Well, the President has men in his service who have killed people before and would not hesitate to do it again at the President's order, be the target innocent or not. So the President would never have to bloody his or her hands and the whole trick would only cost one more senseless death, among the millions to follow immediately after.
But I suppose it's an interesting reflection on the moral implications of granting one person enough power to destroy the entire world.
I'd rather wonder though - can anyone be said to hold such power legitimately, when they have only been given this power by a small minority of the entire population that is potentially affected by the decision (i.e. the US citizens, as opposed to the whole of humanity)?
But I suppose it's an interesting reflection on the moral implications of granting one person enough power to destroy the entire world.
I'd rather wonder though - can anyone be said to hold such power legitimately, when they have only been given this power by a small minority of the entire population that is potentially affected by the decision (i.e. the US citizens, as opposed to the whole of humanity)?