What If a Nuke Was Set To Explode Tomorrow ?

[SavannahMann]

So you’ve decided that only your scenario will work. Despite that historically it is the least reliable manner in which to get information. Fine. Go ahead. When the bomb goes off, you can stand there and say you tried to save the lives that were lost. When people ask what you did, you can say you did the thumb screws, and the electric torture, and water boarding.

Then of course, you’ll be in custody while the terrorist you tortured is released anyway since all the evidence is tossed out. Who are we kidding, you’ll just shoot him after an hour and say it was all you could do since he wouldn’t give up the information.

Chemical Interrogation works better than torture. It’s still unreliable, but it is more reliable than torture. Bah, that’s too soft. Besides, like all wannabe hero’s you get your rocks off dreaming of hurting people.

I wouldn’t torture him. I wouldn’t waste the time. You only have one day, which is probably where you got the 24 hours via Jack Bauer. Of course, Jack after his one really bad day, would be tried, and convicted, and sentenced to life in the electric chair. But who cares, he saved lives right?

In real life, you end up dictating the confession and information. Because torturers are impatient. But this isn’t real life. It is barely Hollywood. It is the fevered delusions of a moron who thinks that he can break the baddies with just a few minutes of pain. Pfui.

You are an idiot. Stop watching TV and try reading a book or something for a change. You might learn something. I doubt it, but it is possible.

You can start with this. It is a report based upon the CIA’s own experience interrogating those terrorists you are so ready to feed to the wood chipper.

Torture Isn't Just Evil, It's Pointless

But hey, you’ve only got 24 hours, so go ahead and torture the guy, and get nothing. Then you can spend the rest of your life in prison, while people point at you and how stupid you were to do the one thing that was pretty much guaranteed not to work.

Idiot. You are an idiot. It’s why I said if you were ever in the military, you were a disgrace to the uniform. Of course, your service was probably in the provisional wing of the Salvation Army.

1. Uncanny how every time you post you start with a WRONG sentence. NO, again. Not only is this one wrong, it doesn't even make sense. The scenario presented is a hypothetical case, not a proposal. Proposals can be right or wrong. Hypothetical cases are merely just food for thought. Some for speculation.

2. I dispute that "historically it is the least reliable manner in which to get information." I'm not buying that.

3. Everything you said will happen, you have zero standing or authority to say. You don't know what would happen. You're just posturing with a very big mouth.

4. I don't get any satisfaction from hurting anyone, and you again have no capability to know what you're talking about to say that I do. It looks like you're just trying to set up a guilt trip, and see where it goes. It goes nowhere, except right back at you, for being disingenuous.

5. I used to watch the TV show 24, but it didn't occur to me until just now, that it's is the same time frame as what I mentioned in the OP. This is just more of you trying to recreate the thread, to how you want it all to appear, for, I guess, your own ego trip fulfillment.

6. Torturers "impatient" ? Oh, aren't you clever ? So now you're even setting up the personalities of the torturers. Wanna tell us what style shoes they're wearing too, as you write this movie script ?

7. Reading a book ? Long ago in this forum I posted a list of books that I recommend. YOU ought to read THEM. You might learn something. It is possible. I suppose.

8. Oh, the CIA's own experience is it ? Well, no it isn't. Not exactly. Your link refers to a Senate Intelligence "report" (could be called sham), which is described in your link as >> "The report, written by the Senate Intelligence Committee's Democratic staff,..." - how interesting - a staff of leftists. Well, that puts that to rest.

9. "Get nothing" ? Again, you make assumptions which you have no right or capability to make. Seems to be a habit of yours.

10. Re: my service, it was in both the US Army and Army National Guard. Good thing you weren't there, under my command. I might have had you on KP or in the latrines, 7 days a week, to keep you from injuring other soldiers.

If you claim to be an officer, then you were absolutely a disgrace to the uniform. Officers have a duty to carry out their orders, and to require those below them to obey order. The UCMJ prohibits mistreatment of prisoners, and if you were an officer, you would be required by Duty, and Honor, to enforce those regulations on your subordinates. But since you thought all those regulations were silly, well all of them except the ones where you as this notional officer were obeyed instantly, I repeat, you were a disgrace.

Let’s turn this scenario of your on your head Hero. Let’s say you are aware of an attack on an enemy that is to be launched in 24 hours. You are conducting a reconnaissance for the attack path and are captured. Do you break in ten minutes? Are you such a colossal coward that you give up the information because the guy shouts at you or slaps you around?

