[Unknown Target]

Well, take the Iranian Nuclear program, if the US stopped trying to find out if they were developing weapons, what are the odds of them turning round and saying "Well, since you've been kind enough to stop trying to find out, we'll give you access to all our information"?

It's a mexican standoff, and blinking is more likely to lead to a lead implant than world peace.

What would be the awful downside of just not spying on them? What if the US actually tried to return to the "moral high ground" that they used to lay claim to (and many disgusting individuals twist to use as justification for their undesirable deeds).

Judging from the way you phrased that  Flipside, it seems like you're saying that if the US were to stop trying to violate Iran's sovereignty and cease spying on them, that suddenly...they would have nuclear weapons? That they would start developing them?

Unless you're saying US spying is what's keeping them from developing them, a claim which I'm not too sure I'd agree with?


As for Assange, yea, he's gone a bit power hungry/mad I think.

[MP-Ryan]

Wide-eyed idealism has its place, I agree, but it's place is not to set policy surrounding security, diplomacy, and intelligence-gathering.

Where Aardwolf and UT are speaking in lofty idealism, the rest of us are having a conversation about the state of the world as we know it.  If you two would care to join us in that discussion, this thread might go somewhere.

UT, you also seem to be confusing the ideals of open government, which is preferable in a democracy, with open governance in foreign policy, which is a recipe for the demise of a democracy.  EDIT:  Also, the entire length of my responses on page 1 which you completely failed to even acknowledge.

[NGTM-1R]

Since when was Unknown Target actually Liberator, and unable to engage with his opposites in a meaningful conversation?

[StarSlayer]

I can think of all kinds of very large downfalls of their being zero intelligence gathering, some despot deciding to merrily go about ethnically cleansing his populace for one, and precious little in the way of tangible benefits. 

[Aardwolf]

Makes perfect sense.  Don't give up any advantage for a reason that gains you literally nothing.  Ideally, all actions should be undertaken to either grant an advantage or escape a position of disadvantage.  Giving up an advantage to set an example no one will ever follow is stupid.

Why would nobody follow it?




Thought experiment:

Picture 5 people in a room, each with 4 buttons (one to shock each of the other 4 people). Suppose that to get the electrodes out of you, you have to step away from the buttons, but that you are still subject to being shocked for a while after stepping away from the buttons.

There is no reason for anybody to start pushing buttons. Even if they started pushing buttons, there is no reason they couldn't agree to stop pushing the buttons.




Obviously countries are a lot more complicated, but you can't just write the situation off as hopeless. The reason it won't work isn't because it's a bad plan, the reason it won't work is because of people like you refusing to try it because it won't work.

[Unknown Target]

Wide-eyed idealism has its place, I agree, but it's place is not to set policy surrounding security, diplomacy, and intelligence-gathering.

Where Aardwolf and UT are speaking in lofty idealism, the rest of us are having a conversation about the state of the world as we know it.  If you two would care to join us in that discussion, this thread might go somewhere.

UT, you also seem to be confusing the ideals of open government, which is preferable in a democracy, with open governance in foreign policy, which is a recipe for the demise of a democracy.  EDIT:  Also, the entire length of my responses on page 1 which you completely failed to even acknowledge.

Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.

Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.

Thirdly, well there's an argument for that for sure. But what exactly do we have to keep secret? Many people would say military secrets. Ok, fair; but how many secrets must a military have? Pre WW2, the US had a standing army of like 100,000 men I think? How many secrets would that army actually have to keep.

Fourthly, I just skipped through the thread, I didn't read your post nor many others. My apologies. Were you talking about this one?

I keep searching the site for an article I swear I posted last time Wikileaks came up but I can't find it.  It was written by a Canadian diplomat, and discussed how crucial it is for diplomats to be able to share the unsweetened truth about the countries they are negotiating with with their political superiors, in order to make informed and relevant decisions.  He cited an example of how mass graves in the Balkans were uncovered as a result of a human source that passed photographs to him, and he then relayed (along with his assessment that the Serbs were lying through their teeth) with his superiors.  Without the type of anonymity normally afforded to diplomatic transmissions, those pictures and that assessment might never have been sent.

On this we actually agree; I've discussed this point with my friends for awhile now, when I talk about secrecy and they ask where I would draw the line in regards to Wikileaks. My policy is that anything that is said between people is something that is private and thus, reasonable to be kept secret. A conversation between you and I in the back room where we just made sure that no one else was around - I'd say it's reasonable to say that both parties had a reasonable belief that the words they were exchanging would not leave that room.

