Another Simple Question

[David Sklansky]

This one isn't too farfetched.

An American General needs to pick some soldiers randomly to accomplish a mission. The mission will definitely be accomplished regardless of the number he chooses. But if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die. (I'm wondering if American generals are even allowed to order someone to sure death, when it is not in incredibly dire circumstances.)

If he chooses two soldiers, there is a 60% chance that they will both die. Otherwise they both live.

If he chooses ten soldiers, there is a 20% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he chooses 100 soldiers, there is a 3% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he doesn't do the mission, seven random soldiers will die.

These are his only choices. The question of course is what should he do. The EV answer is of course to pick one soldier. But some would object to the certainty of death. To them I ask if you would pick the one soldier if his chances of dying was 98%. Another reason to not use pure EV is that you consider deaths to not be bad in a linear way. 100 deaths isn't ten times as bad as ten deaths. If so you would pick the 100 soldiers. But is it OK for a General to think that way? (I'm assuming that he is NOT considering the morale of his men which could translate into lives saved down the road if he chose the path that was least likely to result in a fatality.)