to help the dictator to slaughter the ill and annex a region. That is most likely wrong ( although I would like more information about the size of the outbreaks.if the three outbreaks of the last 10 years killed 10 millions each, I might want to reconsider it. But at that point, security council would be more likely to act).

Rather, is it correct to refuse medical treatment on the basis of what a person is going to do in the future?
I know they are not ill, but I would still feel rather uneasy telling them no.

I need a bit of time to think about it.

[Darvi]

Oh, you mean people who couldn't be immunized, not wouldn't.

Of course I meant those, you did say the point of the invasion was to force the vaccines on the unwilling, right?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh, you mean people who couldn't be immunized, not wouldn't.

Of course I meant those, you did say the point of the invasion was to force the vaccines on the unwilling, right?

That would be the point of taking the Leader's deal, yes. What's your query?

[Luke_Prowler]

I would instantly refuse the Leader's offer. To allow someone to conquer another people for my own gain would be heartless, and these can be saved without stooping to killing them. 

[Bauglir]

The point is that it isn't for your gain. It's for the good of the millions upon millions of people who will die in sporadic outbreaks and within the nation itself, and the dictator profits incidentally (and at the expense of millions within the nation itself, so it might be reasonable to call it a wash with regards the fates of those within the conquered nation). You get nothing, except the knowledge that you sacrificed millions in one way to save other millions, instead of allowing both sets of millions to die but arguably being blameless. At least as I understand it. Now, to me, it doesn't matter where blame falls; people are still dead. So I think I might have to take the offer, but only if the situation as I've outlined it is accurate (I'll withhold on voting until confirmation of that).