Forum: Author Hangout

What IS the right thing?

PotomacBob 🚫

Suppose you were an advisor to the President of the United States, and within 12 hours a possible disaster is coming, one that could change the world as we know it. The president has ordered all federal agencies to make no statements to the press, that all announcements, if any, will come from the White House.

The question in a meeting in the Situation Room is whether the president should do nothing or do something. The fear of doing something is that it will cause panic among the population, traffic gridlock, a run on goods in stores, and general chaos. The plan was to do nothing, but then one pesky news organization somehow learned of it (despite the news blackout)and other news organizations are demanding that the White House confirm or deny the report.
You want to do the right thing; you believe the President wants to do the right thing. But what IS the right thing? What would you advise the president to do? Do the people have a right to know, even if that knowledge might cause chaos? In this case, knowledge will NOT prevent the thing from happening.

Replies: Dominions Son Keet LupusDei Switch Blayde awnlee jawking StarFleet Carl graybyrd richardshagrin ystokes Paladin_HGWT

Dominions Son 🚫

@PotomacBob

Suppose you were an advisor to the President of the United States, and within 12 hours a possible disaster is coming, one that could change the world as we know it.

You want to do the right thing; you believe the President wants to do the right thing. But what IS the right thing? What would you advise the president to do?

My personal opinion, with only 12 hours of advance warning, if it's not something the government has advanced contingency plans for that are ready to go, there is nothing they can do.

Anything they try to do on such short notice is more likely than not to be wrong, so the best course of action is do nothing.

Do the people have a right to know, even if that knowledge might cause chaos? In this case, knowledge will NOT prevent the thing from happening.

If there is nothing people can do to prepare, to protect themselves and their families, then a warning will have no benefit, therefore the cost in terms of potential for panic
must necessarily out weigh the benefit of a warning, so the right choice is no warning.

Keet 🚫

@PotomacBob

I agree with DS. The time frame is 12 hours from which several will have passed before a news agency got wind of it. Warnings will be useless in terms of survival and can only cause panic turning a possible disaster into a real disaster.

LupusDei 🚫

@PotomacBob

It is extremely hard to suppress information. Even if information itself can be suppressed, it's almost impossible to suppress information that information is being suppressed.

To hide a looming global event that is detectable by someone in advance should not be effectively possible. If it's done by one very limited team using unique instruments, well... first, they wouldn't believed, of course, but in the off chance they get in the upwards tract, well, that has a theoretical chance to be hidden for some very limited time.

If the toolset used isn't unique, chances are at very least every major government knows the same, and (many) thousands of individuals, some of whom would make decision to talk regardless of what oath they have given.

Well, we are in slightly worse/better position right now than a year ago for Twitter being effectively killed, but even that effort would only slow the global awareness by maybe a couple hours and slightly reduced reach.

So, while doing nothing may or not be the exact right thing if the effects are totally unpredictable or know to be totally unavoidable somehow, saying nothing may only make them look foolish.

I would opt for acknowledgement that say nothing, "we're analyzing the data" style.

Replies: tenyari

tenyari 🚫
Updated:

@LupusDei

To hide a looming global event that is detectable by someone in advance should not be effectively possible.

This.

The "lets keeps it a secret" angle is a movie thing used for drama or because the writers did sloppy research.

There are a few examples where it could be true - if the thing you're suppressing is that you've failed to prevent something because you yourself didn't know it was happening because it's a surprise attack like flying planes into a building...

But if you've figured out in advance, it's safe to assume a lot of other people have too.

I watch a lot of Space - Futurism videos and a running theme in this is that there's no ability to hide when it comes to civilizations in space. You'd know a few million years in advance if another set of aliens was nearby. The analysis on this stuff illuminates this topic for me.

- Data is out there, to be observed, and usually not something that can be hidden.

Lets assume a natural disaster - the things leading to it will be known in advance. Sometimes so far in advance that the problem is people get used to it and ignore it, like the fact that sea levels will likely rise by 30 feet in the next few decades, depending on when, not if, a certain set of glaciers in Greenland break off. Once they do, the rise will be very rapid).

Lets say it's an asteroid - chances are it would have been seen long in advance, and if it's only seen 12 hours in advance it will be seen then by nearly everyone looking up...

Super virus? Well, that's called 2020. So we actually know how that one plays out now.

This goes on and on.

So if you only find out right before it happens, best to just talk about it openly, help people make peace with it, and talk about what those who survive, if anyone, should do to coordinate putting things back together afterwards...

This last part is key. What's the plan for after?

This reminds me of a difference in US and Soviet era troops. In the US, we're taught how to handle complete decapitation. Ever soldier knows the mission and knows who to figure out how's in charge using some very basic tricks, as well as what to do if you're out there alone. Every US soldier is a one man army.

ps: since 2014, we've been training Ukrainians in that too...

In the Soviet Era, soldiers were taught to obey officers, and the mission was usually not given to them. If they lose command, they want for new command to arrive and just 'stay alive' until then. The stay alive is something they have no training for - they just rely on animal instincts like a civilian. This past year has made it clear that method is still the method there. No surprise as it's how old world armies always have been. The US model either is our own invention or something we got from East Coast Indians like the Iroquois and Mohawk and their 800-year long war (in which being a one man army was kind of a thing - but it's not a general Native tactic as the Aztec were shockingly bad at fighting when leadership failed).

