3 ms·

Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting mil

Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed. Yes, and? What difference would there be? The civilians in some third world village would have time to run to the hills, and the US would still get to drop their bombs and use their drones, and weapons and arms manufacturers would still get to supply them. They make just as much money wether they blow up empty space or people, after all. Sure, it would stem the flow of convenient terrorists which provide the pretext for the fireworks, but you could have undercover operatives do that, and since those also have to get paid by tax payers, it would be a net win -- even more money would be magically generated and trickle down to everybody, yay! We would all move from rich to mega rich, so yes, I would want to make that case, absolutely.

jasonlotito 13y ago
> but you could have undercover operatives do that No, you couldn't.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Even then, it's not like actual "bad guys only" are needed, only the public perception in enough people that they exist. There are many avenues to explore here, think big? You kinda have to; it's a trillion dollar industry, it doesn't take no for an answer.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    Yeah, but now we are in the world of fantasy. I really can't speculate there.
thufry 13y ago
Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership? Classified information is necessary when dealing with a hostile force that keeps classified information of its own. It's a lot easier to claim that "Information X should be public" than it is to make a blanket claim that "All information should be public."
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership? That's kind of the point. When was the last time that actually applied? Cold war, at most. When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission? The strategy is outlined, it's for full spectrum dominance. Not defense, conquest. For that reason I think a more apt comparison would be to compare it to someone who gave out secrets about axis operations.
  - thufry 13y ago
    Whether a certain action would be more like giving out Allied secrets or more like giving out Axis secrets is a matter of opinion and perspective -- by going public, a whistleblower forces his or her own interpretation of the situation onto the entire population.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Yeah, he's such a nasty agressor. Best put him away for espionage, before he can brutalize everyone even more. And to think we even defend that guy! Stockholm Syndrome much, right?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission? As recently as 1991 or thereabouts. I would count 2001 myself to dislodge Al Qaeda but I might understand why you wouldn't. And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      As recently as 1991 or thereabouts. 1991? You mean Iraq? "It's only a war when two armies fight" -- Bill Hicks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony) ^ Explain a stunt like that in presence of an actual, credible threat. I'll wait. And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think. Meanwhile, the US just shoots down an civilian airliner and refuses to even say sorry... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 Anything else? I mean, don't get me wrong. I know it's bully 101 to consider even being looked at the wrong way as an attack, while considering anything defense as long as they are the ones doing it. I also know bullies don't like it when people have sharp bones on which their fists get hurt. But other than that...

jasonlotito 13y ago

> but you could have undercover operatives do that No, you couldn't.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
Even then, it's not like actual "bad guys only" are needed, only the public perception in enough people that they exist. There are many avenues to explore here, think big? You kinda have to; it's a trillion dollar industry, it doesn't take no for an answer.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  Yeah, but now we are in the world of fantasy. I really can't speculate there.

thufry 13y ago

Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership? Classified information is necessary when dealing with a hostile force that keeps classified information of its own. It's a lot easier to claim that "Information X should be public" than it is to make a blanket claim that "All information should be public."

PavlovsCat 13y ago
Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership? That's kind of the point. When was the last time that actually applied? Cold war, at most. When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission? The strategy is outlined, it's for full spectrum dominance. Not defense, conquest. For that reason I think a more apt comparison would be to compare it to someone who gave out secrets about axis operations.
- thufry 13y ago
  Whether a certain action would be more like giving out Allied secrets or more like giving out Axis secrets is a matter of opinion and perspective -- by going public, a whistleblower forces his or her own interpretation of the situation onto the entire population.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    Yeah, he's such a nasty agressor. Best put him away for espionage, before he can brutalize everyone even more. And to think we even defend that guy! Stockholm Syndrome much, right?
- mpyne 13y ago
  > When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission? As recently as 1991 or thereabouts. I would count 2001 myself to dislodge Al Qaeda but I might understand why you wouldn't. And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    As recently as 1991 or thereabouts. 1991? You mean Iraq? "It's only a war when two armies fight" -- Bill Hicks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony) ^ Explain a stunt like that in presence of an actual, credible threat. I'll wait. And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think. Meanwhile, the US just shoots down an civilian airliner and refuses to even say sorry... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 Anything else? I mean, don't get me wrong. I know it's bully 101 to consider even being looked at the wrong way as an attack, while considering anything defense as long as they are the ones doing it. I also know bullies don't like it when people have sharp bones on which their fists get hurt. But other than that...