Judging from how quickly the Terrorists supposedly give up the info in your Television scenario, then probably you do. Thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of your troops die because you gave up the information at the first slap across the face. Your nation loses the war, because you would absolutely believe the slap across the face is more than enough to start talking.

Because you think torture works. You didn’t like the Senate Report based upon the CIA.

We've Known for 400 Years That Torture Doesn't Work

We condemn the Catholics for the Inquisition because we KNOW that they did not find any Witches despite the confessions tortured out of the victims. But hey, the Grand Inquisitor just didn’t know what he was doing, not like you, with your insane fantasy that you can do what NOBODY has done consistently in history.

Hey, what about Waterboarding, it isn’t torture right? Well, it has also been shown in testing to cause the same disorientation and thus confused mental states as any other torture. The science is clear: Torture doesn't work

Ah, whatever right? Just because every study shows the same result, is no reason to stop the practice. As long as you get your rocks off hurting people to no benefit.

While proclaiming yourself a hero, who proudly served the Military, you also say you would have broken and given the enemy everything inside of ten seconds if they looked at you with a gimlet eye.

So could you hold out for 24 hours if you knew that your country could win the war in just one day? Would you sacrifice yourself to save your nation? If you say yes, then you have proven your ideas about torture don’t work. If you say no then you are labeling yourself a coward and a traitor. Because holding out for 24 hours is what we told the lowest private he had to do for the sake of honor when captured.

 

[Votto]

I ask all posters to this thread to answer the following question with a YES or NO answer. Add more if desired, but please don't omit a yes or no answer.

Suppose a terrorist was captured and being interrogated by the FBI. Suppose he told the agents that a nuclear bomb was scheduled to be detonated in New York City, within 24 hours. With an estimated 2017 population of 8.6 Million, and despite being distributed over a massive land area of about 302.6 square miles, New York City is also the most densely populated major city in the United States.

If this nuclear bomb, of significant size and power, were exploded, it would kill millions of people, and be the most horrific single event in human history. And suppose the terrorist said he knew who the perpetrator was in charge of this heinous act, his location, the location of the device to be used to detonate the bomb, and how to easily disable it.

Bear in mind that torture is illegal under US law (Title 18 of US Code, Section 2340A)​

So here's the question. >> Would/should we allow millions of fellow Americans to be incinerated and radiated by this monstrous event, or would/should we do whatever it takes (including torture) to get this information from this terrorist, if it's apparent that that would stop the bomb ?

YES or NO.

Well it depends.

Is the person in charge a conservative?

 

[rightwinger]

The objective of the thread is obvious

If you agree to torture in the extremely unlikely scenario of a nuclear bomb in a city.........then you must agree with all torture

I don’t see that way. I see it as keeping options open for incredibly extreme circumstances. Also we haven’t even defined what torture is. If we’re talking about enhanced interigation methods used under the bush administration, then I don’t believe that’s torture

We used to believe waterboarding was torture when it was used against our soldiers

That’s false. We were doing it to our soldiers before Bush allowed us to do it to terrorists and nobody said a peep

We no longer do it to our soldiers

What was done under SERE was controlled waterboarding not the repeated waterboarding done under torture

 

[rightwinger]

YES

No problem with allowing millions of people to die, huh ? Hitler could have used that capability.

Hitler was very good at torture We used to condemn the Nazis for it

Hitler was a SADIST. He didn't torture people out of necessity to survive, he did it merely because he was a brutal monster. The fact that you conflate a maniacal sadist with a city desperate merely trying to stop one madman as a last resort from detonating a nuclear bomb killing millions makes you either a mile-wide flaming idiot or something much worse.

Anyone who tortured is a sadist

 

[cnm]

When you're ready to back up your characterizations with REASONS, let us know.

I suppose it is because the OP is of limited intellect and lesser reason.

 

[cnm]

Almost everyone, me included, hates the whole concept of torture

Which you can't wait to indulge in. Yeah right.

 

[cnm]

If it is to save one person instead of a city of millions is it ok to torture someone to get the necessary information?

 

[rightwinger]

If it is to save one person instead of a city of millions is it ok to torture someone to get the necessary information?

