4 ms·

> I wonder how much information, if any, is withheld by military organizations in various countries. Ooh, I can answer that. All of it, unless forced to disclo

by sho 8y ago

> I wonder how much information, if any, is withheld by military organizations in various countries. Ooh, I can answer that. All of it, unless forced to disclose by political factors. There is no upside to the military to releasing anything, ever. HN is a geekfest, and I'm a geek too. I could not, and still cannot, comprehend how resistant to the "helpfulness instinct" a military man is. I, by my very nature, cannot resist helping people whereever i can, and offering whatever information I might judge useful whenever I can. The military [1] is the exact opposite of that. It's hard to get your head around. I have zero doubt that one or more militaries in the area, especially Singapore, know exactly where MH370 went, or at least what direction it eventually took off in. Every radar in the world is recording 24/7. They have no incentive whatsoever to divulge what they undoubtably know. We'll find out in a few decades, probably. [1] and many large corporations.

pgeorgi 8y ago
> I have zero doubt that one or more militaries in the area, especially Singapore, know exactly where MH370 went, or at least what direction it eventually took off in. There were so many cranks producing ideas where MH370 went, they could have just used one of those as a front by "backing" a theory that happens to be nearby the point where they have to search, gently nudging the search closer to where it really is and score tons of points for being first in a huge international search effort.
- sho 8y ago
  What I was trying to get across in my comment is that the military, in general, does not care in the slightest about those "points". They will not release anything unless specifically and explicitly forced to and needless to say they have not been. They are quite happy to watch other governments, or even their own government, waste millions of dollars looking in the wrong place. Correcting them is not in their mission statement and, frankly, not even part of their thinking. The whole area is one of the most densely packed geopolitical zones in the world. It beggars belief that multiple parties did not observe, in detail, the whole thing. It was not a stealth aircraft. Fucking Australia probably saw it. I am quite certain Singapore did. Like I said, we'll probably hear all about it in a few decades.
  - pgeorgi 8y ago
    > or even their own government I guess it depends on the relationship between government and military, but how common is it for the government to ask all its appropriate organizations (intelligence services, military, weather service, semi-military maritime research orgs) if they have anything about it and for all those organizations to lie?
- bastawhiz 8y ago
  Why would they risk it? Even if the risk was a 0.001% chance, the cost of losing that bet is infinitely higher than keeping their mouths shut. There is no upside for a military to disclose that information. It's all risk, with no benefit. Militaries aren't people, they're political organizations with lots of secrets that need keeping.
  - sho 8y ago
    You probably said it better than me. There is no upside, only downside, and applying our own "reasonable human" intuitive standards to such organisations is totally inappropriate.
matt4077 8y ago
> All of it, unless forced to disclose by political factors. Here's a list of DoD press releases: https://dod.defense.gov/News/Releases/ https://dod.defense.gov/News/Releases/ It lists around 500 just in the last year. I don't quite see how "Navy to Christen Guided-Missile Destroyer Frank E. Petersen Jr." would fall under "forced disclosure due to political factors". I know it's fun to daydream of that perfect organisation constantly updating its "threat actor assessments" and how your speech was really what made the difference in going to Force Protection Condition Medium. But seriously: the DoD has dozens of press staffers and the phone numbers of people that could pass on a tip under the radar. They have ongoing as well as incident-specific efforts to coordinate with civilian efforts. They regularly pass along environmental measurement data collected from ships, airplanes, and satellites to support research, weather forecasting, or disaster preparedness.

by sho 8y ago

pgeorgi 8y ago

> I have zero doubt that one or more militaries in the area, especially Singapore, know exactly where MH370 went, or at least what direction it eventually took off in. There were so many cranks producing ideas where MH370 went, they could have just used one of those as a front by "backing" a theory that happens to be nearby the point where they have to search, gently nudging the search closer to where it really is and score tons of points for being first in a huge international search effort.

sho 8y ago
What I was trying to get across in my comment is that the military, in general, does not care in the slightest about those "points". They will not release anything unless specifically and explicitly forced to and needless to say they have not been. They are quite happy to watch other governments, or even their own government, waste millions of dollars looking in the wrong place. Correcting them is not in their mission statement and, frankly, not even part of their thinking. The whole area is one of the most densely packed geopolitical zones in the world. It beggars belief that multiple parties did not observe, in detail, the whole thing. It was not a stealth aircraft. Fucking Australia probably saw it. I am quite certain Singapore did. Like I said, we'll probably hear all about it in a few decades.
- pgeorgi 8y ago
  > or even their own government I guess it depends on the relationship between government and military, but how common is it for the government to ask all its appropriate organizations (intelligence services, military, weather service, semi-military maritime research orgs) if they have anything about it and for all those organizations to lie?
bastawhiz 8y ago
Why would they risk it? Even if the risk was a 0.001% chance, the cost of losing that bet is infinitely higher than keeping their mouths shut. There is no upside for a military to disclose that information. It's all risk, with no benefit. Militaries aren't people, they're political organizations with lots of secrets that need keeping.
- sho 8y ago
  You probably said it better than me. There is no upside, only downside, and applying our own "reasonable human" intuitive standards to such organisations is totally inappropriate.

matt4077 8y ago

> All of it, unless forced to disclose by political factors. Here's a list of DoD press releases: https://dod.defense.gov/News/Releases/ https://dod.defense.gov/News/Releases/ It lists around 500 just in the last year. I don't quite see how "Navy to Christen Guided-Missile Destroyer Frank E. Petersen Jr." would fall under "forced disclosure due to political factors". I know it's fun to daydream of that perfect organisation constantly updating its "threat actor assessments" and how your speech was really what made the difference in going to Force Protection Condition Medium. But seriously: the DoD has dozens of press staffers and the phone numbers of people that could pass on a tip under the radar. They have ongoing as well as incident-specific efforts to coordinate with civilian efforts. They regularly pass along environmental measurement data collected from ships, airplanes, and satellites to support research, weather forecasting, or disaster preparedness.