News: Whatever happened to "loose lips sink ships"?

[PrettySquareGal]

I was just reading this in the news:

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The
U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from
Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070323/pl_bloomberg/ako7y_orw538

Seriously, must this and similar things be made public?

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Yeah, pretty stupid to just give away a vulnerability like that. Unless of course it's just dis-information, and just a test to see if terrorists would have this and try to use it.

 

[BegintheBeguine]

Yes, this war is different. There is really not much if anything my husband can't disclose to me. We chatted online for two hours today about all kinds of things. I think you are right, Major, it is all a part of bombarding the bad guys with information and letting them sort it out and hoping for the best.

 

[Harp]

What you see, hear, read, and do here;
let it stay here when you leave here.

US Army Intelligence Poster Warning

(below which was scrawled: Get me outta here!)

 

[Chanfan]

There's a whole sub-genre of security called "security through obscurity"; Wherein you hope the bad guys don't get info, not because it can't be gleaned, but because you prevent (your employees, the public, the press) from talking about it.

It's generally thought to be a bad idea. Typically, it doesn't work, and worse, it often "sweeps the problem under the rug" as the knowledge of the problem is hushed up, and therefore a fix isn't demanded/implemented.

Certainly this seems like something where you aren't letting the bad guys know anything that the producers of the missile don't already know (and probably use as a sales pitch). Assuming that's the case, then more publicity is good, as that increased pressure to fix our defense against it.

Of course, this is not to say that there shouldn't be secrets. This just doesn't seem like a big secret to me.

 

[Dan G]

Secrets secrets are no fun, secrets secrets hurt someone.

There's a whole sub-genre of security called "security through obscurity"; Wherein you hope the bad guys don't get info, not because it can't be gleaned, but because you prevent (your employees, the public, the press) from talking about it.

I like the idea of just not telling anyone myself. Especially not the press.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

There's a whole sub-genre of security called "security through obscurity"; Wherein you hope the bad guys don't get info, not because it can't be gleaned, but because you prevent (your employees, the public, the press) from talking about it.

It's generally thought to be a bad idea. Typically, it doesn't work, and worse, it often "sweeps the problem under the rug" as the knowledge of the problem is hushed up, and therefore a fix isn't demanded/implemented.

Certainly this seems like something where you aren't letting the bad guys know anything that the producers of the missile don't already know (and probably use as a sales pitch). Assuming that's the case, then more publicity is good, as that increased pressure to fix our defense against it.

Of course, this is not to say that there shouldn't be secrets. This just doesn't seem like a big secret to me.

There was a time when the most innocent of letters home (V-mail) had to be read and approved by a censor before it was allowed to be sent. I think something like whether or not our defense system is effective should not be considered casual knowledge in the realm of hush hush gossip. It should be classified, in my opinion.

As far as people putting pressure on the government to fix it, I would hope that there are internal and limited external people overseeing such things. I don't know that publishing a story like that will make us safer due to people demanding that they fix it.

I personally think there is too much information put out there for our enemies to see.

 

[Dan G]

There was a time when the most innocent of letters home (V-mail) had to be read and approved by a censor before it was allowed to be sent. I think something like whether or not our defense system is effective should not be considered casual knowledge in the realm of hush hush gossip. It should be classified, in my opinion.

As far as people putting pressure on the government to fix it, I would hope that there are internal and limited external people overseeing such things. I don't know that publishing a story like that will make us safer due to people demanding that they fix it.

I personally think there is too much information put out there for our enemies to see.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[Dixon Cannon]

In an declared war, such as the U.S. involvement in WWII - declared by Congress on Dec 8 and 11, 1941, the War Department goes into high gear controling the press, the public and the war strategy. Every 'police action' that we have entered into since that time has been an undeclared war, as Constitutionally, only Congress can declare war.

When we're in an 'undeclared war', Congress and the "Defense" Dept. can't control the press, private conversations, or the sharing of technical data about equipment and weapons - at least domestically.

I'm afraid with 'undeclared wars' and 24/7 press coverage and satelite imagery, the days of loose lips and sinking ships is over. As are Constitutional constraints apparently.

-dixon cannon

 

[reetpleat]

Trust me. If it is valuable knowledge to someone wishing to do harm to the US fleet, they already know it or you wouldn't be hearing it. There are many people who's sole job is to know about such things and decide if it should be kept secret or not. Your tax dollars at work.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Trust me. If it is valuable knowledge to someone wishing to do harm to the US fleet, they already know it or you wouldn't be hearing it. There are many people who's sole job is to know about such things and decide if it should be kept secret or not. Your tax dollars at work.

I don't trust that all terrorists have been identified and that all terrorists, present, future or wannabe have access to this kind of information, but then again, why would they have to do any work to find it when the media feeds it to them?

