|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
clipka wrote:
> Chris B <nom### [at] nomail com> wrote:
>> Let me get this straight! The US government spent $250M to get some of
>> their best experts to teach them some hard lessons about how their big
>> expensive weaponry could be defeated by smaller cheaper craft. Then they
>> chose to ignore those lessons, but published the results for any enemies
>> to read?
>
> Looks like they were that stupid, yes.
>
> But even if they hadn't published it, I bet rumors would have spread.
>
Well yes, but rumours have a habit of diverging from reality quite
quickly. Getting official military experts to propose ways of defeating
your own defenses and then distributing that on a range of
internationally available media channels seems a tad reckless.
Reminds me of the media frenzy following 9/11 where there were military
and internal security experts clamouring to get on every available TV
channel, detailing how they would have conducted a far more effective
attack. The main thought rushing through my mind at the time was "Don't
tell them that!"
I recall seeing one expert describing how to get liquid explosives past
security and onto a plane without going over the 100ml limit. The only
thing he didn't give out was the chemicals required. I flipped channels
and there was an expert busily describing the chemicals you'd need to
create a really big bang by combining small quantities of readily
available household products.
> And a
> desperate enemy would be likely to even resort to rumor
> as the basis for their strategy and tactics if it sounds
> like providing the only fair chance, so I don't think
> much harm was done by being comparatively open about it.
Yeh, but as they try and fail, you get a chance to adapt to the threat.
I just think that handing them a carefully thought out plan developed by
well funded strategists who know the system from the inside, is in a
different category of risk/stupidity.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |