clipka wrote:
> Chris B <nom### [at] nomailcom> 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