However, if action comes of that; if you say Iran is a dick and I say that we should do something about it; then I feel that any action should be made public. This ranges from covert strikes to a diplomat's schedule.


So in summary; publishing details of covert US actions abroad? I say we should. That's funded with American taxpayer money (which ostensibly we should know where it's going, as was the original idea), and puts American lives at risk (not to mention those on the other side of the barrel). Publishing what one diplomat thinks of another? No, I don't think so.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

Your experiment is flawed because it fails to accurately describe the situation concerning intelligence gathering.  In your experiment, there is no incentive to push buttons; in real life, there is every incentive to collect intelligence.  Your experiment also doesn't account for any of the very real forces at play in the world:  group psychology, resource distribution, religion, political ideology, power dynamics, competition, economic incentive, etc.

Simplistic analogies work great on paper, but saying we should stop intelligence collection because it would be better is something akin to the following:

1.  Stop intelligence gathering / counterintel.
2.  Everyone else continues intelligence gathering.
3. ???
4.  *MAGIC*
5.  World Peace, Harmony, and Utopia.

That reasoning might work in childhood idealism, but in the realm of rational discourse of an argument it is simply laughable.

[NGTM-1R]

Also, an object lesson:

The United States, from 1900 or so to 1942, conducted its diplomacy with all the transparency of a fishbowl because of very poor diplomatic codes.

This cost the country dearly. It probably contributed to our entry into WW1. It worsened the Great Depression by placing the US at a severe disadvantage in negotiating export rights. It may well have helped precipitate the attack on Pearl Harbor because it made it easier for Japan to negotiate with the US in bad faith. It certainly contributed to the inability of the US to exert meaningful influence on events in Europe during 1938 and 1939. It definitely caused the United States to have to fight the French in Africa during Operation Torch.

It also affected our allies. We were unable to conduct proper diplomatic relations with the British during the early months of World War II because they knew how poor the codes were and would not entrust the US Embassy with critical information. Rommel's Afrika Korps nearly took Egypt in part because they were reading US diplomatic cables laying out the location and condition of units in the British 8th Army, and it is no accident that El Alamein occurred after US diplomatic codes changed. Vichy French officers could not turn to the Free French cause because they could not entrust their communications, and hence their lives, to US diplomatic personnel who had to use the old codes.

What does this have to do with intelligence-gathering?

Diplomacy is intelligence gathering. The activities are inseparable. Negotiation cannot occur in a vacuum. You must have some idea of what it is reasonable to ask for and what the other side wants, both in general and specifically from this. Because these things are near and dear to them, and because it makes it easier for them to negotiate to a win for them and them only if you're wrong, you cannot expect the other side to be truthful about them.

[Bobboau]

interesting fact, apparently the Guardian had already leaked all of this, and that is the reason why this was leaked.

[MP-Ryan]

Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.

Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.

It's also the only discussion we can have because it's the only discussion based on fact.  What the world could be is a magical place of fairy dust where everyone gets along and we all sit around the fire, eat chocolates, and sing koombaya until we pass out into diabetic comas, but that's not what the world is and thus does not warrant a place in a rational discussion.

Thirdly, well there's an argument for that for sure. But what exactly do we have to keep secret? Many people would say military secrets. Ok, fair; but how many secrets must a military have? Pre WW2, the US had a standing army of like 100,000 men I think? How many secrets would that army actually have to keep.

Fourthly, I just skipped through the thread, I didn't read your post nor many others. My apologies. Were you talking about this one?

So in summary; publishing details of covert US actions abroad? I say we should. That's funded with American taxpayer money (which ostensibly we should know where it's going, as was the original idea), and puts American lives at risk (not to mention those on the other side of the barrel). Publishing what one diplomat thinks of another? No, I don't think so.

First and foremost, I'd like you to get your own position straight.  Maintaining secrecy on various pieces of information (and the policy on security of information) is not the same thing as intelligence or counterintelligence.  So instead of waffling about incoherently without reading the entire thread, pick a point (or two or three) and expand on it.

Second, I was referring to the post where I discussed a couple examples of intelligence gathering and counterintelligence and the necessity of it, which, given that you are waffling about incoherently at the moment, it is now fairly obvious you haven't read.

So, collect your thoughts and let's have a coherent explanation of precisely what you mean within the context of the discussion that you've come to participate in.  Then I'll happily respond.

[Aardwolf]

Your experiment is flawed because it fails to accurately describe the situation concerning intelligence gathering

Yeah I suppose it's more appropriate to actual war than espionage... I was in rant mode, lol.

