11-30-2007, 06:51 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
This is an interesting issue. I thought Romney looked weak on this question at th debate and I was (and have been) persuaded by McCain that water boarding is simply unacceptable. OTOH, the THREAT of doing something has long been a big part of our military and diplomatic approach. Anybody that grew up before '89 recalls the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. Remember, that we would not agree or state that we would never commit a nuclear first strike. Think about that in terms of morality. Even so, that refusal may have given us an advantage, even if small, that was exploited to avoid war, keep the Soviets at bay, and perhaps even contribute to the downfall of the wall, so to speak. I don't like water boarding, but I also don't like the idea of a first strike. Maybe neither one should be a matter of public pronouncements.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
11-30-2007, 07:10 PM | #42 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
Waterboarding is not a hypothetical. It has been done. |
|
11-30-2007, 07:35 PM | #43 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 11-30-2007 at 07:42 PM. |
|
11-30-2007, 07:55 PM | #44 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
MAD guaranteed doubt in the hearts and minds of the adversaries, who believed we were just like they were. The noncommittal threat of torture may make certain worry. Ambiguity in war can be an asset.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
11-30-2007, 08:01 PM | #45 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
We performed an atomic strike, not a nuclear one. Get your facts straight.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
11-30-2007, 08:07 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
|
|
11-30-2007, 08:15 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
I am surprised at you guys. You are missing it (except for Arch). During the cold war, it was official American policy to refuse to state whether the USA would commit a "first strike" if threatened. IOW, we reserved the right to unleash hell in the form of our ICBMs against the Soviets in the event of any threat, even if just conventional, and even if the Soviets were not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons. Many organizations and countries deemed this an unacceptable and immoral policy yet we refused to change (to my knowledge, we have yet to change this policy, although it has much less import in our current world).
A first strike, using the terms of the day, did not mean the first to use a nuclear weapon (but thanks for playing Mike) nor does it mean responding to tactical advances in a theater conflict or responding to another nation's first strike (you can also sit down, SU). Instead, it means we reserved the right to strike massively, preemptively and first. To launch our missiles out of the blue and seek to annihilate the soviets and their client states (another term from the cold war you don't hear much anymore) before they could even launch their missiles. (recall also that because the soviet missile fleet was largely liquid fueled and ours was solid fueled, their ramp up for a first strike would be much easier to detect, and their ability to effectively second strike was much lower, meaning our refusal to agree to forgo a first strike was very threatening to them). Additionally, a first strike was NOT the only part of MAD. MAD just assumes mutual destruction but, to be effective, relies on the capacity to second strike (can you launch after you are attacked?) The point isn't to discuss the details of the cold war, but to make the point that ambiguity in stating tactics can have value. Sometimes it can have great value and even result in great benefits. That's why even though McCain's stand resonates with me, I understand why the others don't want to take it.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
11-30-2007, 08:19 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
I think you know, btw, that the examples you give have absolutely nothing to do with the ocnept of a first strike.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
11-30-2007, 08:20 PM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
No, it isn't in our national interest to make the enemy (whoever that is) "think" that we are waterboarding. What is in our national interest is to strive to attain some sort of moral authority that this administration is flushing down the toilet. How are we ever going to complain when one of our soldiers is "tortured?" What will our response be when the torturer is captured and tried (I DO realize that suggesting they would receive a trial may be pushing this hypothetical into pure fantasyland) and his defense is "Well, I don't consider electrocution/beatings/use of chemicals/whatever else to be torture in MY definition of the word." |
|
11-30-2007, 08:21 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Sure, but the differnece between McCain and Romney on this issue isn't whether it will be used, but whether they will state whether it iwll be used. McCain is clear and Romney reserves the right and refuses to state whether or not he will do it. The debate isn't about past water boarding, it is about future potential waterbaording and what we will say publicly as policy on that potential act.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
Bookmarks |
|
|