4 ms·

I worry about things like this. I'm all for freedom of information and all that, but if that information is all that's keeping one country from launching nuclea

I worry about things like this. I'm all for freedom of information and all that, but if that information is all that's keeping one country from launching nuclear weapons at another. That information should be kept very very private indeed,

yaph 15y ago
I understand your concerns, but whoever decides what information will be kept secret is biased in some way and keeping information secret may actually pose a bigger threat than publishing it.
- taphangum 15y ago
  How? I've heard this argument many times but can't actually think of any non-idealogical reasons why it would.
  - yaph 15y ago
    For example, when a government lies to its people to have an excuse for starting a war, disclosure may save many lives.
  - noarchy 15y ago
    What would be a non-idealogical reason? States are driven by ideology as much as you and I are.
  - ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
    Please don't downvote Taphangum for asking a question. If it were chit-chat or a non-contribution style opinion downvote away, but not when it's a quest for knowledge and bettering oneself.
mkup 15y ago
The only reason keeping one country from launching nuclear weapons at another one is Mutual Assured Destruction principle. Without nuclear weapons, the world would be a much more dangerous place to live. We had two world wars in the first half of previous century. It was a like a loop: as soon as new generation of youth eligible for combatant service grew up, world war started again. Fortunately, nuclear weaponry ended that loop, and Mutual Assured Destruction principle is the only reason for protracted peace at the global scale.
- yaph 15y ago
  If every country had nuclear weapons, would there be no more wars then? And to take it one step further, if every man had a gun, would there be no more murder?
  - mkup 15y ago
    Nope - M.A.D. principle assumes perfect rationality, i.e. all leaders with launch capability care about the survival of their subjects. This assumption worked well during the times of Cold War, but may fail in future, as more states gain access to nuclear technology and weaponry. So I admit this principle has its limits of application, it's not perfect, but nevertheless it proved worthwhile tool to sustain global peace on the planet during Cold War era and up to this day. Imperfect tool, but only one that works.
- taphangum 15y ago
  You're right. I used that example to make a point, the core of what i am saying still applies though. Some information should be kept private
- linschn 15y ago
  I find your statement > Mutual Assured Destruction principle is the only reason for protracted peace at the global scale very hard to believe. Do you have any source I could read that may change my mind ? For the moment I am a proponent of global nuclear disarmament, I don't have any source in english but the argument that draw me in was can be phrased as : During the one true nuclear crisis, the Cuba missiles, Kennedy did not send the Air Force because the chance of getting nucleary hit, even "a little", was not 0%. Still, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction posits that one enemy must be sure to be completely destroyed. So we have a doctrine that leads to enormous arsenals, yet the only data point we have shows it is probably not true, as a mere chance of getting a small hit was enough for Kennedy to back down. Hence, our arsenal are, at best, far too huge. I furthermore believe that we would be better off with no nuclear weapon at all, but I wanted more info about your precise statement.
  - 15y ago
celticninja 15y ago
What if that information details acts of war by nation 2 against nation 1, however those acts have been, up until the publication of the documents, untracebale or unatributable to nation 2. For example Mossad paying revolutionary groups to kill off Iranian scientists, the release fo the documents would lead to condemnation of Mossad and stilfe their activities, thus saving some innocent scientists from being assasinated, sure Iran may want to retaliate but the other option is you allow Mossad to go on killing iranians (or anyone else they choose to) without bringing scrutiny on their actions. Your example was extreme but it was poorly thought out. If the information is powerful enough to cause a nation to want to launch a nuclear weapon at another country then that sort of information needs to be publicised, whatever the hell it is that is bad enough to start a nuclear war is certainly not going to get any better by hiding it away from people.
- magicjuand 15y ago
  <rant> "What if that information details acts of war by nation 2 against nation 1, however those acts have been, up until the publication of the documents, untracebale or unatributable to nation 2." Nation one should not have been meddling in nation two's business in the first place. I think this comment summarizes the overall problem with our governments. They should be completely transparent and open. The reason that we go to war is over secrets. Remember growing up: When/why did this stop applying to governments or "adults". Secrets are used to push agenda's. If there are no secrets, then no one can hold anything against anyone else. There wouldn't be conflict. I do not want to go to war or get drafter to fight for something, unless I know all the information. I don't want to die so someone else can grow their bank account. Governments work for the people and paid for by the people, not the other way around. Therefore, all information they possess belongs to us, the people. Israel should not be meddling in Iran's business, and vice versa. I have friends of all denominations, nationalities, and colors. We all get along just fine and generally complain about the same things. Its our governments that cause problems for the worlds populations. If our governments really represented the people and not the politician's own agenda's there would not be any need for secrecy. This solution could be a huge step for us to start changing things for the better. </rant> TL;DR "Secrets, secrets, are no fun. Secrets, secrets hurt someone." Secrets are used to control people/agenda's.
Karunamon 15y ago
I'm having a hard time thinking of "information that would keep one country from launching nuclear weapons at another". Unless that information was "this country is planning a nuclear strike", and then the threat of retaliation could very well save lives. Could you give me an example of what you mean?
- SquareWheel 15y ago
  As an example, let's say one country poisoned the leader of another country 20 years ago and covered it up. Exposing that information could start a war. If it's the right action to leak that information is entirely dependent on your moral philosophy. Utilitarians would generally want to keep it a secret, though.
  - agilebyte 15y ago
    war != nuclear strike
  - mahmud 15y ago
    That is not entirely true. Governments, unlike individuals, are fairly rational agents and do not start wars for revenge. For all we care, the murdered president was member of the opposition and his disposal might have helped the current ruling party.
    - cobrausn 15y ago
      I think you are being overly generalist here. Governments are as rational as the people that make them and run them, in the same way as a corporation (or any group of people, really). Can you really say that all governments are fairly rational? How about North Korea? At least the motive of corporations is clear: profit. A (democratically elected) government is in constant conflict with itself over ideology (a much trickier motive to grasp, one that often causes irrational behavior), and it doesn't always take consensus to act.
  - freshhawk 15y ago
    > Utilitarians would generally want to keep > it a secret, though Yeah, those Utilitarians are always taking ideological stands on general issues.
driverdan 15y ago
This is software. It doesn't dictate the type of information people share. Why do you assume it's going to be state secrets?

