3 ms·

This is weird to me. I just get the feeling that... a lot of these miscellaneous commercial facilities are replaceable- not only that, but the market forces ac

This is weird to me. I just get the feeling that... a lot of these miscellaneous commercial facilities are replaceable- not only that, but the market forces acting after an attack would encourage new facilities to be built or new locations of the resource to be discovered (in the case of cobalt). I also feel that the ideologies might not line up really well with this. "We are going to destroy the American infidels... by destroying a Danish insulin factory!" The symbolism gets kinda lost.

cma 16y ago
But it is the kind of security planning information that most people (in the US) wouldn't want leaked, and would actually support secrecy for (as opposed to things that "endanger" us by embarrassing us, things that receive classification because they document our moral failings (like take, say, the helicopter video)).
- Herring 16y ago
  There are potential terrorism targets literally everywhere. This whole issue is way overblown. Even the 9/11 perpetrators didn't want to "kill teh infidel", more reduce US involvement in the middle east.
- sks 16y ago
  Unless this leak contains information which could point out that the US is protecting facilities owned by any particular corporation(s) in the name of national security, releasing it is not warranted.
- varjag 16y ago
  Terrorist don't give a damn about ports and cable stations, they go after office workers and schoolchildren. The government's and terrorist's idea of vulnerable is fundamentally different. In Russia they were securing gas pipes, nuclear stations, cabbage sorting plants and whatnot, but terrorist hit apartment buildings, theaters, hospitals and schools.
  - regularfry 16y ago
    Traditionally, yes. With al Qaeda (inasmuch as there is a single body with unified aims), not so much. One of bin Laden's videos spelt it out: their aim is to economically cripple the US and the West by forcing them to spend a vastly disproportionate amount of money on security measures through performing relatively cheap acts of violence. It just so happens that attacks involving large numbers of civilians are particularly effective for this, because the political pressure to protect the public is high. In the case of targets on this list, there is a similar pressure to protect them, but in general they won't be as expensive to guard because their nature makes it easier to restrict access. If I were on the Chinese politburo, though, this leak would read like a literal shopping list.
    - varjag 16y ago
      Well, it does not happen like that accidentally. The whole point of terrorist attack is terrorizing the population to achieve one's political objectives. To terrorize population you hit where it hurts the people. People are less emotional about shut down plants than they are about dead children. > If I were on the Chinese politburo, though, this leak would read like a literal shopping list. You bring a point here. This list makes sense (and is obvious) if you have a strategic bomber command in your disposal. Otherwise a few of those isolated attacks will fail to shatter the economy. Remember how many bombs were unleashed on German industry in WW2 before it started showing any effect. Attacking population on the other hand is accessible and effective, that's the whole idea behind the terror. So a proper, realistic list should be "dense urban areas of the United States". Of course it's not what the embassies were assigned to find out, so they really did an honest, if mostly useless, job.
      - regularfry 16y ago
        Possibly you misunderstand me. I don't mean that the Chinese (for instance) might want to bomb what's on the list (although that would certainly be one approach). I mean that they might literally wish to (and be capable of) buying what's on the list. We all know they've been cornering African mineral exploitation for the last decade or so, I'm sure they wouldn't object to another cobalt mine or two on their acquisition list, even if they had to pay an absurd premium.

cma 16y ago

But it is the kind of security planning information that most people (in the US) wouldn't want leaked, and would actually support secrecy for (as opposed to things that "endanger" us by embarrassing us, things that receive classification because they document our moral failings (like take, say, the helicopter video)).

Herring 16y ago
There are potential terrorism targets literally everywhere. This whole issue is way overblown. Even the 9/11 perpetrators didn't want to "kill teh infidel", more reduce US involvement in the middle east.
sks 16y ago
Unless this leak contains information which could point out that the US is protecting facilities owned by any particular corporation(s) in the name of national security, releasing it is not warranted.
varjag 16y ago
Terrorist don't give a damn about ports and cable stations, they go after office workers and schoolchildren. The government's and terrorist's idea of vulnerable is fundamentally different. In Russia they were securing gas pipes, nuclear stations, cabbage sorting plants and whatnot, but terrorist hit apartment buildings, theaters, hospitals and schools.
- regularfry 16y ago
  Traditionally, yes. With al Qaeda (inasmuch as there is a single body with unified aims), not so much. One of bin Laden's videos spelt it out: their aim is to economically cripple the US and the West by forcing them to spend a vastly disproportionate amount of money on security measures through performing relatively cheap acts of violence. It just so happens that attacks involving large numbers of civilians are particularly effective for this, because the political pressure to protect the public is high. In the case of targets on this list, there is a similar pressure to protect them, but in general they won't be as expensive to guard because their nature makes it easier to restrict access. If I were on the Chinese politburo, though, this leak would read like a literal shopping list.
  - varjag 16y ago
    Well, it does not happen like that accidentally. The whole point of terrorist attack is terrorizing the population to achieve one's political objectives. To terrorize population you hit where it hurts the people. People are less emotional about shut down plants than they are about dead children. > If I were on the Chinese politburo, though, this leak would read like a literal shopping list. You bring a point here. This list makes sense (and is obvious) if you have a strategic bomber command in your disposal. Otherwise a few of those isolated attacks will fail to shatter the economy. Remember how many bombs were unleashed on German industry in WW2 before it started showing any effect. Attacking population on the other hand is accessible and effective, that's the whole idea behind the terror. So a proper, realistic list should be "dense urban areas of the United States". Of course it's not what the embassies were assigned to find out, so they really did an honest, if mostly useless, job.
    - regularfry 16y ago
      Possibly you misunderstand me. I don't mean that the Chinese (for instance) might want to bomb what's on the list (although that would certainly be one approach). I mean that they might literally wish to (and be capable of) buying what's on the list. We all know they've been cornering African mineral exploitation for the last decade or so, I'm sure they wouldn't object to another cobalt mine or two on their acquisition list, even if they had to pay an absurd premium.