[MP-Ryan]

Yeah I suppose it's more appropriate to actual war than espionage... I was in rant mode, lol.

Even then, it only describes a small fraction of wars in recent history, and none of them completely accurately (it's closest to the alliance mess that caused the Serbian crisis to expand to all of Western Europe in 1914).

[StarSlayer]

Yeah I suppose it's more appropriate to actual war than espionage... I was in rant mode, lol.

Even then, it only describes a small fraction of wars in recent history, and none of them completely accurately (it's closest to the alliance mess that caused the Serbian crisis to expand to all of Western Europe in 1914).

So the poor old ostrich died for nothing then.

[Ghostavo]

What if instead of stopping espionage, its results were published publicly, in a manner similar to wikileaks?

[zookeeper]

Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.

Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.

It's also the only discussion we can have because it's the only discussion based on fact.  What the world could be is a magical place of fairy dust where everyone gets along and we all sit around the fire, eat chocolates, and sing koombaya until we pass out into diabetic comas, but that's not what the world is and thus does not warrant a place in a rational discussion.

I'm pretty sure his point is that it's shortsighted to only focus on discussing the world as it is currently if as a by-product one ignores/forgets the influence they have on the world themselves and thus don't use that influence. I can't make everyone sit around the fire and sing koombaya, but it doesn't mean that I'm living a hippie fantasy if I'm the first one to do so; sure, anyone else can take advantage of the situation, stab me and break my ukulele, but that's not my choice. I cannot make choices for other people. However, if instead I keep my gun pointed at everyone else (just like everyone else), then that is my choice, and I do carry the blame for my part of that nasty situation.

If the problem is that people aren't good at putting their guns away, then all that I can do to fix that is to put my gun away. Not doing my own part in fixing a problem I think ought to be fixed is what's shortsighted, and no amount of discussion of the facts of the situation will help if I don't actually go and do something about it.

A detached, rational discussion of the facts of what the world is like is totally great, but that is simply a completely different thing than a discussion of what the world should be like, and you can't mix the two. What the world should be like doesn't change the facts of what the world is like, and neither do the facts of what the world is like change what the world should be like.

[NGTM-1R]

And once again your simplistic view of the world conflicts with a far from simplistic reality.

If you put away your gun, then people will menace you with theirs. This does not effect only you; it will affect all your friends and family as people extort stuff from you at gunpoint. Putting away your gun is not merely your action, but has tangible and negative affects upon not just you, but everyone else. Your friends are weaker for your action, your enemies are strengthened, those who would use force to achieve their goals or oppress you and others are empowered.

You have made the world a worse place.

[Mr. Vega]

This condemnation of wikileaks seems in general to be rooted in their belief that the US government is a wholly angelic organization that knows what's best for us, and that there's no greater benefit to promoting general transparency. This belief is totally contrary to democratic ideals.

In a perfect world where governments are perfectly controlled by popular will, and are willing to be transparent about what needs to be transparent without any prodding, then leaks like this wouldn't be justified. But this isn't a perfect world. Governments on an extraordinary scale are constantly trying to hide the facts from their own populations all over the world to carry on policies, to their detriment, without their consent.

Under those special but realistic circumstances, any serious attempt to break down these veils of secrecy are justified. Ohhhhhhh, they are justified.

Or you can just pretend that what leakers have done is somehow far worse than governments that may have grossly violated human rights. They might have done harm. But let's weigh that against what they might expose before we start saying rediculous things.

[Unknown Target]

Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.

Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.

It's also the only discussion we can have because it's the only discussion based on fact.  What the world could be is a magical place of fairy dust where everyone gets along and we all sit around the fire, eat chocolates, and sing koombaya until we pass out into diabetic comas, but that's not what the world is and thus does not warrant a place in a rational discussion.

Ok... I choose to take the stance that people are generally good and function well in a well functioning society, based upon my personal experiences which I use as fact.

First and foremost, I'd like you to get your own position straight.  Maintaining secrecy on various pieces of information (and the policy on security of information) is not the same thing as intelligence or counterintelligence.  So instead of waffling about incoherently without reading the entire thread, pick a point (or two or three) and expand on it.

I'll just hold off on contributing further until I've read more of the thread.

[Mr. Vega]

You cannot trust the government to be able to distinguish between what the public does and doesn't need to know. You cannot. To think otherwise is to be smoking the strongest fairy dust of all. Someone else has to do it, someone connected to the interest of the public. And I dare say it but total transparency is a vastly better prospect than total secrecy, if no middle ground exists.

[NGTM-1R]

Except we already live in a middle ground.