Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dk · 03-10-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
(snip)
Umm, but exactly why would they want to do that, if it could lead to failure of their mission through last-minute action of a hero? That wouldn't be very smart, would it?
(snip)

Even a fanatic willing to die for a cause may not have a death wish. Technically the timer, password and shutdown sequence aren't a problem. A nuclear bomb needs to be armed by putting a critical mass of fissionable material into the ignition chamber, then ignited by a plastic explosive triggered by an electrical charge . We are talking a sequence of events, each dependent upon the previous. Computers are very good for doing this kind of stuff very reliably. You�d want a shutoff device to test the sequence, and to make a successful getaway design the trigger to activate if disconnected making the bomb tamper proof.

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 05:03 PM

Even a fanatic willing to die for a cause may not have a death wish.

Well, they found 19 of them willing to do just that on 9/11. I have no doubt there's a lot more where they came from.

The technology's not the question, BTW. Sure, a bomb could be rigged that way, but there's no reason a terrorist would want to do that. Like I and others have said, it's just or more likely to be a suicide detonation than a timed detonation that allows the perp to get away.

dk · 03-10-2003, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Even a fanatic willing to die for a cause may not have a death wish.

Well, they found 19 of them willing to do just that on 9/11. I have no doubt there's a lot more where they came from.

The technology's not the question, BTW. Sure, a bomb could be rigged that way, but there's no reason a terrorist would want to do that. Like I and others have said, it's just or more likely to be a suicide detonation than a timed detonation that allows the perp to get away.

I'm not a mind reader, fortune teller, FBI profiler or terrorist but that's how I'd do it. There's another advantage to the design. Once the terrorist gets out of the kill zone, he can phone in political, diplomatic and/or military demands. Once the demands are met the stop code is given, else boooom! With biological weapons the scenarios are just a horrifying, perhaps more.

Like I said, I don't think many people have thought through the terrorist threat, it is truly a nightmare. The better technology gets, the easier it is for people to gain access to weapons of mass destruction. In my opinion science makes a poor crutch for morality and ethics.

Autonemesis · 03-10-2003, 06:23 PM

Your hypothecial is pathetical. Try againical.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 03-10-2003, 06:23 PM

I can understand a timer because the terrorist wants to survive and strike again- But WHY would the terrorist have a "disable" code? I think he's capable of only turing the bomb on when he's sure he wants to go on with the plan furthermore, even if he decides against it it won't be much of a loss if he's willing to commit suicide. If he starts the bomb, he's in NYC already. He has succeeded already. It just wouldn't happen.

As for having "demands"- So the terrorist is going to turn himself in for torture and give his demands? Wouldn't one of his demands me "don't torture me"? If he was sophisticated enough to program a "disarm" code, wouldn't he have also programmed a "instant explode" code? Wouldn't he give this code to his torturers? I just do not see this situation happening any more than I see a terrorist strike of sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.

Regardless, torture will NOT get the right code out of him. If he's willing to suicide, is he going to give in to 1 hour of torture? Of course not.

I'm all for torture in extreme situations, if it would only actually work.

-B

dk · 03-11-2003, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
I can understand a timer because the terrorist wants to survive and strike again- But WHY would the terrorist have a "disable" code? (snip)

Regardless, torture will NOT get the right code out of him. If he's willing to suicide, is he going to give in to 1 hour of torture? Of course not.

I'm all for torture in extreme situations, if it would only actually work.

-B

Like the hypothetical or not, the reality is a few terrorists can kill thousands, 10s or thousands or millions of people and inflict $trillions of economic losses. Totalitarian nations are relatively immune because they don't respect civil liberties, free media or human rights. Maybe 9/11 WTC won't be repeated, but how can a free world protect itself against a terrorist threat armed with weapons of mass destruction?

I think the nature of the problem requires redefining civil liberties, free media, and/or human rights. Torture violates human rights. So what other options exist? Can we could negotiate?

Mageth · 03-11-2003, 07:43 AM

I find this a bit odd...

Totalitarian nations are relatively immune because they don't respect civil liberties, free media or human rights.

followed by:

I think the nature of the problem requires redefining civil liberties, free media, and/or human rights.

So, the solution is to make ourselves more totalitarian to fight the totalitarian nations?

Further, the 9/11 terrorists did not represent a particular "nation".

exile · 03-11-2003, 08:16 AM

The debate about terrorism, totalitarianism etc is interesting but beside the point, as are the details of the scenario.

The important question is

**IF*** by torturing the bomber in this situation you
could save hundreds of thousands of lives WOULD YOU AUTHORISE IT?

Let's say you're the President, it's your job to make the decision, you can't pass the buck, and will have to explain to the nation whatever decision you make. "Sorry guys, I could have saved 100,000 lives by getting the heavies to beat the guy up until he gave us the code, but... errr.... I didn't"?

If this situation is not extreme enough, let's say the bomber is able to do something that will bring the human race to an end, say release a virus with a 100% mortality rate and no cure.

Any so-called moral absolute can be proved to be anything but absolute in extremis.

For example

"Don't lie". Except when a terrorist asks you whether there are any Israelis on the plane.

"Don't steal". Except when you and your family are starving.

And so on.

Hence, morality is almost always relative (the only absolute may be "that which allows or promotes the survival of the human race"); this makes it unlikely that it is prescribed by God (unless He gets a kick out of us trying to wrestle with impossible moral dilemmas).

Mageth · 03-11-2003, 10:23 AM

**IF*** by torturing the bomber in this situation you
could save hundreds of thousands of lives WOULD YOU AUTHORISE IT?

You're still working on the assumption that "torture produces correct information", which is wrong.

