4 ms·

Definitely. If you're not fighting an unpopular war far overseas somewhere it's not really a problem.

by linuxftw 4y ago

themitigating 4y ago
What about a popular war where a country invaded the US. What about the locations of nuclear weapons?
- bombcar 4y ago
  If the government can't keep its locations secret, that should be on them. Limiting their employees/military from blabbing the secrets is a separate issue.
- linuxftw 4y ago
  Who's going to invade the US? Much easier to buy the politicians like how it currently works. This would also require several years of naval and long range bombardments to even be a possibility. Just a non-factor if the planet looks anything like it does today. > What about the locations of nuclear weapons? Security through obscurity. I'm sure some of the US's adversaries know where at least some nuclear weapons are located, and it seems to have not been a problem so far. What's everybody so scared of? The US could cut its military by 75% overnight and little would change for the US itself. So-call 'allies' overseas might have to start footing their own bill for defense or attempt to make peace with their neighbors, but for the US nothing changes.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Why are you picking apart my hypothetical examples ? Is it your argument there is no reason ever for the government to censor information?
    - linuxftw 4y ago
      I don't believe the government has any legitimate power that an individual does not have.
      - muaytimbo 4y ago
        well said.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        If everyone (or no one) has legitimate power of violent aggression, it's pretty much impossible to run a democracy as the minority would either have legitimate use of force to stop the majority, or the majority would have no legitimate use of force to impose their vote on the minority. Now I'm in agreement with you.... but the logical conclusion is basically some form of anarchism.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  >What about the locations of nuclear weapons? You mean Montana and North and South Dakota? You can't really hide a silo location from satellites. This was the impetus behind the MX missile program back in the 80's or whenever, it was going to create a huge chain of silos that missiles were constantly shifted around between so the Soviets couldn't know where they were and couldn't target them.

Definitely. If you're not fighting an unpopular war far overseas somewhere it's not really a problem.

themitigating 4y ago

What about a popular war where a country invaded the US. What about the locations of nuclear weapons?

bombcar 4y ago
If the government can't keep its locations secret, that should be on them. Limiting their employees/military from blabbing the secrets is a separate issue.
linuxftw 4y ago
Who's going to invade the US? Much easier to buy the politicians like how it currently works. This would also require several years of naval and long range bombardments to even be a possibility. Just a non-factor if the planet looks anything like it does today. > What about the locations of nuclear weapons? Security through obscurity. I'm sure some of the US's adversaries know where at least some nuclear weapons are located, and it seems to have not been a problem so far. What's everybody so scared of? The US could cut its military by 75% overnight and little would change for the US itself. So-call 'allies' overseas might have to start footing their own bill for defense or attempt to make peace with their neighbors, but for the US nothing changes.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Why are you picking apart my hypothetical examples ? Is it your argument there is no reason ever for the government to censor information?
  - linuxftw 4y ago
    I don't believe the government has any legitimate power that an individual does not have.
    - muaytimbo 4y ago
      well said.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      If everyone (or no one) has legitimate power of violent aggression, it's pretty much impossible to run a democracy as the minority would either have legitimate use of force to stop the majority, or the majority would have no legitimate use of force to impose their vote on the minority. Now I'm in agreement with you.... but the logical conclusion is basically some form of anarchism.
HideousKojima 4y ago
>What about the locations of nuclear weapons? You mean Montana and North and South Dakota? You can't really hide a silo location from satellites. This was the impetus behind the MX missile program back in the 80's or whenever, it was going to create a huge chain of silos that missiles were constantly shifted around between so the Soviets couldn't know where they were and couldn't target them.