|
Hypothetical question: You wake up in a stiff bed. You sit up, and realize you're surrounded by men in lab coats with old-fashioned haircuts. Behind them are men in military dress uniforms, and in the center of them - is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy sits down in a chair by your bed, and explains that a team of scientists from NASA and various branches of the military successfully built and used a time machine. The only problem is, is that it works in an odd way: it can retrieve people randomly from a set point in time. The machine's first run brings them you, to their year of 1963. Kennedy hopes that by having consultation from someone from the future, even if they have only a basic knowledge of history, can help prevent tragedies. As President, Kennedy believes that if he has the opportunity to save lives, he should make every effort to use it. The scientists have warned President Kennedy that there may be dangers in attempting to change history. Even small actions could have widespread and possibly extremely dangerous repercussions in any number of ways. Kennedy, though, believes that having a team of analysts investigate each change-able event can mitigate risk. And, in some events, he explains, there is no reason *not* to act - such as stopping a kidnapper, saving a species that may go extinct, or helping discover clues behind legal investigations that end up solved decades later anyway. Kennedy asks you to think this over before deciding, and will understand and respect your response. However, he cautions - you can not return to your own time, and he cannot promise that future Presidents won't take extreme means to coerce you into cooperating. He apologizes for the, uh, inconvenience, and informs you he's off to Dallas for a party meeting, but will be back shortly to hear your decision. What do you do?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 03:14 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 21:12 |
|
|
If you cant go back into the future, gently caress it. Tell them everything you know and profit from it. Of course nothing would be the same though afterwards, due to changes being made. So the info you provide could be moot after a certain amount of time has passed.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 03:20 |
|
|
Give Oswald the orders from future Castro to knock off Kennedy.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 03:25 |
|
|
I'd either lie to them about the future so I could change the past or wait until pivotal moments in time to give them advising on important events without loving with the time stream too much. I'd also select a list of people to be gifted with all the knowledge I own and have them committed to utmost secrecy so that the timeline could be preserved somewhat and that my information wouldn't suddenly become useless.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 03:27 |
|
|
Red posted:What do you do? Let JFK get killed but make sure to let them know when and where Bobby was going to get killed. That way you get the Great Society followed immediately by Bobby Kennedy becoming President, allowing the United States to become a social democracy.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 03:29 |
|
|
Invest in Google.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 03:31 |
|
|
Kill Reagan.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 04:00 |
|
|
Can I reach my hand down Kennedy's pants before he reacts? This is important.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 04:00 |
|
|
Inform Kennedy of the imminent nuclear strike about to be launched by the Soviets
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 04:46 |
|
|
That's tough, because LBJ did what Kennedy couldn't or wouldn't. I really don't think the New Frontier would have been as successful as the Great Society. Ideally one would tell LBJ to just get out of Vietnam quickly and quietly, but I imagine one's credibility would be shot after the prior president was allowed to be, well, shot. Ultimately I think preventing the loss of life in Vietnam and telling them that the Soviets won't light up the nukes if we don't is the most important, so yeah, good news for JFK. And RFK. And MLK. But is it? I've heard it argued that King was losing his influence and only the assassination really helped change a lot of minds and force things forward. And then you obviously go on to stop the Freedom Summer killings, which lessens the spotlight on the horror and hypocrisy in the south. Etc. etc. Well, just have to do what seems right.only temporary posted:Let JFK get killed but make sure to let them know when and where Bobby was going to get killed. That way you get the Great Society followed immediately by Bobby Kennedy becoming President, allowing the United States to become a social democracy. SombreroAgnew fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 04:56 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 04:50 |
|
|
Keeping Kennedy from being killed would significantly change US history - we might never have gotten as involved in Vietnam as Johnson did. After that I'd just hang out with Von Braun and prevent him from getting stomach cancer. Moon Colony by 1990 
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 04:57 |
|
|
It does not matter. What has happened in this timeline has already happened, and you 'changing' the future has no effect on us since we've already moved down the chronological path. You're just spawning a new branch of the multiverse.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 05:11 |
|
|
I would be too afraid to change history. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world has ever come to a nuclear war, but there were many close calls after 1962. If things had been just a little different the Cold War might have blown up the world. As recently as 1995 Yeltsin held an emergency conference to discuss an apparent nuclear launch targeting Moscow and possible retaliation; it turned out to be a peaceful Norwegian rocket that had gone astray. I could hypothetically save millions of Vietnamese and Cambodian people but I don't think I could stomach the risk that my meddling would somehow kill everybody.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 05:20 |
|
|
