I think it pins a player down to a team player or rule follower.
There is no wrong answer in this scenario. The bombing could miss all his friends or kill all of them, but he is seen as someone who follows the rules and listens to his leaders, regardless of price.
If he says no he wouldn't do that, then he could be considered a player that doesn't listen to leaders. This could present a problem because (idk if many of you have ever felt/done this) sometimes young people think they know what is best but with time and patience, circumstances change. When leaders tell you to do something (especially in the military, such as this specific example) you are expected to follow because they obviously have some kind of intel or know more than you do. Saying no means you are defiant also.
On the flip side, by saying no, he is a team player and someone who will stick up for his guys at all costs. This is beneficial because there could be (not big, but slight) a chance/feeling that he may take less in contract talks because the greater good of the team is needed more than just him. It also could mean that he thinks of others before himself (commendable trait tbh. Not many people especially in today's world has that).
To be that confident in his answer and conviction to me proves he is a team player that will do anything for his team, regardless of personal accolades. But, if during all of your scouting and pre-draft interviews with his current coaching staff and front office, you could potentially see yourself have a problem that he won't listen/understand/follow the direction from above. If the pre-draft interviews shows nothing of the sort, then you probably won't have a problem. If the pre-draft interviews shows slight hesitation or examples of him not listening, then that presents a major issue when he answers the way he does.
It's a very telling question that, yes it is hilarious because of the exact scenario said, but pulling back the curtain to try and figure out what the actual meaning is, is quite interesting.