rvg, some couple of years later?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Resources?

Anyway, a month later, similar scenario, except this time you know that the attack will occur within the next 16 hours and it is a chemical weapon. The potential body count would be in the hundreds of thousands dead and over a million crippled. Your informant has pointed out one of the suspects and security managed to nab him. He utterly refuses to cooperate, wouldn't say a single word to any interrogator. You now have 14 hours. What would be your course of action?

I'm not going to torture him, he almost certainly won't crack in 14 hours.

Why hasn't my informant found the weapon? How was this weapon allowed into the country across the moat? You're constructing a situation to try to elicit a response from me, you're not getting it.

[rvg]

I'm not going to torture him, he almost certainly won't crack in 14 hours.

Why hasn't my informant found the weapon? How was this weapon allowed into the country across the moat? You're constructing a situation to try to elicit a response from me, you're not getting it.

The bomb goes off. 75000 people are dead with another 200000 suffering from various degrees of damage to their lungs. There are reports of vigilante mobs across Great Britain attacking minorities, not just muslims, but anyone who does not look European. The overworked police force and army struggle to contain the violence. The casualty figures among the victims of mob violence are in the hundreds, with thousands of foreign owned small businesses burnt to the ground. In order to contain the violence government declares martial law...

[Tellos Athenaios]

The bomb goes off. 75000 people are dead with another 200000 suffering from various degrees of damage to their lungs. There are reports of vigilante mobs across Great Britain attacking minorities, not just muslims, but anyone who does not look European. The overworked police force and army struggle to contain the violence. The casualty figures among the victims of mob violence are in the hundreds, with thousands of foreign owned small businesses burnt to the ground. In order to contain the violence government declares martial law...

This is Britain you're talking about. They would not declare martial law, they would politely offer you a choice between behave and Scotland.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The bomb goes off. 75000 people are dead with another 200000 suffering from various degrees of damage to their lungs. There are reports of vigilante mobs across Great Britain attacking minorities, not just muslims, but anyone who does not look European. The overworked police force and army struggle to contain the violence. The casualty figures among the victims of mob violence are in the hundreds, with thousands of foreign owned small businesses burnt to the ground. In order to contain the violence government declares martial law...

OK - now explain how they did it, because causing those sorts of casualties in an urban area is quite a feat when you lack the means to deliver the munitions by air. I suggest for look up the actual effectiveness of chemical weapons before engaging in flights of fancy like this.

Bottom line - is that such a massive undertaking that it couldn't be carried off. 9/11 was done by a bunch of guys with box cutters when nobody paid any attention to Muslims and it worked primarily because everyone expected the hijacked planes to be landed, not used as missiles. The sort of thing you're talking about requires either theft from a weapons dump or an industrial laboratory to concoct the poison, a means to get that much of the stuff into the country and multiple devices to achieve a good spread, even using mortars concealed in vans you'd need over a dozen, that means lots of people, chemists, drivers, planners, people to operate the devices...

capturing one guy wouldn't help - you'd only get, at best, one bomb unless you captured the Boss, in which case he'd almost certainly be enough of a loon he wouldn't crack in 14 hours.

There's no evidence torture works, and studies were done, what they found was that people just lie and tell the integrator what he wants to hear to stop the pain.

Your anecdote about Rabin probably isn't even true.

[rvg]

OK - now explain how they did it, because causing those sorts of casualties in an urban area is quite a feat when you lack the means to deliver the munitions by air. I suggest for look up the actual effectiveness of chemical weapons before engaging in flights of fancy like this.

Effectiveness of chemical weapons does vary substantially depending on the weather, this is true. Still, this scenario is far from impossible.

Bottom line - is that such a massive undertaking that it couldn't be carried off.

I would be very careful about asserting that something cannot be done. It's easy to hide one's head in the sand and pretend that something like this can not happen.

9/11 was done by a bunch of guys with box cutters when nobody paid any attention to Muslims and it worked primarily because everyone expected the hijacked planes to be landed, not used as missiles. The sort of thing you're talking about requires either theft from a weapons dump or an industrial laboratory to concoct the poison, a means to get that much of the stuff into the country and multiple devices to achieve a good spread, even using mortars concealed in vans you'd need over a dozen, that means lots of people, chemists, drivers, planners, people to operate the devices...

One thing that stood out regarding the 9/11 is the meticulous planning of the event.

capturing one guy wouldn't help - you'd only get, at best, one bomb unless you captured the Boss, in which case he'd almost certainly be enough of a loon he wouldn't crack in 14 hours.

It wouldn't help because you have already declared so. You have given up without giving it a try. So, maybe you would have been able to disarm a couple of explosive devices, that's a few thousand lives saved right there...

There's no evidence torture works, and studies were done, what they found was that people just lie and tell the integrator what he wants to hear to stop the pain.