Well, since I have some slight grasp on history, I'd just let Kennedy die lest he do anymore damage. Is this the correct answer.quote:Keeping Kennedy from being killed would significantly change US history - we might never have gotten as involved in Vietnam as Johnson did. Yeah... yeah this is what I'm talking about. I guess I'd use the time travel to kill you so I didn't have to read this uninformed post. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 05:32 |
|
|
gently caress the ROW posted:Yeah... yeah this is what I'm talking about. I guess I'd use the time travel to kill you so I didn't have to read this uninformed post. Kennedy had an aggressive policy (Bay of Pigs) but the Gulf of Tonkin and all the big escalations happened under Johnson.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 05:41 |
|
|
I would tell Kennedy everything and sit in anger as everything transpires according to the present me remembers it....because the past me had already hosed with it by the time the present me was born. Likely example, you tell Kennedy not to go on the trip, he moves his schedule around to do it another time. He was originally planning to hit Chicago and St. Louis first, and in order to save himself goes to Dallas late. He goes November 22nd, the date he was assassinated in our timeline, instead of November 16th as he had originally planned in which he would have avoided Oswald. Overlord7517 fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 05:59 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 05:57 |
|
|
McDowell posted:Kennedy had an aggressive policy (Bay of Pigs) but the Gulf of Tonkin and all the big escalations happened under Johnson. Well yeah, because Kennedy was dead. Thinking that Kennedy would have been any better than Johnson seems pretty ridiculous.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 06:03 |
|
|
Set up some movie cameras, hide the footage, and later embarrass the poo poo out of Oliver Stone.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 06:03 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well yeah, because Kennedy was dead. Thinking that Kennedy would have been any better than Johnson seems pretty ridiculous. Yes I am speculating but anything is possible when JFK pulls you out of a 60's time kidnapper.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 06:06 |
|
|
Using advanced laser and computer technology from the year 2013 I would install myself as President.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 13:27 |
|
|
BUG JUG posted:It does not matter. What has happened in this timeline has already happened, and you 'changing' the future has no effect on us since we've already moved down the chronological path. You're just spawning a new branch of the multiverse.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 13:47 |
|
|
This is a pretty interesting moral dilemma, because you have clear knowledge of what will happen if you don't act, but very limited ways to predict what will happen if you take action. So on the one hand, my immediate impulse would be to tell Kennedy that war in Vietnam is fundamentally flawed, that the burgeoning civil rights movement will force his or his successor's hand with regards to legislative action, that a bunch of people are going to be assassinated over the next decade, starting with him, that the USSR isn't as strong as it seems and fierce resistance isn't helping, that supporting politicians just because they're anticommunist will turn counterproductive, that implementing social-democratic reforms will make the US a stronger nation, etc. However, my fundamental political views (not even talking left vs. right here) are so at odds with those of the presidential advisors that it doesn't seem likely that any of my recommendations for how to deal with these will get implemented. So probably my immediate impulse isn't a good one. Maybe fake some sort of "time sickness" in order to pull my thoughts together, get to know some of the people, and frame what I tell them based on that. Or maybe try to convince them to run the machine a few more times to get some people to talk it over with. Of course, that could also turn counterproductive. I mean, I guess I could try and fake hard-nosed realism to make it more palatable, but I don't think I'm that good of an actor. And even if they get implemented, there's always the problem of unintended consequences coming back to bite you, I suppose. But unless there's some sort of force actively countering any attempts to change history for the better, most of these are iffy and long-term. (E.g. would not going through Vietnam really change people's attitudes towards war? After all, there was a massive hawk backlash along with the doves. Similarly, it seems possible for race relations in America to go either way from today if the federal government becomes proactive in civil rights. It's so far outside the bounds of probability that I don't think anybody's seriously thought about what would happen.) gently caress the ROW posted:Well, since I have some slight grasp on history, I'd just let Kennedy die lest he do anymore damage. Is this the correct answer. Well, sure, if you're willing to massively risk your life. Unless you've got a plan to escape US governmental custody before Dallas and hide out? I don't think they're going to be forgiving or accept your reasoning for why you let Kennedy get shot. Of course, that being said, if you could convince Kennedy to martyr himself, this would become a lot easier.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 13:50 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, sure, if you're willing to massively risk your life. Unless you've got a plan to escape US governmental custody before Dallas and hide out? I don't think they're going to be forgiving or accept your reasoning for why you let Kennedy get shot. Of course, that being said, if you could convince Kennedy to martyr himself, this would become a lot easier. This is the first thing I thought about. There's some things that I think could genuinely be helped by a hypothetical time traveler, but they would have to be (seemingly) small things. It's such a ridiculous unknown as to what would happen had Kennedy not been shot, I almost feel like you would have to convince him to die. I don't know what kind of man he really was, aside from the recently revealed surprise sex and whatnot, but one wonders if anyone with enough ego to be president would be willing to martyr himself. I wonder if MLK would agree to do so, though.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 14:05 |