yaph 15y ago

I understand your concerns, but whoever decides what information will be kept secret is biased in some way and keeping information secret may actually pose a bigger threat than publishing it.

taphangum 15y ago
How? I've heard this argument many times but can't actually think of any non-idealogical reasons why it would.
- yaph 15y ago
  For example, when a government lies to its people to have an excuse for starting a war, disclosure may save many lives.
- noarchy 15y ago
  What would be a non-idealogical reason? States are driven by ideology as much as you and I are.
- ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
  Please don't downvote Taphangum for asking a question. If it were chit-chat or a non-contribution style opinion downvote away, but not when it's a quest for knowledge and bettering oneself.

mkup 15y ago

The only reason keeping one country from launching nuclear weapons at another one is Mutual Assured Destruction principle. Without nuclear weapons, the world would be a much more dangerous place to live. We had two world wars in the first half of previous century. It was a like a loop: as soon as new generation of youth eligible for combatant service grew up, world war started again. Fortunately, nuclear weaponry ended that loop, and Mutual Assured Destruction principle is the only reason for protracted peace at the global scale.

yaph 15y ago
If every country had nuclear weapons, would there be no more wars then? And to take it one step further, if every man had a gun, would there be no more murder?
- mkup 15y ago
  Nope - M.A.D. principle assumes perfect rationality, i.e. all leaders with launch capability care about the survival of their subjects. This assumption worked well during the times of Cold War, but may fail in future, as more states gain access to nuclear technology and weaponry. So I admit this principle has its limits of application, it's not perfect, but nevertheless it proved worthwhile tool to sustain global peace on the planet during Cold War era and up to this day. Imperfect tool, but only one that works.
taphangum 15y ago
You're right. I used that example to make a point, the core of what i am saying still applies though. Some information should be kept private
linschn 15y ago
I find your statement > Mutual Assured Destruction principle is the only reason for protracted peace at the global scale very hard to believe. Do you have any source I could read that may change my mind ? For the moment I am a proponent of global nuclear disarmament, I don't have any source in english but the argument that draw me in was can be phrased as : During the one true nuclear crisis, the Cuba missiles, Kennedy did not send the Air Force because the chance of getting nucleary hit, even "a little", was not 0%. Still, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction posits that one enemy must be sure to be completely destroyed. So we have a doctrine that leads to enormous arsenals, yet the only data point we have shows it is probably not true, as a mere chance of getting a small hit was enough for Kennedy to back down. Hence, our arsenal are, at best, far too huge. I furthermore believe that we would be better off with no nuclear weapon at all, but I wanted more info about your precise statement.
- 15y ago