The strong case has been made that the IF in this situation is unsupportable, as torture is not a reliable way to get the desired, correct information from someone, particularly if that person is "fanatic" about a cause as these terrorists are, and also particularly if there is a very short time in which to try to extract the info.

So, based on the fact that torturing the terrorist in this scenario would not produce the desired information/results (i.e. where the bomb is, how to stop it, thus saving lives), no, I would not authorize it.

Note that you could pick someone at random from NYC and torture them and, after a period, they will admit to planting a bomb and give you a location! The fanatic terrorist, after a while, may give you a location to stop the torture, but in all probability not the correct location, as he would know that any location would work to stop the torture, and perhaps be trained in torture resistance.

Bottom line: torture does not reliably produce correct information. In some situations (e.g. short periods or a zealot as the subject) it rarely or never produces the desired, correct information. So torture is always immoral, even in extremes.

Ab_Normal · 03-11-2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valmorian
Is ANYTHING permissible, if the chances of success are high enough? What if you discovered that the terrorist has a child? Would you be prepared to torture the child in front of the terrorist to get him to talk?

Funny that you mention that... the CIA now has it's hands on the children of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, age 7 and 9.

Washington Times story

Quote:

CIA interrogators confirmed last night that the boys were staying at a secret address where they were being encouraged to talk about their father's activities.

"We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children," said one official, "but we need to know as much about their father's recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times, and they are given the best of care."

Their father, Mohammed, 37, is being interrogated at the Bagram U.S. military base in Afghanistan. He is being held in solitary confinement and subjected to "stress and duress" interrogations.

He has been told that his sons are being held and is being encouraged to divulge future attacks against the West and talk about the location of Osama bin Laden, officials said.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2003, 05:03 PM	#52
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Even a fanatic willing to die for a cause may not have a death wish. Well, they found 19 of them willing to do just that on 9/11. I have no doubt there's a lot more where they came from. The technology's not the question, BTW. Sure, a bomb could be rigged that way, but there's no reason a terrorist would want to do that. Like I and others have said, it's just or more likely to be a suicide detonation than a timed detonation that allows the perp to get away.

03-10-2003, 06:23 PM	#54
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	Your hypothecial is pathetical. Try againical.

03-10-2003, 06:23 PM	#55
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	I can understand a timer because the terrorist wants to survive and strike again- But WHY would the terrorist have a "disable" code? I think he's capable of only turing the bomb on when he's sure he wants to go on with the plan furthermore, even if he decides against it it won't be much of a loss if he's willing to commit suicide. If he starts the bomb, he's in NYC already. He has succeeded already. It just wouldn't happen. As for having "demands"- So the terrorist is going to turn himself in for torture and give his demands? Wouldn't one of his demands me "don't torture me"? If he was sophisticated enough to program a "disarm" code, wouldn't he have also programmed a "instant explode" code? Wouldn't he give this code to his torturers? I just do not see this situation happening any more than I see a terrorist strike of sharks with laser beams attached to their heads. Regardless, torture will NOT get the right code out of him. If he's willing to suicide, is he going to give in to 1 hour of torture? Of course not. I'm all for torture in extreme situations, if it would only actually work. -B

03-11-2003, 07:43 AM	#57
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I find this a bit odd... Totalitarian nations are relatively immune because they don't respect civil liberties, free media or human rights. followed by: I think the nature of the problem requires redefining civil liberties, free media, and/or human rights. So, the solution is to make ourselves more totalitarian to fight the totalitarian nations? Further, the 9/11 terrorists did not represent a particular "nation".

03-11-2003, 08:16 AM	#58
exile Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 735	The debate about terrorism, totalitarianism etc is interesting but beside the point, as are the details of the scenario. The important question is IF* by torturing the bomber in this situation you could save hundreds of thousands of lives WOULD YOU AUTHORISE IT? Let's say you're the President, it's your job to make the decision, you can't pass the buck, and will have to explain to the nation whatever decision you make. "Sorry guys, I could have saved 100,000 lives by getting the heavies to beat the guy up until he gave us the code, but... errr.... I didn't"? If this situation is not extreme enough, let's say the bomber is able to do something that will bring the human race to an end, say release a virus with a 100% mortality rate and no cure. Any so-called moral absolute can be proved to be anything but absolute in extremis. For example "Don't lie". Except when a terrorist asks you whether there are any Israelis on the plane. "Don't steal". Except when you and your family are starving. And so on. Hence, morality is almost always relative (the only absolute may be "that which allows or promotes the survival of the human race"); this makes it unlikely that it is prescribed by God (unless He gets a kick out of us trying to wrestle with impossible moral dilemmas).

03-11-2003, 10:23 AM	#59
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	IF* by torturing the bomber in this situation you could save hundreds of thousands of lives WOULD YOU AUTHORISE IT? You're still working on the assumption that "torture produces correct information", which is wrong. The strong case has been made that the IF in this situation is unsupportable, as torture is not a reliable way to get the desired, correct information from someone, particularly if that person is "fanatic" about a cause as these terrorists are, and also particularly if there is a very short time in which to try to extract the info. So, based on the fact that torturing the terrorist in this scenario would not produce the desired information/results (i.e. where the bomb is, how to stop it, thus saving lives), no, I would not authorize it. Note that you could pick someone at random from NYC and torture them and, after a period, they will admit to planting a bomb and give you a location! The fanatic terrorist, after a while, may give you a location to stop the torture, but in all probability not the correct location, as he would know that any location would work to stop the torture, and perhaps be trained in torture resistance. Bottom line: torture does not reliably produce correct information. In some situations (e.g. short periods or a zealot as the subject) it rarely or never produces the desired, correct information. So torture is always immoral, even in extremes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.