a) a 90% chance of stopping all incoming nuclear missiles with a 10% chance of all missiles getting through and hitting the US
b) stopping 90% of missiles, with the other 10% getting through to the US
...which defense plan would you choose.
2006-10-17 09:31:30 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I would choose option B. The first option only offers to stop 90% of all 'nuclear missiles' and '10% of ALL missiles'. Plan B allows for all missiles either nuclear or otherwise and would thus be the best defense between the two options.
2006-10-17 09:37:42 · answer #1 · answered by You Ask & I Answer!!! 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As President option A has a statistical & stratigical advantage over B.
Assume 100 nuclear weapons.
Option A stops 100% (or 100 nukes defeated) with a 90% probability.
Option B stops 90% of the missiles ( or 90 nukes defeated ) while 10 nukes take out parts of the my country which is enough to permanently put us into a nuclear winter.
2006-10-17 17:02:35 · answer #2 · answered by Giggly Giraffe 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A. 90% odds are really good. Better than having a 100% chance of 10% of the missiles reaching their targets. However, I don't think there are any systems at this point that match either of your options.
2006-10-17 16:41:37 · answer #3 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best defense is a good Offense. Don't wait for the missiles to get into the air, Hit them at the source and there will be no worry about defense. To wait until enemy missiles are airborne is sheer folly.
2006-10-17 16:37:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I chose the answer to another person's question, that let you stop 120% of the incoming missles 10% of the time, with 2% of the Airplanes boarding -50% of the worlds terrorists and the other 5.3/5 Airplanes hoarding the remainder. They had a 1.3 Million percentage chance of succeding. That answer was number B I think, and it was by far the best best answer.
2006-10-17 16:59:43 · answer #5 · answered by mranswerguy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Option B because option a says "hitting the US'' while B is just "getting through" to the US.
Then again option A is the most safe since you stop the chance, while B is stopping missles that already are coming to the U.S
2006-10-17 16:56:53 · answer #6 · answered by letseat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question does not make sense for it ignores the reality of politics and governance. The President would choose both and pass the excess costs onto the public.
2006-10-17 16:37:08 · answer #7 · answered by elephanthrower 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
stopping all incoming nuclear missiles to where???
both of your choices seem the same.... i think you should rephrase them
2006-10-18 07:06:14 · answer #8 · answered by dallasfan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Better a)
10% to New York
2006-10-17 16:36:18 · answer #9 · answered by Andrey S 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The choice between a "chance" and a definite "stop", I'll go with b, sadly.
2006-10-17 16:48:55 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