Hypotheticals

I rail against this a lot, so forgive me if this all seems repetitive, but for my money, one of the most obstructive and opportunistic tools politicians use (and are allowed to get away with) is a refusal--seemingly based in principle--to answer any questions pertaining to hypothetical scenarios. We saw it in the debate again yesterday when the coversation turned to the absurd idea of using nuclear weapons to target al Qaeda in Pakistan:

CLINTON: I think it's a difference that really goes to the heart of whether we should be using hypotheticals. I mean, one thing that I agree with is we shouldn't use hypotheticals. You know, words do matter.

And this campaign, just like every other things that happens in the United States, is looked at and followed with very great interest. And, you know, Pakistan is on a knife's edge. It is easily, unfortunately, a target for the jihadists. And, therefore, you've got to be very careful about what it is you say with respect to Pakistan....

EDWARDS: I personally think, and I would as president, not talk about hypotheticals in nuclear weapons. I think that's not a healthy thing to do. I think what it does for the president of the United States is it effectively limits your options. And I do not want to limit my options, and I don't want to talk about hypothetical use of nuclear weapons.

Implicit in these comments are two ideas. One is that both Clinton and Edwards think there's a greater-than-zero percent chance that they'll use nuclear weapons in Pakistan. The other is that if our candidates debate the hypothetical question of using nuclear weapons in Pakistan, we'll upset the fragile political situation in that country.

Seriously, though! How much value do Clinton and Edwards really place on keeping alive the (psychotic) possibility that either of them will resort to using nuclear weapons as an anti-terror tactic? If it's important to maintain stability in Pakistan by not instilling its people with the fear of an atomic strike, then the thing to do is say there won't be an atomic strike; it is not to imply that the nuclear option is a remote possibility by refusing to make pronouncements about hypothetical questions with obvious answers.

If the question concerned detainees instead of nukes, would the candidates refuse to universally rule out the use of torture on the basis of the fact ruling out torture would in effect require making a pronouncement about a hypothetical ticking time bomb scenario? If so, then I want new candidates.