Proposal from 1981 - the president must commit murder before he can launch a nuke


Originally published at:


Like… Say… The one you have now?

TBF, I doubt he’d see it as an incentive, and in his case it might work as a deterrent: not because he’d be reluctant to take a life, but because of his documented phobia of blood. Any less bloody way, and he probably wouldn’t hesitate.


This scenario was used in an episode of season 3 Leftovers, to rather interesting effect.


Can always make this the job of the first lady. Unless the President feels like having an extra bloody divorce that should be even more of a disincentive.


And that volunteer must be the president’s own child.


the president must commit murder before he can launch a nuke

Not a push for Trump, not at all.


The obvious movie-of-the-week plotline is that the volunteer flees into hiding to prevent the nuclear launch – and that the volunteer who does not flee is too intrinsically useful to sacrifice.

And to make sure the public is onside, the child must be holding an innocent, loyal puppy.


If he/she is ready to commit mass murder of millions, the first one is a drop in the upcoming bucket.


Yes, but he’s afraid of blood, so that might stop him.


Given the past decades it seems a lot to expect a Democratic President will save us.


Why not model something simple and already successful in nature: the honey bee. In stinging an enemy, the honey bee forfeits their own life. Certainly a president would be as patriotic to the country as a honey bee is to the hive. I mean, that’s what all those backdrop flags mean right?



So Trump is immune then, but also our first Juggalo President?


The president could simply order another person to murder the volunteer and get the capsule, so yeah, really stupid proposal.


What people seem to miss here is that the person with the code in their chest starts with the butcher knife.


I think the point is that most leaders are willing to make decisions that will result in the deaths of many without thinking too much about those deaths since there is a degree of separation (or several) between the decision and the ultimate cause if death. Forcing them to personally murder someone before they can impersonally murdering lots of someones might just deter them.

Of course, what’s to stop a psycho President from ordering their VP to do the dirty deed?


As a matter of the sort of ethical calculus utlitarians enjoy it’s certainly true that the first kill is barely a rounding error; but I certainly wouldn’t turn my back on, or spend time alone with, anyone who has the same affective response to hacking the code capsule out of somebody’s chest that they do to using the codes to initiate some aseptic and heavily jargonized process that incinerates some large-enough-to-break-ready-intuition number of strangers at a distance.


I remember reading a book back in the 80s. Googling tells me it was called “After the Zap” by Michael Armstrong.

Plot was basically people in a blimp flying around a post-apocalyptic world selling nukes to whoever wanted them. But the activation code was printed on the inside of the heart of their child. So if they wanted to use the nuke, they would have to kill their kid and cut their heart out.


Proposal two: the nuke codes are implanted in the presidents dick/breast depending on gender identity. The president wants the nuke codes? The president gets to mutilate themselves to get them.

The chance of getting a skoptsy president is far lower than the chance of getting a psychopath president.


So basically the David Lynch plan for armageddon?


In my limited exposure to them I’ve found Juggalos to be remarkably sane.