They are calling for situational morality

Regardless, torture is cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional

 

[SavannahMann]

If it is to save one person instead of a city of millions is it ok to torture someone to get the necessary information?

They are calling for situational morality

Regardless, torture is cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional

Worse, it doesn’t work. Let’s look at the case of Andrei Chikatilo. A Serial Killer in Russia. During the Soviet years they investigated, and even captured and questioned him. He did not break to Soviet style interrogations, which are far more aggressive than American techniques. Those Interrogations did not get a confession, and he was released. Later, after the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian Police continued hunting the man. They caught him again, and again held him to be interrogated.

For nine days they aggressively interrogated him, and on the last day they could “legally” interrogate him before being required to release him by law, they sent someone else in to talk to him.

That someone else was a Psychiatrist who had written a profile of the kind of man who could commit the heinous murders of the children and women. The Psychiatrist talked to Chikatilo for two hours, and the man broke down and started crying. Chikatilo confessed to all but two of the murders. Nine days of aggressive questioning including I am certain physical abuse got nothing. Two hours of talk got everything.

Andrei Chikatilo - Wikipedia

Nine days of abuse, nothing. Two hours of conversation by someone who understood the killer? Everything. Historically, that seems to be the pattern. You get far more with compassion and understanding than you do with abuse and brutality when seeking information from someone.

But hey, take it to your personal life. Let’s say you start dating someone. They are immediately hostile, aggressive, and even abusive. Will you remain with them? Or will you flee the first chance you get? Sir will you please stand aside gets far better reactions than move it you asshole.

It becomes a battle of wills. The stronger the individual being questioned is, the longer the battle goes on. Granted, everyone breaks eventually, but the goal of the scenario is to get the information quickly enough to be useful. Getting the information in time to find the bomb. Our OP has the idea that the only way to do that is with torture. It is the historically proven way that is least likely to succeed.

 

[toobfreak]

If it is to save one person instead of a city of millions is it ok to torture someone to get the necessary information?

They are calling for situational morality. Regardless, torture is cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional

And killing 10 million people in New York City with a nuke isn't? You are calling for situational morality. Like I said, if you will stand by and let that happen to protect your lofty ideals, then I hope you are one of the people blown up by the bomb you let go off. As a new sun rises off of Long Island and your flesh is crisped and blown off your bones inside the million degree heat of a temporary star, you can salute yourself knowing full well you died to protect the rights of the terrorist who killed you and everyone else within ten miles and the tens of thousands afterwards who will die slow, horrible deaths from the radiation poisoning.

 

[SavannahMann]

If it is to save one person instead of a city of millions is it ok to torture someone to get the necessary information?

They are calling for situational morality. Regardless, torture is cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional

And killing 10 million people in New York City with a nuke isn't? You are calling for situational morality. Like I said, if you will stand by and let that happen to protect your lofty ideals, then I hope you are one of the people blown up by the bomb you let go off. As a new sun rises off of Long Island and your flesh is crisped and blown off your bones inside the million degree heat of a temporary star, you can salute yourself knowing full well you died to protect the rights of the terrorist who killed you and everyone else within ten miles and the tens of thousands afterwards who will die slow, horrible deaths from the radiation poisoning.

So if you wanted to stop the bomb, why would you choose the method least likely to get results? Torture is the least likely method to get accurate information.

Hollywood makes it seem like a very effective means of getting information. It really isn’t.

 

[protectionist]

Hitler was a SADIST. He didn't torture people out of necessity to survive, he did it merely because he was a brutal monster. The fact that you conflate a maniacal sadist with a city desperate merely trying to stop one madman as a last resort from detonating a nuclear bomb killing millions makes you either a mile-wide flaming idiot or something much worse.

Yeah....a typical, detached, unhinged liberal.

 

[protectionist]

So if you wanted to stop the bomb, why would you choose the method least likely to get results? Torture is the least likely method to get accurate information.

Hollywood makes it seem like a very effective means of getting information. It really isn’t.

" least likely method" ? Your source was invalid. All Democrat staff. Oh please. Yes, you could have chosen other sources, but you chose that one. Your choice.

 

[toobfreak]

If it is to save one person instead of a city of millions is it ok to torture someone to get the necessary information?

