Any opportunity to save people’s lives should be taken without a second thought. Firebombing a city filed with people to prevent spread of a virus when there is a possibility of cure being developed is morally wrong. In 1967 Zaire, Africa is hit by a deadly virus called Motaba. Many people are infected and killed by the virus. To prevent further spreading beyond the village the U.S Government Disease Control Center drops a firebomb killing all residents. Shortly after dropping the bomb a serum is developed that cures the virus. About fifty years later a muted version of Motaba surfaces in California and spreads to Boston, Massachusetts. The U.S. Disease Control Center places Boston and California under quarantine, and now must decide how to eradicate the virus. Some feel that to ensure the virus is gone immediately they must drop another firebomb, while others think that keeping the quarantine in place while trying to develop a cure is the better solution. The bomb should not be dropped because it would kill both infected and uninfected citizens living in the city, and the cure was developed for the first virus so there is already precedent for a cure for the new virus.
Even though firebombing…show more content… The Motaba serum is developed relatively quickly after the first firebombing. This shows that the new cure may also be developed quickly. The death of the entire village could be avoided if they had just waited a little longer for the cure to develop, and the U.S. Disease Control Center can avoid killing everyone in Boston and California if they work for the cure. The new virus is a muted version of Motaba meaning that there is already a basis of understanding of the new virus and how it might be cured. Background information on the original virus can be used to understand the new virus. The bomb is not necessary because one can assume if there is a cure for Motaba there is a cure for the new
