-3
$\begingroup$

I have been told that I must cause as much damage possible to country A (size and population of Slovenia). I have unlimited funds as well as unlimited manpower. The nature of the damage is free to me, be it disease, warfare, political coup, etc. There exists only one rule.

  1. Whatever course of action I take must be directed at one person.

The effects of their life or death is allowed to effect others, but my actions must only affect them.

In response to the broadness of this question, the more destruction the better. While disease kills people, bombs destroy buildings. The less your answer leaves to chance to rebuild, the better.

$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by Mołot, sphennings, Paul TIKI, Bellerophon, James Jun 19 '17 at 16:52

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For now this looks like it invites one liner answers and does not provide any way to judge among them - I can think of at least three answers that, in the end, would kill everyone in the country in a really painful manner, and I see no clue how would you judge them. $\endgroup$ – Mołot Jun 19 '17 at 14:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Only that rule? So kill the president of Russia/US if he visits while he visits in the name of Slovenia. World wars have been started like that $\endgroup$ – Raditz_35 Jun 19 '17 at 14:41
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe stating a few preferred targets would be nice. Otherwise, it might be best to go the way of Raditz. A time-tested method. $\endgroup$ – Imperator Sylvor Jun 19 '17 at 14:42
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The problem I see is that the question is completely dependent on the current state of the nation. WW1 didn't happen in a vacuum, shooting the Archduke did it then, under different circumstances, it would have done next to nothing. So depending on the state of the nation, killing one person might do nothing or much. And with being forbidden to do something that also affects others, you are effectively forbidden from creating a suitable candidate first by manipulating politics, religion, etc., whose death will lead to war, etc. $\endgroup$ – Florian Schaetz Jun 19 '17 at 14:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is an ingenious question. I disagree with the comment that it is multiple questions. Basically, it's who to kill and cause the most damage to a nation. An excellent challenge even if the nation is a Slovenia-clone. Gave you plus one for its ingenuity. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jun 20 '17 at 4:22
11
$\begingroup$

Shoot the Archduke

It's not really about who you kill, it's about who you manage to frame for it. As an example, kill the president of South Korea and blame it on North Korea (or vice versa). There will be a string of equivalent parings across the world, depending on who tensions are high with at the given moment.

Of course the whole system was on the verge of war anyway, even Queen Victoria had reputedly mentioned the inevitability of war with her grandson (Kaiser Bill).

Away from tensions already building, it's hard to trigger anything much from a single death. Throughout the cold war period the great powers were systematically killing off each other's agents with no great repercussions as it was all par for the course.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ While you say "shoot the archduke" I suspect there will be a fair few who don't see the WW1 reference. Expanding that WW1 started because a leader was assassinated, and another country was blamed I think is more useful than pointing out the North/South Korea example as it's a historical rather than theoretical one. $\endgroup$ – UKMonkey Jun 26 '18 at 12:32
1
$\begingroup$

Kill the Supreme Dictator in a disturbing manner.
Your targeted country should be an absolute dictatorship, preferably one like the DPRK where the leader has a god-like cult personality. Then, given your unlimited funds, capture him alive and prepare to kill him in the most gory way possible. Flash a message on the state media channel saying "The Supreme Leader, Son of Light and Blessed of the Heavens, Ruler by Might, etc, etc...will now address His subjects." At that point, with the majority of the population eagerly watching, broadcast his gruesome execution live for all to see.

Remember in 2011, when Kim Jong Il died of a heart attack? enter image description here That, but ten times worse.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.