They are calling for situational morality. Regardless, torture is cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional

And killing 10 million people in New York City with a nuke isn't? You are calling for situational morality. Like I said, if you will stand by and let that happen to protect your lofty ideals, then I hope you are one of the people blown up by the bomb you let go off. As a new sun rises off of Long Island and your flesh is crisped and blown off your bones inside the million degree heat of a temporary star, you can salute yourself knowing full well you died to protect the rights of the terrorist who killed you and everyone else within ten miles and the tens of thousands afterwards who will die slow, horrible deaths from the radiation poisoning.

So if you wanted to stop the bomb, why would you choose the method least likely to get results? Torture is the least likely method to get accurate information.

Hollywood makes it seem like a very effective means of getting information. It really isn’t.

Use your brain, or at least try to follow the context of the OP. The point of the thread is that IT HAS COME TO MAKING THE GUY TALK (with torture) or letting his nuke blow up New York City. You see? That implies you have tried other courses of action and they have failed so it is now this or nothing. Is that too abstract for you? Now, the guy WANTS to blow up NYC, so, it is up to him what makes him crack. How determined is he not to talk? How determined are you to make him?

You see, all this stuff about torture not working and if you just talk nice and respect him, well, maybe that has worked in a few special rare cases. But in most cases where the person absolutely does not want to give up the information (but has it), who but a fool thinks he's going to "crack" with just a little nice coaxing? Maybe a candy-bar? I hear Hershey bars are very popular.

YOUR AN IDIOT, if you believe that. And to those who say torture has been proven ineffective, BULL. I guarantee you that there is a torture method where you can make just about anyone talk. Anyone who thinks torture doesn't work has no idea how far torture can go. If you can't get a person to talk under the right torture, well, he's NEVER going to talk and you better hope NYC has a good evacuation route.

But when you announce to the world you ban water-boarding, torture and other limitations to how far you will go in war, true or not, you are showing your enemy your hand in advance and just weakening your position. It's now one less thing they have to plan for. In the war against terror, you are often combating a 12th century mentality, and while it might make you feel high and noble to say how far you will not go in order to impress your 21st Century friends, your enemy is pulling out all the stops, will stop at nothing and is already using what you've told him about yourself against you to exploit your weaknesses.

It is the very same way the terrorists of 9/11 knew they could come to Florida and be happily taught how to fly a jumbo jet no questions asked, without being taught how to LAND it. The same itinerant stupidity that boasts to the world their stopping points in war and torture on how far they will not go are the very same people that in a very real way enabled 9/11 and left us wide open to 2,000 people being killed in a day.

Isn't it funny how the actual results of liberal progressive thinking often ends up achieving the exact opposite of what it sets out to do? Yep.

 

[protectionist]

Some methods of semi-torture (psychological) could work without even

physically touching the person being interrogated. Just the fear of a slow, painful, harrowing death is an example.​

One way is to place the terrorist in a cage, next to the cage of a huge polar bear (largest land carnivore on earth), which has a door connecting the two cages, with a broken lock on it. Tell the guy the bear hasn't had anything to eat in 2 days, and it'll take him 5-10 minutes to figure out how to unlatch the lock, and open the door.

polar bear - Bing video

 

[HenryBHough]

In a nation of lilly-livered liberals one can do far more with a rumor of a nuke than by actually firing one. Millions scurrying around try to to find a safe space away from somewhere but not knowing where.

If I felt such a threat were imminent I'd invest in comfort blankets and cuddly little teddy bears. It's what they'd need most.

 

[protectionist]

Which you can't wait to indulge in. Yeah right.

Having no argument to put forth, you dodge the challenge, by attempting to portray me as being sadistic. The word obvious doesn't do it justice.

 

[protectionist]

I suppose it is because the OP is of limited intellect and lesser reason.

Can't defeat the message.......attack the messenger. Some leftist tactics never change. Boring.

 

[SavannahMann]

Some methods of semi-torture (psychological) could work without even

physically touching the person being interrogated. Just the fear of a slow, painful, harrowing death is an example.​

One way is to place the terrorist in a cage, next to the cage of a huge polar bear (largest land carnivore on earth), which has a door connecting the two cages, with a broken lock on it. Tell the guy the bear hasn't had anything to eat in 2 days, and it'll take him 5-10 minutes to figure out how to unlatch the lock, and open the door.

polar bear - Bing video

Yeah. That’s why we expect our troops who go through SERE school to hold out for three days. Because it is so easy to make them talk.

If it was you in the box, you would be babbling inside of two minutes, but we already determined that you were a disgrace to the uniform.

