5 ms·

>Watergate was a leak about just one crime, this is a leak about a multitude of potential crimes and potentially embarrassing information, I think the compariso

>Watergate was a leak about just one crime, this is a leak about a multitude of potential crimes and potentially embarrassing information, I think the comparison is a valid one because it exposes the hypocrisy present in many of the arguments against leaks of any sort. I'm not arguing against leaks of any sort -- I brought up the Pentagon Papers specifically because I think their leak was ultimately a positive thing -- I'm arguing against the haphazard dumping of information without any particular rhyme or reason. >Remember how it all came apart because of one tiny detail, a botched burglary. Again, that was specific information. >After all, they do represent all of us, and I'd like to them to be as accountable as possible. There's more to this than simple accountability. Diplomacy often requires keeping your hand close to your chest. If your diplomats are negotiating the terms of an agreement and are given instructions that "ideally we would like this, but if you can't hardball them to those terms, we will still accept X", those instructions are worthless if they're out in the open. In fact, one of the cables released by the NYT discusses negotiations with Pakistan to remove potentially weaponizable nuclear material from a nuclear reactor there. Apparently one of the sticking points for the Pakistanis was that if knowledge of the removal was made public, the local populace would be up in arms about American interference with Pakistan's nuclear weapons programs. Guess what just happened? Is that a net positive?

jacquesm 16y ago
I think the reason that would happen is because there is a strong push in the Islamic world to own nuclear weapons too, because apparently that's the only way you will be taken serious at the diplomatic table. That's the whole reason why Kim and his ilk as well as tons of other tin-pot dictators and movie star wanna-bes do the exact same thing. The US is hypocritical in this sense that they would like to deny those weapons to others while hanging on to their own stockpile. If US diplomats could work in the light of day on this subject it would be the Pakistanis that would have to bow, the hypocrisy is what drives the need for secrecy. The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile...
- commandar 16y ago
  You didn't answer the question, though - is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive? And that's just one example found in the absolute most cursory glance at a brief couple of page summary of part of this leak. >The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile... So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms? If not, I don't see why it matters. It's not like they're building up their stockpiles, either. Quite the opposite, in reality.[1] [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/barack-obama-nuclear-disarmament-russia http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/barack-obama-nuc...
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive? I think this leak has done no such thing. It has merely documented a situation, which will continue to exist for some time. Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist. Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb. Fear mongering has very little effect on me in general, but I do perceive that the terrorists have gotten value for their money. After all fear runs rampant. > So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms? If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination. The current reduction strategy is just a step back from the overkill situation in the cold war, which is offset in large part by better targeting and by higher yield as well as more reliable systems for simulation and stockpile control. The threat is just as large as it ever was. 30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference.
    - commandar 16y ago
      >Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist. Or a government with a tenuous grasp on power will simply have to forgo any kind of agreement to dispose of the weapons-ready material to avoid internal backlash. >Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb. You know, there are reasons for seeking nuclear non-proliferation that have nothing to do with terrorism, like the fact that Pakistan borders a bitter enemy which is also a nuclear power. >If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination. That's the ultimate goal. It's not going to happen overnight, and treating steps toward that goal as if they don't count is nothing more than childish fantasy. >30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference. Ah, this is why preventing the production of more arms in Pakistan isn't that big a deal. If they've got one bomb, they may as well have them all, I guess.

jacquesm 16y ago

I think the reason that would happen is because there is a strong push in the Islamic world to own nuclear weapons too, because apparently that's the only way you will be taken serious at the diplomatic table. That's the whole reason why Kim and his ilk as well as tons of other tin-pot dictators and movie star wanna-bes do the exact same thing. The US is hypocritical in this sense that they would like to deny those weapons to others while hanging on to their own stockpile. If US diplomats could work in the light of day on this subject it would be the Pakistanis that would have to bow, the hypocrisy is what drives the need for secrecy. The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile...

commandar 16y ago
You didn't answer the question, though - is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive? And that's just one example found in the absolute most cursory glance at a brief couple of page summary of part of this leak. >The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile... So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms? If not, I don't see why it matters. It's not like they're building up their stockpiles, either. Quite the opposite, in reality.[1] [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/barack-obama-nuclear-disarmament-russia http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/barack-obama-nuc...
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive? I think this leak has done no such thing. It has merely documented a situation, which will continue to exist for some time. Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist. Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb. Fear mongering has very little effect on me in general, but I do perceive that the terrorists have gotten value for their money. After all fear runs rampant. > So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms? If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination. The current reduction strategy is just a step back from the overkill situation in the cold war, which is offset in large part by better targeting and by higher yield as well as more reliable systems for simulation and stockpile control. The threat is just as large as it ever was. 30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference.
  - commandar 16y ago
    >Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist. Or a government with a tenuous grasp on power will simply have to forgo any kind of agreement to dispose of the weapons-ready material to avoid internal backlash. >Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb. You know, there are reasons for seeking nuclear non-proliferation that have nothing to do with terrorism, like the fact that Pakistan borders a bitter enemy which is also a nuclear power. >If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination. That's the ultimate goal. It's not going to happen overnight, and treating steps toward that goal as if they don't count is nothing more than childish fantasy. >30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference. Ah, this is why preventing the production of more arms in Pakistan isn't that big a deal. If they've got one bomb, they may as well have them all, I guess.