3 ms·
> In WWII they allowed the enemy to sink whole ships to accomplish same. Whoa, that's interesting if true. Do you have any links you can share about this?
by Jayschwa 12y ago
> In WWII they allowed the enemy to sink whole ships to accomplish same.
Whoa, that's interesting if true. Do you have any links you can share about this?
- MichaelGG 12y agoIn general, you don't want to burn any good intel source. If a bunch of targets mysteriously got out of the way right before an operation, that would let the other side know they had a leak.
- CamperBob2 12y agoSinking ships may be the least of it. Some say Churchill allowed Coventry to be firebombed to keep from tipping the Germans off to the successful work at Bletchley Park.
- andrewchambers 12y agoImagine you stole the enemy encryption codes, and are listening and waiting for intel on an upcoming invasion that can save your whole country. Instead you hear chatter about how they are going to bomb a single ship. Do you save the ship and let the enemy know you have access to the encryption codes? Or do you let the ship be destroyed and keep listening for the more important info? This decision is pretty black and white too. Imagine if your mother was on the ship. Or it was half your navy. Some of the decisions world leaders need to make are horrible.