The Discovery – Part 2



PHOTO PROMPT © Rochelle Wisoff-Fields

Dr. Edwards narrowed his eyes.

“Where did the boy find this?”  He shook the twig.

“By the old fortress.”

“Do you know what it means?”

“That they have a presence on the island, despite the treaty.”

“I’m sure you realize that some may see this as an act of war?”

I nodded.

“And who, pray tell, would you inform about this breach?”

“Just you, National Intelligence.”

Dr. Edwards grinned.  It wasn’t pleasant.

“To avoid total war, it will stay ‘just me’.”

Four soldiers entered the room.  Before I realized what they were doing, two men grabbed me.

“Kill him.”

— —

Word count = 100

Friday Fictioneers is hosted by Rochelle Wisoff-Fields.  This week’s prompt is here and uses a photo © Rochelle Wisoff-Fields.  Read more or join in by following the InLinkz “linky“.

Sorry for “double dipping” this week.  Quite a few people wanted me to continue last week’s story.  Possible explanations were brought up, everything from a cure to cancer, to proof that Atlantis existed to Dr. Edwards trying to figure out who destroyed his shrubbery.  I decided to go a completely different direction ;)

23 thoughts on “The Discovery – Part 2

    1. trentpmcd Post author

      I think it is close to how some things work out – the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few, but are we willing to pay that price when the future is uncertain? I don’t want to make that decision either!


  1. pennygadd51

    Yes, your part 2 is a resounding success. I was as surprised as the witness would have been.
    You pose a very interesting ethical quandary. If, as Dr Edward believes, war is going to happen unless absolute secrecy is maintained, then his action can be justified – one life against many. If you take the view that I do, that war can only take place through the individual choices of many men to take up arms, then he isn’t justified. That’s because his ethical decision is one of the many that makes war inevitable. If each of us as an individual made the commitment not to take up arms, war would not be possible.
    With best wishes

    Liked by 1 person

    1. trentpmcd Post author


      Yes, it is a bit of a moral dilemma. I tend to agree with you, that war can be avoided without sacrificing the witness.

      I once saw a Cold War era movie from, I think, Norway that had a similar idea (yes, I stole this ;) ). After avoiding Soviet soldiers the entire movie, with all of his mates killed, the hero was killed by the CIA at the end to avoid WW III.


    1. trentpmcd Post author

      He did. His idea is that if it leaks out, there will be a costly war, so he wants to try to eliminate the foreign base without people knowing it was even there. One life, the life of the witness, against the tens of thousands of lives that might be lost in a bloody war. That is his thinking. If it is right or not? That’s for you to decide.


    1. trentpmcd Post author

      At least a dozen people asked me to continue my story last week. I usually don’t, but decided it would be fun to put in an ending that was totally unexpected.



Leave a Reply to trentpmcd Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s