The question isn't regarding aesthetics but rather morality and the answer has to be valid or there is no reason to write the song. This is why the invitation to others to comment when I would not do that for a decision over something I did consider a matter of aesthetics. It's possible the latter could be open but it's not germane in this context.
The abstract is the alert to launch nuclear missiles goes out to the home team because the powers-that-be have a launch detect from the away team (whoever they are).
We know a full-scale nuclear war kills everything. Some may argue little bits may live somewhere. That's possible true but it's irrelevant because of the unbelievable slaughter of life and the ravaging of the environment from it.
We suspect if one side does not launch then perhaps at least part of the other side might live and they will grow humanity again.
So that's the premise. Andromeda says she does not want Jason to go to launch the missiles. Stay here with me and we will die but we will be together. From this others may live.
We see it as a righteous decision for Jason to disobey his orders and stand down and that's the morality question. He chooses between duty and reason so what should he do. What would you have him do.
As always, I'm interested in the thinking but I'm not at all interested in jingoism.
The secondary question is whether it's appropriate for the sake of the story to make Jerusalem the victim of it all. That will keep because the question doesn't mean anything without agreement Jason makes the right decision in standing down. We believe he does but you may not.
So, the question isn't artistic but rather is it righteous. We believe this goes far beyond 'an eye for an eye' because Jason's retaliation means no eye will ever see again.
The abstract is the alert to launch nuclear missiles goes out to the home team because the powers-that-be have a launch detect from the away team (whoever they are).
We know a full-scale nuclear war kills everything. Some may argue little bits may live somewhere. That's possible true but it's irrelevant because of the unbelievable slaughter of life and the ravaging of the environment from it.
We suspect if one side does not launch then perhaps at least part of the other side might live and they will grow humanity again.
So that's the premise. Andromeda says she does not want Jason to go to launch the missiles. Stay here with me and we will die but we will be together. From this others may live.
We see it as a righteous decision for Jason to disobey his orders and stand down and that's the morality question. He chooses between duty and reason so what should he do. What would you have him do.
As always, I'm interested in the thinking but I'm not at all interested in jingoism.
The secondary question is whether it's appropriate for the sake of the story to make Jerusalem the victim of it all. That will keep because the question doesn't mean anything without agreement Jason makes the right decision in standing down. We believe he does but you may not.
So, the question isn't artistic but rather is it righteous. We believe this goes far beyond 'an eye for an eye' because Jason's retaliation means no eye will ever see again.
2 comments:
Interesting moral or ethic dilemma indeed. I'm not sure how to approach the explanation of my response, though. You already know that, if I were Jason, I would launch without any second thought about it. I guess it comes down to two fundamental reasons:
1. I truly believe that MAD is all that prevented a nuclear war throughout the entire Cold War. Consider that the US chose not to go nuclear in Korea, even when faced with potential defeat midway through the war. Again in Vietnam, the US chose to lose rather than go nuclear. In Cuba, the USSR chose not to use their first strike capability and instead chose to withdraw - a major reputation loss for the hardliners in the Kremlin. It's my belief that what makes this work is the certainty in the eyes of all parties that the opponent will launch in kind. Remove that certainty, and there is no longer any impediment to the opposition going nuclear in a variety of situations. So Jason absolutely must be willing to launch.
2. Here's where the "eye for an eye" concept comes in and where I know we will disagree. When I consider it carefully, I do concede that it would be preferable to me for both sides to be killed than for me to allow the other side to attack without retribution. If I'm going down, I'm taking them down with me.
No. 2 is the player because MAD is already gone with No. 1 because the bad guy has already launched or at least you think he has.
Therefore it reduces specifically to retribution and I see your point it seems a fair thing to do as, wtf, my squeeze and I will be ten million degrees in about fifteen minutes. Someone ought to pay for that.
Howevah ... yes, here's the angle: in this case, it's not only retribution against the bad guy since the collateral damage is the entire planet. Everything gets smoked when really it was only your intention to smoke those who smoked you.
Post a Comment