A nuclear holocaust has occurred. You and a small group of eleven fellow survivors have managed to procure a shelter stocked with food and medical supplies. As far as you are aware, your group represents the last living human beings on planet Earth.
However, you have a problem. The shelter's supplies are limited, and your group is too large for the supplies on hand to support. With a population of six, and only limited rationing, your supplies can last five years. With all twelve persons (including yourself), on the other hand, the supplies will only last two years. If you ration your supplies strictly, you can save one additional person, for a total of seven, but the health of the group as a whole will suffer (note: if you're creative, it might be possible to stretch those rations further, in order to either save one additional person, for a total of eight, or alleviate the health impacts of saving seven, but I will not say how
).
According to the expert in your group, radiation levels should be low enough to make it safe to exit the shelter in four years. It will take roughly a year to grow crops after that point.
Your group consists of the following:
One high-ranking military officer, male, age 45. He has advanced survival training, extensive leadership and managerial experience, and rather imposing presence. Unfortunately, however, he also has PTSD. This is manageable at the moment, but could get worse. He is moderately religious.
One nuclear physicist, male, age 30. He is a paraplegic, and somewhat sickly. No survival skills. He is non-religious.
One doctor, male, age 50. He is overweight and has high blood pressure. However, he also has considerable skill with both medicine and basic surgical procedures. He is religious, but non-practicing.
One nurse, female, age 67. She is the picture of good health, but her skills are not quite as great as the doctor in your group. She is devoutly religious.
One single mother, female (obviously), age 24. She is healthy, and has an infant daughter with her. She is presently breast feeding, so that child will not draw supplies (i.e. doesn't count). She is non-practicing religious.
One priest, male (again, obviously), age 42. He is in good health, though he lacks noteworthy survival skills. It should go without saying that he is religious.
One botanist, female, age 34. She has the beginning stages of multiple sclerosis, but is otherwise healthy. She is agnostic.
One transient who managed to sneak in at the last moment, male, age 28. He has demonstrated anti-social tendencies, has a criminal background, and is dependent on alcohol and very likely an illicit substance or two. He is non-religious.
One additional transient who managed to sneak in, female, age 21. Same as the above, romantically connected to the transient male. She was raised religious, but is non-practicing.
One lawyer, female, age 36. Highly intelligent, and she is in good health. However, she lacks survival skills, and does not get along with the military officer due to her political views. She is non-religious.
One unemployed layabout, male, age 26. He is in good health, and reasonably fit from a physical perspective, but he has no skills whatsoever. He is non-religious.
So...
Who lives and who dies? What is your reasoning for that decision? What is your endgame?
This was actually a group exercise we were given at Warrant Officer Candidate School. Needless to say, things got pretty damn dark in a hurry. :lol:
I'll be interested to see how civilians tackle the issue.