celticninja 15y ago

What if that information details acts of war by nation 2 against nation 1, however those acts have been, up until the publication of the documents, untracebale or unatributable to nation 2. For example Mossad paying revolutionary groups to kill off Iranian scientists, the release fo the documents would lead to condemnation of Mossad and stilfe their activities, thus saving some innocent scientists from being assasinated, sure Iran may want to retaliate but the other option is you allow Mossad to go on killing iranians (or anyone else they choose to) without bringing scrutiny on their actions. Your example was extreme but it was poorly thought out. If the information is powerful enough to cause a nation to want to launch a nuclear weapon at another country then that sort of information needs to be publicised, whatever the hell it is that is bad enough to start a nuclear war is certainly not going to get any better by hiding it away from people.

magicjuand 15y ago
<rant> "What if that information details acts of war by nation 2 against nation 1, however those acts have been, up until the publication of the documents, untracebale or unatributable to nation 2." Nation one should not have been meddling in nation two's business in the first place. I think this comment summarizes the overall problem with our governments. They should be completely transparent and open. The reason that we go to war is over secrets. Remember growing up: When/why did this stop applying to governments or "adults". Secrets are used to push agenda's. If there are no secrets, then no one can hold anything against anyone else. There wouldn't be conflict. I do not want to go to war or get drafter to fight for something, unless I know all the information. I don't want to die so someone else can grow their bank account. Governments work for the people and paid for by the people, not the other way around. Therefore, all information they possess belongs to us, the people. Israel should not be meddling in Iran's business, and vice versa. I have friends of all denominations, nationalities, and colors. We all get along just fine and generally complain about the same things. Its our governments that cause problems for the worlds populations. If our governments really represented the people and not the politician's own agenda's there would not be any need for secrecy. This solution could be a huge step for us to start changing things for the better. </rant> TL;DR "Secrets, secrets, are no fun. Secrets, secrets hurt someone." Secrets are used to control people/agenda's.

Karunamon 15y ago

I'm having a hard time thinking of "information that would keep one country from launching nuclear weapons at another". Unless that information was "this country is planning a nuclear strike", and then the threat of retaliation could very well save lives. Could you give me an example of what you mean?

SquareWheel 15y ago
As an example, let's say one country poisoned the leader of another country 20 years ago and covered it up. Exposing that information could start a war. If it's the right action to leak that information is entirely dependent on your moral philosophy. Utilitarians would generally want to keep it a secret, though.
- agilebyte 15y ago
  war != nuclear strike
- mahmud 15y ago
  That is not entirely true. Governments, unlike individuals, are fairly rational agents and do not start wars for revenge. For all we care, the murdered president was member of the opposition and his disposal might have helped the current ruling party.
  - cobrausn 15y ago
    I think you are being overly generalist here. Governments are as rational as the people that make them and run them, in the same way as a corporation (or any group of people, really). Can you really say that all governments are fairly rational? How about North Korea? At least the motive of corporations is clear: profit. A (democratically elected) government is in constant conflict with itself over ideology (a much trickier motive to grasp, one that often causes irrational behavior), and it doesn't always take consensus to act.
- freshhawk 15y ago
  > Utilitarians would generally want to keep > it a secret, though Yeah, those Utilitarians are always taking ideological stands on general issues.

driverdan 15y ago

This is software. It doesn't dictate the type of information people share. Why do you assume it's going to be state secrets?