This is why I think Mitt Romney is who we need running this country...

[creekster]

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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

We didn't say we would never make the first nuclear strike? I thought we already proved that we would when we did the first nuclear strike.

Waterboarding is not a hypothetical. It has been done.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

COME ON. Torturing individuals or even saying you're going to do it isn't the same thing as MAD during the cold war. This isn't worth wasting much space or time on but for one thing I don't think acquiring nuclear weapons and saying you'll use them in retailation if someone strikes first with nuclear weapons or invades Western Europe with thousands of tanks and millions of soldiers violates the Geneva Convention.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

COME ON. Torturing individuals or even saying you're going to do it isn't the same thing as MAD during the cold war. This isn't worth wasting much space or time on but for one thing I don't think acquiring nuclear weapons and saying you'll use them in retailation if someone strikes first with nuclear weapons or invades Western Europe with thousands of tanks and millions of soldiers violates the Geneva Convention.

So you don't like the analogy, but there is some validity to it.

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We didn't say we would never make the first nuclear strike? I thought we already proved that we would when we did the first nuclear strike.

Waterboarding is not a hypothetical. It has been done.

We performed an atomic strike, not a nuclear one. Get your facts straight.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We performed an atomic strike, not a nuclear one. Get your facts straight.

Well, you're both right. Atom bombs and hydrogen bombs are both nuclear bombs, h-bombs are just thousands of times more destructive than a-bombs.

[creekster]

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

COME ON. Torturing individuals or even saying you're going to do it isn't the same thing as MAD during the cold war. This isn't worth wasting much space or time on but for one thing I don't think acquiring nuclear weapons and saying you'll use them in retailation if someone strikes first with nuclear weapons or invades Western Europe with thousands of tanks and millions of soldiers violates the Geneva Convention.

Yes, I think there are certain moral equivalencies here. WHy isn't there? It is OK to refuse to say whether you will launch hundreds and hundreds of MIRVs at millions and millions of people destroying their lives and threatening to plunge the planet into an environemental catastrophe but it is immorla to refuse state whether or nto you will water board someone if they may know something that would prevent many deaths? I think the moral issues are very similar.

I think you know, btw, that the examples you give have absolutely nothing to do with the ocnept of a first strike.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

So if we know about it, then it doesn't count. Convenient "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario you've worked up there, Cali.



Even if we never waterboarded again, it would be wise to allow the enemy to THINK we might, rather than bidding against our own interests.

The only reason this is an issue is due to the overly emotional, hypersensitive consciouses of a minority who think their country is one drop of water away from becoming a totalitarian state.

Might as well grab your guns and hole up in Coeur D'Alene.

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."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We didn't say we would never make the first nuclear strike? I thought we already proved that we would when we did the first nuclear strike.

Waterboarding is not a hypothetical. It has been done.

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.