5 ms·

I'm not sure whether the analogy to Google applies here, as leaks are private information, not to be shared with third parties and Google search queries merely

by mikevm 14y ago

I'm not sure whether the analogy to Google applies here, as leaks are private information, not to be shared with third parties and Google search queries merely search what is already published. I was alluding to Bill Maher's example of the Cold War stand-off between the US and Russia. I thought it was a proper example where leaking something out could've caused WW3. But you are right in a sense that this is a hypothetical and we're not really sure how things would really turn out. Btw, here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954 http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954

betterunix 14y ago
"here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't:" We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. If that is really the worst leak you can find, I think we are pretty safe in a world with Wikileaks.
- gaius 14y ago
  We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. Hate to break it to you, but technology isn't everything. Just ask the Taliban.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    First of all, the leak I was talking about was about technology, supposedly robbing Israel and the US of a particular technical advantage over the Iranian military. If technology is not everything, then the importance of that leak was greatly overstated; if technology matters, the importance of the leak is still greatly overstated. That being said, while it is true that coordination, tactics, and strategy can outweigh technical advantages, better technology confers a tactical advantage to an army. The greater the difference in two armies technologies, the more pronounced the tactical advantage is. The Taliban did not see anything resembling a victory when the US attacked Afghanistan; they survive now by hiding in caves, and their overall strategy is based on intimidating civilians. If you want to point to a case where superior technology did not result in victory, you should have pointed to Nazi Germany. There can be little question that the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine had better technology than the Allies, but ultimately Germany lost. I do not think Iran is really in the same position as the Allies were in...
- venus 14y ago
  > I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world Hilarious. Well that explains those quick, decisive victories in Iraq and Afghanistan! > If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning I have difficulty imagining what you are thinking typing this. What do you think "winning" is? If you mean "defeating the US Army on a level playing field" then of course they cannot win. Such a conflict, of course, has never occurred in the history of warfare. If you mean "causing the US Army enough pain that they give up and go home" then they absolutely could win. Iraq and Afghanistan are wonderful demonstrations of this. The US Polity has no stomach for extended, bloody guerrilla warfare.
ucee054 14y ago
Maybe that's good. Maybe that will make the US and Israel less inclined to commit the war crime of aggression against Iran. Maybe if foreigners stopped attacking Iran it might have snowball's chance in hell of becoming a normal country. You do realize that the Islamic Republic is the blowback from the US's covert ops in 1953 that destroyed Iran's democracy don't you? You do realize that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in modern history don't you? And you do realize that Iran has been under constant attack, covert or overt, for more than 100 years don't you? Or maybe you want to keep attacking Iran until you turn it into North Korea.
ucee054 14y ago
I just did the exercise of substitution in your post, Iran for the Rhineland, and the USA for Nazi Germany. That gives: -Mein Furher! We can't possibly remilitarize the Rhineland! =Why not? -Those Wikileaks schweinehunds have revealed our contingency plans! I wish we had Wikileaks in 1936. It would have made Hitler's career much shorter.
- philwelch 14y ago
  Conversely, if we had Wikileaks in 1940, it would have made Hitler's career much longer. Let's just name some of the allied secrets that were instrumental in defeating the Axis: the fact that the Allies had broken the Enigma code, air patrol schedules and radar locations in Britain, Allied radar technology, the fact that the Allies had broken the Japanese codes and Midway was a trap, the fact that the bulk of the Allied landings in northern France were indeed Normandy rather than across the straits of Dover, the fact that the landings would occur on June 6, 1944, the identities of and means of communications with members of the French Resistance, and last but not least, the secret of how to make an atomic bomb. The fact is, Wikileaks is always going to collect and reveal more secrets from relatively democratic and transparent societies than it could ever do to entrenched dictatorships. If we had Wikileaks in 1936, it would have had just as much to say about Hitler as Wikileaks of 2013 has to say about North Korea.
  - foobarqux 14y ago
    Wikileaks doesn't just publish something because it is a secret. "Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance." Most of your examples clearly don't meet that criteria and it would be a stretch for any of them.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      That might be what they say, but actions speak louder--for instance, indiscriminately publishing gigabytes of diplomatic cables, most of which are inconsequential. Also, I'm pretty sure any secret that would have had strategic importance in WWII was of "political significance".