Study after study comes to the same conclusion. History shows it. Yet stubbornly you stand fast on the discredited conclusion that torture works in minutes all the time.

The Kempi Tai or Japanese Secret Police tortured people constantly but never learned anything of any value about General Fertig. The man was isolated in the Philippines one one island and the Japanese who were as brutal as they got learned nothing of value.

The Nazi’s tortured the Soviets they captured and were defeated soundly because they did not have a good idea what they were facing.

I’ve given example after example. Historical evidence galore. Yet like any small minded fool you stubbornly ignore the truth.

Here is the Army Manual on intelligence gathering including interrogation.

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-52.pdf

Page 14 starts to talk about how these things are not effective besides being illegal.

Damn liberal army right?

Frank Serpico watched two Detectives work over a prisoner trying to get the names of the accomplices. After the Detectives gave up, Serpico took the guy to a diner and got him a sandwich and a cup of coffee. Thirty minutes later Serpico gave the Detectives the names of the accomplices.

Guantánamo should prove the point. We got people there who were essentially nobodies. At most they were Taliban soldiers of questionable motivation. We tortured them for years and got next to nothing. Finally we let them go, and are surprised that now they are really motivated to hate us.

Want to know why we went into Iraq? We learned by torturing some people that Saddam and Bin Laden were cooperating. Yeah. The torture really worked. Effectiveness of torture for interrogation - Wikipedia

Meh. Who cares what the evidence says. You get your information from Hollywood where Liam Neesan can get the guy to talk inside of five minutes with a little electrical power.

I understand faith. I believe in God. But my faith has a reason. Yours is in spite of reason.

 

[protectionist]

Use your brain, or at least try to follow the context of the OP. The point of the thread is that IT HAS COME TO MAKING THE GUY TALK (with torture) or letting his nuke blow up New York City. You see? That implies you have tried other courses of action and they have failed so it is now this or nothing. Is that too abstract for you? Now, the guy WANTS to blow up NYC, so, it is up to him what makes him crack. How determined is he not to talk? How determined are you to make him?

You see, all this stuff about torture not working and if you just talk nice and respect him, well, maybe that has worked in a few special rare cases. But in most cases where the person absolutely does not want to give up the information (but has it), who but a fool thinks he's going to "crack" with just a little nice coaxing? Maybe a candy-bar? I hear Hershey bars are very popular.

YOUR AN IDIOT, if you believe that. And to those who say torture has been proven ineffective, BULL. I guarantee you that there is a torture method where you can make just about anyone talk. Anyone who thinks torture doesn't work has no idea how far torture can go. If you can't get a person to talk under the right torture, well, he's NEVER going to talk and you better hope NYC has a good evacuation route.

But when you announce to the world you ban water-boarding, torture and other limitations to how far you will go in war, true or not, you are showing your enemy your hand in advance and just weakening your position. It's now one less thing they have to plan for. In the war against terror, you are often combating a 12th century mentality, and while it might make you feel high and noble to say how far you will not go in order to impress your 21st Century friends, your enemy is pulling out all the stops, will stop at nothing and is already using what you've told him about yourself against you to exploit your weaknesses.

It is the very same way the terrorists of 9/11 knew they could come to Florida and be happily taught how to fly a jumbo jet no questions asked, without being taught how to LAND it. The same itinerant stupidity that boasts to the world their stopping points in war and torture on how far they will not go are the very same people that in a very real way enabled 9/11 and left us wide open to 2,000 people being killed in a day.

Isn't it funny how the actual results of liberal progressive thinking often ends up achieving the exact opposite of what it sets out to do? Yep.

Well said. Thankfully, with the replacement of Barrack Obama with Donald Trump, we have also gone from the "high and noble" ideas of how looney libs "will not go in order to impress their 21st Century friends", to instead, now, meeting the enemy on his own terms.

Now, no longer do we bow to foreign leaders, hold back from fighting enemies with restrictive battlefield rules of engagement, or give jihadist nutjobs the opportunity to massacre our soldiers point-blank, in assinine gun-free zones (ex. Fort Hood).

Americans need to encourage the president and others in the govt to remember what got us to victory in World War II, and again do what is NEEDED, rather than what some pompous, high-horse, oh-so virtuous lefty brains go around pontificating. (whiie willing to allow millions of innocent people die)