 

[PrettySquareGal]

In an declared war, such as the U.S. involvement in WWII - declared by Congress on Dec 8 and 11, 1941, the War Department goes into high gear controling the press, the public and the war strategy. Every 'police action' that we have entered into since that time has been an undeclared war, as Constitutionally, only Congress can declare war.

When we're in an 'undeclared war', Congress and the "Defense" Dept. can't control the press, private conversations, or the sharing of technical data about equipment and weapons - at least domestically.

I'm afraid with 'undeclared wars' and 24/7 press coverage and satelite imagery, the days of loose lips and sinking ships is over. As are Constitutional constraints apparently.

-dixon cannon

Sadly, I agree.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Trust me. If it is valuable knowledge to someone wishing to do harm to the US fleet, they already know it or you wouldn't be hearing it. There are many people who's sole job is to know about such things and decide if it should be kept secret or not. Your tax dollars at work.

One other thing. from the article:

"A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows."

Now, why would this person have to remain anonymous if they are truly free to divulge this information?

And this, I think, is proof that the world has gone mad:

"The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said."

So, at these shows, do they hand out give-aways like pens and mints with imprints of missiles?? I'm picturing this trade show and am not sure if I want to laugh or hide. Maybe both.

 

[BegintheBeguine]

Scary. I think about the smallpox (open oozing wound) vaccination my husband had when I last visited him before he deployed. I can imagine the trade show where the Russians were peddling smallpox. There are some secrets the soldiers aren't to discuss but with the media barging in and blabbing it's probably a moot point. As my dad and his fellow WWII veterans said at their last Army reunion, this war is different. Those guys (and gal schoolmates back in Oak Ridge) kept things under their hats for 50 years.

 

[reetpleat]

One other thing. from the article:

"A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows."

Now, why would this person have to remain anonymous if they are truly free to divulge this information?

And this, I think, is proof that the world has gone mad:

"The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said."

So, at these shows, do they hand out give-aways like pens and mints with imprints of missiles?? I'm picturing this trade show and am not sure if I want to laugh or hide. Maybe both.

People usually remain anonymous because they fear reprisal for making the administration or command look bad. IF it were vital private info revealing it would be a very serious deal, maybe even treason or some such. So they would never be able to remain anonymous.

 

[Elaina]

But with the media, that means we too have the information on them.

I'm not saying it's right, merely the effect.

 

[Chanfan]

In general, I'm more of a fan of the idea of keeping the absolute minimum amount of secrets, as I feel it's a tool that is widely over used by our government, and often used for the wrong reasons. But perhaps straying into the realm of politics, so I'll let it drop.

I do like the propaganda posters from the WWII era on this type of topic - we have a few at our workplace.

 

[Diamondback]

On the one hand, as a semi-trained intel analyst, sometimes you have to go "outside the chain" to bring public pressure to bear in getting a critical problem fixed. Billy Mitchell, for the classic example. Dick Marcinko on base security, for two.

However, there are also strategies like "disinformation"--then the analyst like me has to really work at separating the wheat from the chaff.

Or, if you put out enough conflicting information, all of it "well supported", then Mr. Analyst gets to have all kinds of fun trying to figure out which one's the real deal. Along with fun like the old SOE/OSS strategy of "using the truth as bait for a lie"--letting the other guy have a little taste of the facts so he believes the source, while you set him up for the whopper later.

I for one tend to favor security by being an unattractive target and tight information control in my personal life, and I will tell you all that while you pretty much get the straight skinny from me, I will drop in an occasional red herring to keep people off-balance, kinda like how DM mentioned above has both "serious intellectual" and "crazy Sharkman" personas for different situations.

Apologies for the long post, but intel and counterintel are two areas I've put a lot of study into, and while I'm not quite "Field Grade", I'm reasonably confident in my own tradecraft capabilities.

Please don't take my precautions as distrust of the FL community or any individual member, it's just that since this is a public forum, anyone can read these posts. (I lurked for a couple weeks before joining, looking at A-2 info in this very forum, as it happens, and if I can do it, almost anybody can do it.)

 

[Elaina]

Like anything else in today's world, you have to be careful. I've been told recently that I'm not very personable, nice, and they really don't like me, so I should go away since I'm being ignored more then not. Of course: a)I don't care. I have an opinion, and by golly, I'm going to share it b) it is after all the internet, and being so open and downright informative isn't always a good idea and c)It was hit on another topic about the anonymity of the internet gives people a sense of security saying what they like. I don't think in today's age you CAN take your statements the wrong way, and I for one understand and can relate.

 

[MikeBravo]

I believe that Allied airmen in Vietnam were told if they were shot down and interrogated, that they should tell them what they wanted to know, such as what base they were from.

The thoery being that the war was so fluid, the information would be obsolete before the enemy could use it. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the North Vietnamese air force was a negligible threat to US and Allied bases.

Although I remember reading that Soviet pilots were in combat with US pilots during the Vietnam War