by mikevm 14y ago

betterunix 14y ago

"here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't:" We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. If that is really the worst leak you can find, I think we are pretty safe in a world with Wikileaks.

gaius 14y ago
We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. Hate to break it to you, but technology isn't everything. Just ask the Taliban.
- betterunix 14y ago
  First of all, the leak I was talking about was about technology, supposedly robbing Israel and the US of a particular technical advantage over the Iranian military. If technology is not everything, then the importance of that leak was greatly overstated; if technology matters, the importance of the leak is still greatly overstated. That being said, while it is true that coordination, tactics, and strategy can outweigh technical advantages, better technology confers a tactical advantage to an army. The greater the difference in two armies technologies, the more pronounced the tactical advantage is. The Taliban did not see anything resembling a victory when the US attacked Afghanistan; they survive now by hiding in caves, and their overall strategy is based on intimidating civilians. If you want to point to a case where superior technology did not result in victory, you should have pointed to Nazi Germany. There can be little question that the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine had better technology than the Allies, but ultimately Germany lost. I do not think Iran is really in the same position as the Allies were in...
venus 14y ago
> I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world Hilarious. Well that explains those quick, decisive victories in Iraq and Afghanistan! > If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning I have difficulty imagining what you are thinking typing this. What do you think "winning" is? If you mean "defeating the US Army on a level playing field" then of course they cannot win. Such a conflict, of course, has never occurred in the history of warfare. If you mean "causing the US Army enough pain that they give up and go home" then they absolutely could win. Iraq and Afghanistan are wonderful demonstrations of this. The US Polity has no stomach for extended, bloody guerrilla warfare.

ucee054 14y ago

Maybe that's good. Maybe that will make the US and Israel less inclined to commit the war crime of aggression against Iran. Maybe if foreigners stopped attacking Iran it might have snowball's chance in hell of becoming a normal country. You do realize that the Islamic Republic is the blowback from the US's covert ops in 1953 that destroyed Iran's democracy don't you? You do realize that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in modern history don't you? And you do realize that Iran has been under constant attack, covert or overt, for more than 100 years don't you? Or maybe you want to keep attacking Iran until you turn it into North Korea.

ucee054 14y ago

I just did the exercise of substitution in your post, Iran for the Rhineland, and the USA for Nazi Germany. That gives: -Mein Furher! We can't possibly remilitarize the Rhineland! =Why not? -Those Wikileaks schweinehunds have revealed our contingency plans! I wish we had Wikileaks in 1936. It would have made Hitler's career much shorter.

philwelch 14y ago
Conversely, if we had Wikileaks in 1940, it would have made Hitler's career much longer. Let's just name some of the allied secrets that were instrumental in defeating the Axis: the fact that the Allies had broken the Enigma code, air patrol schedules and radar locations in Britain, Allied radar technology, the fact that the Allies had broken the Japanese codes and Midway was a trap, the fact that the bulk of the Allied landings in northern France were indeed Normandy rather than across the straits of Dover, the fact that the landings would occur on June 6, 1944, the identities of and means of communications with members of the French Resistance, and last but not least, the secret of how to make an atomic bomb. The fact is, Wikileaks is always going to collect and reveal more secrets from relatively democratic and transparent societies than it could ever do to entrenched dictatorships. If we had Wikileaks in 1936, it would have had just as much to say about Hitler as Wikileaks of 2013 has to say about North Korea.
- foobarqux 14y ago
  Wikileaks doesn't just publish something because it is a secret. "Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance." Most of your examples clearly don't meet that criteria and it would be a stretch for any of them.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    That might be what they say, but actions speak louder--for instance, indiscriminately publishing gigabytes of diplomatic cables, most of which are inconsequential. Also, I'm pretty sure any secret that would have had strategic importance in WWII was of "political significance".