4 ms·
I've always wondered about that. It's generally reported that torture is largely ineffective because people will say anything to make it stop. However, that als
by adhesive_wombat 5y ago
I've always wondered about that. It's generally reported that torture is largely ineffective because people will say anything to make it stop. However, that also includes the people who are being tortured and genuinely do not know the answer.
Whereas the fat terrorist can be tortured and then his answers checked with the NEST team and can be tortured again until the right answer is found, or until the device explodes. He knows this, so once it's clear that they really will torture him and check his answers, he can indeed end it with the right answer.
- PuppyTailWags 5y agoThe problem is that there's no way to tell the difference between someone saying anything to make the torture stop and someone who is simply lying and actually knows the answer. You need additional information to verify information, for example, A who confesses under torture that B, C, and D are also terrorists has very little or no way to verify without also torturing B, C, and D to confess to terrorism. But there's no way to verify that any of those confessions are true either unless they point to something, the easiest of which is pointing to other supposed terrorists...
- adhesive_wombat 5y agoYes, exactly. But in this case (hidden nuke), you send the nuclear response team to the location and if they say it's there, you have your answer. If it's not, you start on the next finger and keep going until you find the bomb or the bomb explodes (or the terrorist dies). Of course you're still vulnerable to fakeouts with a decoy device, booby traps or multiple devices, which a sufficiently paranoid fat terrorist would use if he thought he could be caught and tortured, but that's not the scenario given.