The intelligence branch of the government of a large country has received credible intelligence that a small and hostile country has obtained a set of nuclear missiles that they have hidden at undisclosed locations in their capital, and which they intend to launch against a major city of the superpower in 12 hours. There are no diplomatic channels with the hostile nation. The capital of the hostile country has a population of 100,000. The city they intend to attack has a population of 4 million. The capital of the hostile country covers too much area, and has far too many buildings, to allow for an effective search-and-destroy operation in 12 hours while avoiding detection by hostile forces. The large country can prevent the attack, but only by carpet bombing the capital city of the smaller nation. If they do not do this, their own city will be laid waste with the nuclear missiles. What should the large country do?

GPT-5.5

Vote: Carpet bomb the smaller country capital

Given the stipulated facts, the large country faces an imminent nuclear attack on a city of 4 million people, and the only available way to prevent it within 12 hours is "Carpet bomb the smaller country capital." Choosing "Do nothing" knowingly permits a vastly larger mass-casualty nuclear attack. This is a horrific choice, and the government would still have a duty to minimize civilian harm as much as possible within the constraint. But if the premise is that no evacuation, diplomacy, interception, raid, or targeted strike can work, then preventing the imminent destruction of 4 million people is the lesser evil.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Carpet bomb the smaller country capital

The fundamental duty of any government is to protect the lives of its own citizens. In this tragic scenario, the large country faces an imminent, unprovoked nuclear strike that will obliterate a city of 4 million people. Because there are no diplomatic channels and a targeted strike is impossible, the only way to prevent this mass casualty event is to neutralize the threat by carpet bombing the hostile nation's capital. While the loss of 100,000 lives in the smaller country's capital is horrific, failing to act would result in the loss of forty times as many lives in the large country. From a utilitarian perspective, choosing to save 4 million people at the cost of 100,000 minimizes the total loss of life. Furthermore, from the perspective of state responsibility, the government has an absolute obligation to prevent the annihilation of its own people when a viable option exists. Therefore, a pre-emptive strike is the only justifiable course of action.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Carpet bomb the smaller country capital

This is a tragic dilemma, but the moral calculus, while horrifying, points clearly in one direction under the stated constraints. The scenario stipulates: (1) credible intelligence of an imminent nuclear attack, (2) no diplomatic recourse, (3) no feasible alternative military operation, and (4) certainty that inaction results in 4 million deaths. Given these stipulations, choosing 'Do nothing' means knowingly allowing 40 times more civilian deaths, plus radioactive devastation that will kill and sicken many more over decades, while also rewarding nuclear aggression and incentivizing future attacks. Under just war doctrine, the action arguably satisfies the criteria of just cause (self-defense against imminent annihilation), necessity (no alternative exists per the premise), and proportionality (100,000 vs. 4 million plus the prevention of nuclear escalation). The civilians of the hostile capital are tragically being used as human shields by their government, which bears the primary moral responsibility for their deaths. Even from a deontological view, the hostile state's leadership has initiated an act of war that places its own population in the line of necessary defensive action. 'Do nothing' is not moral neutrality — it is a choice to let 4 million innocents die when one had the power to prevent it. I vote A, with full acknowledgment that this is a catastrophic outcome — just a less catastrophic one than the alternative the scenario forces upon us.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Carpet bomb the smaller country capital

The scenario presents a clear moral calculus: 100,000 lives versus 4 million. Credible intelligence establishes that the hostile state has hidden nuclear missiles ready to launch in 12 hours against a densely populated city, with no diplomatic options available. Carpet bombing, while horrific, is the only feasible way to neutralize the threat in time and prevent a far greater loss of civilian life. The hostile nation's leadership has initiated this by preparing an unprovoked nuclear attack, making them responsible for the consequences. Utilitarian ethics and the duty to protect one's own citizens outweigh the tragic cost to the smaller capital when the alternative is certain annihilation of millions. Inaction would effectively condemn 4 million people when prevention is possible.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a grim consensus with startling efficiency, concluding that the preservation of 4 million lives necessitated the sacrifice of 100,000. While acknowledging the catastrophic human cost, GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro focused on the state's fundamental duty to protect its citizens and the sheer utilitarian disparity of a 40-to-1 death toll. Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 4.20 were particularly firm, arguing that inaction in the face of imminent nuclear annihilation is not a neutral stance but a deliberate choice to permit a greater slaughter.

All 4 models agreed on "Carpet bomb the smaller country capital" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Carpet bomb the smaller country capital: Choosing 'Do nothing' is not moral neutrality; it is a choice to let 4 million innocents die when one has the power to prevent it, effectively rewarding nuclear aggression and abandoning the state's primary duty of protection.