The point here is... if you spend those last few hours telling everyone some basic tactics on what to do if they survive... your people just might make it through WITHOUT becoming the plot of a Mad Max movie.

You might lose 98% of them, but if you treat them like the US treats it's soldiers - advice them on what to do... if only a handful of them survive, they just might be able to rebuild in sanity.

So you might as well try.

Replies: itsmehonest

itsmehonest 🚫

@tenyari

No secrets, Sausalito cher (stole that line, sorry)

Switch Blayde 🚫

@PotomacBob

Simple. Blame it on the previous administration.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@PotomacBob

Go public. Tell people nothing they do can reduce their susceptibility to the possible disaster. Tell them all to have as much sex as possible in the 12 hours so that a birth boom might help rebuild afterwards.

AJ

Replies: helmut_meukel

helmut_meukel 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Tell them all to have as much sex as possible in the 12 hours so that a birth boom might help rebuild afterwards

The birth boom may hinder rebuild, due to the necessary care for so many pregnant women.
That's assuming the rebuild can't be done within 6 or 7 month, the high pregnant women will then have a serious impact on the workforce for rebuilding.

HM.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@helmut_meukel

The birth boom may hinder rebuild

Good grief! This is allegedly a sex story site. I've just pointed out a reason to have gratuitous amounts of sex. You should be worshipping me ;-)

AJ

StarFleet Carl 🚫

@PotomacBob

within 12 hours a possible disaster is coming, one that could change the world as we know it. The president has ordered all federal agencies to make no statements to the press, that all announcements, if any, will come from the White House.

That's certainly fine, and it's really irrelevant if a single US based news agency is seeking confirmation.

The question back is, what is the nature of the disaster? Changing the world as we know it is, quite politely, subjective.

Is it an extinction level event, like we've managed to miss seeing a 100 mile in diameter rock that's coming at asteroid speed? In which case, it really doesn't matter WHERE you are or what you do, your only option anywhere on Earth is to spread your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. (If you were 4,000 miles away from the point of impact and it hit ocean (75& probability), the 12.5 magnitude earthquake would hit you 21 minutes after impact, the air blast of 199 psi and 2000 mph winds would hit 5 1/2 hours, and the 1,000 foot tall tsunami would hit you 10 hours later.)

Note that if you're talking about a SMALL (relatively speaking) meteor / asteroid, and you KNOW it's going to hit someplace like NYC, you still sound the alarm. Size matters - a baseball diamond size meteor doesn't do much. A football field size meteor - even though it doesn't hit the ground - will still destroy everything within 5 miles.

Or, is it a case of, we've actually detected an alien spaceship that's coming in? Do they want 'To Serve Man' or be like the lizards from 'V', or are they Vulcans?

If it's a CME - since that's what you've been asking about - we'll actually have three days notice, not 12 hours, and there's no way for the President to keep it secret. The information from the solar monitoring laboratory is shared by multiple governments and agencies.

The thing is - there's literally no way in hell you can 'evacuate' one of the larger US cities in under 72 hours, and not even then if the local government doesn't cooperate. Smaller US major cities, yeah. Then it becomes a case of, where do they go?

graybyrd 🚫

@PotomacBob

The "Blue Party" answer is to scream 'Alarm!'

The "Red Party" answer is to lock up and silence anyone who might scream 'Alarm!'

The few who know will load up their family and silently run for the hills.

richardshagrin 🚫

@PotomacBob

What IS the right thing?

It is the side away from the left thing.

ystokes 🚫

@PotomacBob

within 12 hours a possible disaster is coming, one that could change the world as we know it.

It would be nice to know just how the world would be changed. Does it affect just one area, how big an area? Or does it affect the whole world or just the continent? Just how far can one go in 12 hours to make it worth running or do you just sit in the Lazy Boy drop some acid and enjoy the show.

Paladin_HGWT 🚫

@PotomacBob

Make the information public.

The OP stipulation is the event cannot be prevented; there was no mention of total annihilation. Quite a bit could be done in that time. Particularly those who have made general preparations already.

Nuclear reactors, chemical plants, and other facilities could be shutdown, and significantly reduce collateral damage. Military units could be dispersed. Ships sent to sea. Survivability of ships at sea is likely to be much higher; even ships under refit, or repair; even short crew members (also, any personnel could be sent to sea, and receive OJT from a small Cadre. Submarines are even more likely to survive.

It would also permit families and loved ones to be together. To pray, or in other ways make peace with the inevitable.

Consider how many people walked out of New York City on September 11th 2001.

Some people may act outrageously. However, it seems that the worse the disaster, the more people adapt to it.

What happened in New Orleans in 2005 during and after Hurricane 🌀 Katrina was near a worst case scenario. Local and state governments hindered preparations by the federal government. A judge blocked the National Guard from using public school busses to evacuate people (also resulting in all the busses being ruined), medical staff abandoned elderly, and other patients. Thousands of people just sat around waiting to be rescued. Looting, rapes, and murders occurred. However, at least a plurality of people evacuated, or hunkered down in areas safe from flooding.

Federal resources that were refused by the state of Louisiana, were dispersed to Texas, Mississippi, and elsewhere.

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

What IS the right thing?

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...