There's no evidence that torture *always* works, but to suggest that torture can not produce useful information is ridiculous.

Your anecdote about Rabin probably isn't even true.

I saw it on TV. I will look for a link. This is the best I can do for now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Effectiveness of chemical weapons does vary substantially depending on the weather, this is true. Still, this scenario is far from impossible.

I would be very careful about asserting that something cannot be done. It's easy to hide one's head in the sand and pretend that something like this can not happen.

Anything CAN be done, but you are pulling up totally unrealistic casualty figures to try to force a response from me. You need to think about why this has never happened - indeed, why nothing like this has happened.

You've fallen for trick, you're afraid of what might happen and you've, frankly, taken at least partial leave of your senses.

Yes, this could happen but if it does you won't be able to stop it by torturing one guy.

One thing that stood out regarding the 9/11 is the meticulous planning of the event.

Well, not really. It was well planned, but I've seen much more impressive acts carried out, and the operatives who carried it out had no exit strategy, so they're all dead.

It wouldn't help because you have already declared so. You have given up without giving it a try. So, maybe you would have been able to disarm a couple of explosive devices, that's a few thousand lives saved right there...

There's no evidence that torture *always* works, but to suggest that torture can not produce useful information is ridiculous.

It's not worth trying from a tactical point of view, it won't produce reliable information and it will taint the prisoner making it difficult to get reliable information later. From a strategic and political point of view it represents a win for the terrorists.

It's a fact that we are less free than we were ten years ago, but that is not why we are safer.

[rvg]

Anything CAN be done, but you are pulling up totally unrealistic casualty figures to try to force a response from me. You need to think about why this has never happened - indeed, why nothing like this has happened.

Does the number of casualties really matter? Say it's mere hundreds instead of tens of thousands. That wouldn't subtract from the fact that a capital city is under siege.

You've fallen for trick, you're afraid of what might happen and you've, frankly, taken at least partial leave of your senses.

During the Iraqi campaign at the height of violence the grunts were issued a directive that said: "Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." That didn't mean that they were expected to literally kill everyone, but rather meant that a situation that required violence could occur at any time. And they needed to be prepared. It is good to be prepared.

Yes, this could happen but if it does you won't be able to stop it by torturing one guy.

You might be able to stop one specific act. Winning one battle doesn't necessarily win the war, but a battle won is better than a battle lost.

Well, not really. It was well planned, but I've seen much more impressive acts carried out, and the operatives who carried it out had no exit strategy, so they're all dead.

They were planning to die.

It's not worth trying from a tactical point of view, it won't produce reliable information and it will taint the prisoner making it difficult to get reliable information later.

So, you would sacrifice innocent lives just so that someone who hates doesn't hate you more?

From a strategic and political point of view it represents a win for the terrorists.

A successful terrorist attack represents a far greater win.

It's a fact that we are less free than we were ten years ago, but that is not why we are safer.

Are you confident about that? What rules would you roll back?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does the number of casualties really matter? Say it's mere hundreds instead of tens of thousands. That wouldn't subtract from the fact that a capital city is under siege.

You REALLY need to look up the IRA bombing campaign in the mainland, and the casualty figures.

During the Iraqi campaign at the height of violence the grunts were issued a directive that said: "Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." That didn't mean that they were expected to literally kill everyone, but rather meant that a situation that required violence could occur at any time. And they needed to be prepared. It is good to be prepared.

Which has nothing to do with torture of Civil Liberties - that's soldiers in a warzone fighting irregulars.

Top tip: If everyone you meat wants to kill you, you need to ask if you're on the right side.

You might be able to stop one specific act. Winning one battle doesn't necessarily win the war, but a battle won is better than a battle lost.

Winning against terrorists is about more than numbers of lives saved, it's about not being terrorised. If they kill twenty people on a bus and you pass a law that you can only ride the bus naked they win.

They were planning to die.

I realise that, but the rest of the plan was ballsy rather than clever.

So, you would sacrifice innocent lives just so that someone who hates doesn't hate you more?

I'm not sacrificing my country's principles, our laws, our traditions and our collective soul for the sake of trying to acquire intel. The terrorists are the ones killing people, and torture is neither a viable tactical or strategic option. It produces unreliable intel, taints the prisoner, taints the Service, prevents him being properly prosecuted later - possibly leading to a post-disaster backlash because we have trouble convicting him.

A successful terrorist attack represents a far greater win.

A successful terrorists attack is one that makes you scared, the IRA was able to scare people without killing anyone, or by killing a few hundred.

I'm more afraid of you than Muslim terrorists - possibly afraid enough to consider killing you if you looked likely to gain any real political power.

Are you confident about that? What rules would you roll back?

Anything relating to due process, detention or confinement without trial, house arrest, use of tainted evidence, use of torture, use of military tribunals, anything relating to illegal rendition, anything relating to the summary execution of political targets.

So, "lots."