What If a Nuke Was Set To Explode Tomorrow ?

[protectionist]

File your complaint, and seal it with a kiss to my left ass cheek.

You don't rate a complaint. Those are for mature, intelligent, and sane posters only.

 

[SavannahMann]

You want to know how to get the information? It’s a lot easier than finding a wood chipper and someone who could have their feet removed and somehow not bleed to death. Idiot.

It would take perhaps an hour. But the idea obviously never occurred to you, since you prove the truth of what I was taught years ago. The reason to torture is not to get information, you get inaccurate information, the reason to torture is the one doing the torture, gets his rocks off hurting helpless people.

Want to save those lives? It’s called immunity. You can have it in one hour. Leaving you twenty three hours to locate the bomb, and stop it from going off. Toss in some money, why not? Hell throw in a weekend in Vegas with a dozen hookers for the bastard. It would still be cheaper than the damages from the bomb. But no, you just want to break out the wood chipper. Dunce.

You let one guy go, and you save millions of lives. But that idea never occurred to you. Nah, you just want to break out the pliers and start removing fingernails. I can only guess the idea of torturing someone appeals to you.

That’s the problem with all the ticking time bomb scenarios. Torture is literally the worst answer in every single one of them. But small minds will come up with stupid answers.

One jackass gets away, perhaps into witness protection. You save millions of lives, countless trillions of dollars in property, and you save the day. Instead, you demand that anyone who doesn’t go with the least reliable method of getting information is cold and callous and doesn’t care about the innocents. Fool.

OK. Little boy. I will explain this to you again one last time, because you can't seem to get the idea of this thread. There doesn't have to be anything about a wood chipper (although just the sound and sight of it might scare the guy into talking). Al the things that you ae getting so aggrieved about here, aren't really the idea.

The idea is the difference between being willing to allow millions of people to die, vs SOMEHOW/ANYHOW, depriving a person of their basic rights. Got it now, blockhead ?

PS - jihadists don't take bribes. they even kill themselves for their warped ideology (masquerading as a religion) - haven't you heard ?

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.

 

[Likkmee]

YES

 

[cnm]

I think the OP's the dumbest, most self serving, self contradictory scenario I've ever seen laid out. Your appointment to head of CIA is in the mail.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why couldn’t it happen?

Well, the super caldera at Yellowstone could blow in my lifetime too - but the odds are about one in a million.

/——/ Perhaps a suitcase dirty bomb left in a crowded city would be more likely. Same question though.

 

[rightwinger]

This IS the topic
When is it proper to torture?
I say never

Because if you are justified to torture that terrorist over a nuke, others are JUST AS JUSTIFIED to torture our pilots who napalm civilians, firebomb cities, bomb hospitals, carpet bomb civilian neighborhoods, destroy dams

I do not want our pilots, soldiers and sailors TORTURED

NO. That's not the topic. that is your distortion of the topic. The topic is the question asked in the OP.

But you did answer that by saying "never".. So your answer is YES, that you would allow millions of Americans to die violently, when they could have been saved.

Another example of just how detached liberal lunacy is in America, and why we must do everything to defeat it.

PS - stopping a terrorist from nuking a huge city and killing millions, does not give enemies license to torture a relatively few Americans. The enemies would probably say >> "I would have done the same thing."​

NEVER

Your “what if” leads to the next conclusion
If you allow it to save a million......why not a thousand?
If you allow it for save a thousand......why not to gather intelligence that can save lives?

Those who engage in torture always find a way to claim the moral high ground ......they lose that argument

 

[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

 

[cnm]

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

It's about as subtle as the three stooges.

 

[protectionist]

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.

 

[protectionist]

YES

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

 

[protectionist]

I think the OP's the dumbest, most self serving, self contradictory scenario I've ever seen laid out. Your appointment to head of CIA is in the mail.

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

 

[Rocko]

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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[protectionist]

NEVER

Your “what if” leads to the next conclusion
If you allow it to save a million......why not a thousand?
If you allow it for save a thousand......why not to gather intelligence that can save lives?

Those who engage in torture always find a way to claim the moral high ground ......they lose that argument

No they don't. Terrorists attacking cities with nukes, is just more examples of warriors (jihadists) fighting war, and defenders doing whatever they need to, to stop those terrorists.

Almost everyone, me included, hates the whole concept of torture, buy you do what you have to do. This is the principle that cloudy-headed liberals never seem to get. In World War II, the US carpet bombed a number of both German and Japanese cities with incendiary bombs, killing hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people.

Does anyone think Eisenhower wanted this ? Or MacArthur ? Once again, its a balance scale. You do the terrible thing, or you get the even more terrible thing done to you. Anybody want to speculate on what Hitler and the Japs would have done to Africa, or Latin America, or the UK, or the USA, if they woud have succeeded in their conquest ?

 

[Rocko]

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

 

[protectionist]

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

FALSE on both.

1. There is nothing to conclude that a scenario of a nuclear bomb in a city is unlikely.

2. Agree to torture in one particular scenario has no inference to other scenarios. No connection whatsoever. Each case is individual, and based on its own criterea (balance scale)

 

[toobfreak]

Of course there will always be bad and undesirable consequences in ANY war! Even if the victims are mostly people you don't like or aspire against you, it's not a good thing. So what are you saying then, your yes/no choice really has no choice at all? I'm saying that if a nuke was blown in NYC, most of the people affected by it would ironically be the very people who mostly voted against the means of having caught and stopped the terrorists making the bomb in the first place. THE POINT BEING the unintended consequences of making decisions which on the surface might seem right at the time but really weren't.

As Dick Cheney might say: never tie your own hands in a battle against an enemy. Dreamy idealism might feel noble in saying there can be no justification to water-boarding, but I bet all those hypothetical people in NYC voting that way would all suddenly find "torture" perfectly sensible and change their minds as the seconds count down to find the nuke about to blow them up.

I'm saying, and have been saying all along, that the terrorist should be tortured to get the information, and save millions of lives.

Well OF COURSE he should be forced to give whatever information to stop the bombing. You can call it torture or whatever you want, but it only becomes torture when the assailant resists to the point of refusing cooperation that it becomes necessary. My point is that you have a bunch of people here, in New York, LA, etc., arguing that torture is NEVER justified! Even to save a million lives. And my point was the irony that it would probably be a lot of the people who voted NOT to ever resort to torture who ended up getting blown up by their own decision.

Many say water-boarding is not torture. But I think torture is a relative thing. However, torture is a tool of war, and in war you either fight to win or, you lose.

 

[protectionist]

Hitler was very good at torture

We used to condemn the Nazis for it

Torture can be both condemned or applauded, all depending on circumstance and effect (ex. saving millions of lives)

 

[toobfreak]

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.