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Conversely you couldn't possibly avoid changing the past even if you immediately jumped in a nearby volcano so you might as well use your knowledge of past events for I'd like to hear more about this. I'd think, as long as the only people that know you exist are limited to a handful, and you're essentially sequestered from the rest of the world - aren't you (for the most part) removed from the equation?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 14:13 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, sure, if you're willing to massively risk your life. Unless you've got a plan to escape US governmental custody before Dallas and hide out? I don't think they're going to be forgiving or accept your reasoning for why you let Kennedy get shot. Of course, that being said, if you could convince Kennedy to martyr himself, this would become a lot easier. Red posted:I'd like to hear more about this. I'd think, as long as the only people that know you exist are limited to a handful, and you're essentially sequestered from the rest of the world - aren't you (for the most part) removed from the equation?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 14:24 |
|
|
My favorite part was when Van Damme pushed the senator into his past self and they exploded in a shower of early 90's CGI.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 14:48 |
|
|
I would send my smart phone to bell labs so they could reverse engineer it, ushering in a silver age of computing early enough where we can stop global warming. This would also have the positive effect of forcing the US government to nationalize bell labs, making sure it was not driven solely by market forces. After a stormy relationship with Katharine Hepburn, I would be one of the millions killed by a nuclear exchange with the USSR during the 1970s. Dilkington fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 15:01 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 14:56 |
|
|
Agree to exchange your knowledge in return for unlimited invites to the Kennedy parties, because drat that guy knew how to party.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 15:13 |
|
|
Patent everything, buy the government.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 15:25 |
|
|
Sigh. I wish I knew which stocks to invest in back in the 60s. At some level I'm just not sure it's worth changing things. You might prevent one crisis. But does a larger one crop up instead?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 15:30 |
|
|
only temporary posted:Let JFK get killed but make sure to let them know when and where Bobby was going to get killed. That way you get the Great Society followed immediately by Bobby Kennedy becoming President, allowing the United States to become a social democracy. See, this is what I was thinking. On paper at least, RFK's assassination appears to have been more devastating in the long term. As for those suggesting to save Kennedy, in the hopes that the Vietnam War won't be escalated, why not just tell them the outcome of the Vietnam war right there?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 16:22 |
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Conversely you couldn't possibly avoid changing the past even if you immediately jumped in a nearby volcano so you might as well use your knowledge of past events for Yes, but not for the people you left behind. I mean, go nuts betting on the Soviet Basketball team to win gold in 1972 but the only thing you change is your future in that particular timeline. Where you came from: we already lived that moment and your mischief cannot undo that. Think of history like a train. It has inertia, it has mass, it is stuck on rails. In order for the train to turn there must either be a gentle bend in the line (like the long moral arc of the universe), or a switch that pushes history onto a parallel track. Thing is, if you travel to an earlier point, and put in a switch at a point our train has already run over, well..that only changes things for the next train to come along..and it only moves that train over onto a parallel track. As for the actual question: I make sure they get Connally too. 'Democrats for Nixon' my rear end.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 16:41 |
|
|
Reignite Communist witch hunts, starting by accusing Ayn Rand of being a sleeper agent.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 16:56 |
|
|
I suppose I'd be obligated to save JFK as not doing so would make me appear untrustworthy, and doing so would legitimize me in a spectacular way. Then I'd somehow get the early neocons killed and spend the next few years ensuring Reagan never made it past endorsing Goldwater.
Ofc. Sex Robot BPD fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 17:09 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 17:04 |
|
|
Cheesus posted:Reignite Communist witch hunts, starting by accusing Ayn Rand of being a sleeper agent.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 17:09 |
|
|
Why am I not killing Hitler in this scenario?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 17:12 |
|
|
ZobarStyl posted:Unfortunately in this scenario you're still six years too late to stop the worst book ever from being published. Bonus if it prevented Steve Ditko from following her. 
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 17:16 |
|
|
zoux posted:Why am I not killing Hitler in this scenario? Hitler is already dead.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 17:17 |
|
|
caleramaen posted:Hitler is already dead. or in South America, take your pick.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 17:19 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 21:12 |
|
|
It's important not to break causality. Figure out how to reverse the time machine as quickly as possible, and don't tell anyone anything. And before you go back to your own time, assassinate Kennedy. It's the only explanation for who really did it!
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 18:19 |
|
