Wikileaks: List of facilities 'vital to US security' leaked - Polidicks

ITT: "I don't like it when wikileaks publishes things I disagree with"

[QUOTE=Vasili;26520248]ITT: "I don't like it when wikileaks publishes things I disagree with"[/QUOTE] Some people yes, I cant say I like the fact they compiled a list of valuable assets where innocent people work either. However I am in full support of sharing information no matter how dangerous it is.

[QUOTE=superdinoman;26520222]Once all this blows over and after they leak some of the [B]supposed upcoming military blueprints/documents[/B].[/QUOTE] Not liking the sound of that. What part of the public would really be interested in the schematics to an Apache? [editline]6th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=superdinoman;26520269]Some people yes, I cant say I like the fact they compiled a list of valuable assets where innocent people work either.[B] However I am in full support of sharing information no matter how dangerous it is[/B].[/QUOTE] Why.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;26520206]It's starting to look like Wikileaks has it out against the US, I mean I didn't believe that when they targeted the US for every other major leak, but now they're just going overboard with it. [B]When can we see a leak involving another country?[/B][/QUOTE] When someone gives them something... The US did (by the sounds of it) have a really lax security policy which allowed someone who was basically being kicked out of the army to copy all this data onto a CD and post it to Wikileaks. That is the only reason there is so much data from the US in the last year. Previous to the airstrike video release there was many documents about other countries. It also has a tonne of info on scientology. It is a real shame that the actual Wiki is down. [editline]6th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;26520291] What part of the public would really be interested in the schematics to an Apache? [/QUOTE] I would, but I am a massive plane/helicopter nerd. That falls into the "general interest" category. Obviously something like that should not be released (at least while its still valid and relevant)

hey did anyone else try to go to wikileaks and notice that it says the link is broken. I wonder why, as if i dont already know

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZGcw9HHOkU[/media] I've found the thread's theme song :D

You guys know what will come of this? A bunch of important facilities with improved security. Hey look WL did good again

[QUOTE=Zeke129;26520338]You guys know what will come of this? A bunch of important facilities with improved security. Hey look WL did good again[/QUOTE] Oh hey look, paranoid beaurcrat wasting more money. Sorry, it backfired -_-

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;26520291]Not liking the sound of that. What part of the public would really be interested in the schematics to an Apache? [/QUOTE] Sounds a bit iffy yeah but I'm rather interested in seeing if they release information on some of the new UAVs or possibly some of the covered up UFO files. [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;26520291] Why.[/QUOTE] To learn something new?

Slightly relevant to the thread (as theres no WL megathread this seems to be the best place to post it as its the most active WL thread atm) [url]http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/11620256778821632[/url] Even if you hate Wikileaks you have to admit they have a sense of humour about the situation they are and their leader are in.

[QUOTE=superdinoman;26520375] To learn something new?[/QUOTE] You'd let people die in order to learn some fact? Sounds completely reasonable.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;26520399]You'd let people die in order to learn some fact? Sounds completely reasonable.[/QUOTE] Exactly how would blue prints to a jet or helicopter endanger people? The military documents though are a bit worrisome, Ive heard a few rumors that they may have troop locations and tactical information.

[QUOTE=Jsm;26520385]Slightly relevant to the thread (as theres no WL megathread this seems to be the best place to post it as its the most active WL thread atm) [URL]http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/11620256778821632[/URL] Even if you hate Wikileaks you have to admit they have a sense of humour about the situation they are and their leader are in.[/QUOTE] Haha, that was pretty good.

They have made effort to keep that sort of information out in the past and they'll keep it out in the future.

[QUOTE=superdinoman;26520438]Exactly how would blue prints to a jet or helicopter endanger people? The military documents though are a bit worrisome, Ive heard a few rumors that they may have troop locations and tactical information.[/QUOTE] They could reveal that they are like the deathstar and that there is a small hole that will cause it to self destruct if hit.

This seems like bad news for assange

[QUOTE=superdinoman;26520438]Exactly how would blue prints to a jet or helicopter endanger people? The military documents though are a bit worrisome, Ive heard a few rumors that they may have troop locations and tactical information.[/QUOTE] Knowing how something's built, out of what, and what it's capabilities are can cause all sorts of problems. How would an enemy commander react if they discovered the weaknesses of, say, an F-22? Or an Abrams? But why are you worried, I thought you said you don't care if a document is dangerous or not.

[QUOTE=Jsm;26520463]They could reveal that they are like the deathstar and that there is a small hole that will cause it to self destruct if hit.[/QUOTE] Or point out the weaker points in a the construction of said helicopter.

[QUOTE=JLea;26520448]Haha, that was pretty good.[/QUOTE] There's more oh god. [url]http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/11651937887850497[/url] Have wikileaks spent all those donations on a comedian??

[QUOTE=Jsm;26520520]There's more oh god. [url]http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/11651937887850497[/url] Have wikileaks spent all those donations on a comedian??[/QUOTE] That wasn't funny, it was corny. :colbert:

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;26520508]Knowing how something's built, out of what, and what it's capabilities are can cause all sorts of problems. How would an enemy commander react if they discovered the weaknesses of, say, an F-22? Or an Abrams? But why are you worried, I thought you said you don't care if a document is dangerous or not.[/QUOTE] I considered that while typing my post but decided to leave it out to see if you would post on it. You didn't disappoint but you didn't surprise me either. Structural weak points are pointless to know unless they are so severe that a single bullet could take them down. In the case of a helicopter, a well placed RPG could easily bring one down so knowledge of any structural weak points would be pointless. And Im not worried, cant say I even really care. Those blue prints though would make building scale models much easier. :v: [QUOTE=Jsm;26520463]They could reveal that they are like the deathstar and that there is a small hole that will cause it to self destruct if hit.[/QUOTE] Well thats impossible since the holes would be to small.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;26520508]Knowing how something's built, out of what, and what it's capabilities are can cause all sorts of problems. How would an enemy commander react if they discovered the weaknesses of, say, an F-22? Or an Abrams? But why are you worried, I thought you said you don't care if a document is dangerous or not.[/QUOTE] I'd say that any potential US adversary already knows about the many weaknesses of America's "best" hardware. Back in the 1980s it took the Soviet GRU almost no time to get the blueprints of the AH-64. [QUOTE=superdinoman;26520438]Exactly how would blue prints to a jet or helicopter endanger people? The military documents though are a bit worrisome, Ive heard a few rumors that they may have troop locations and tactical information.[/QUOTE] On today's battlefield, the usability of information gathered from battlefield reconnaissance can be invalidated faster than before. By the time such information goes on Wikileaks it'll be only of use to historians writing textbooks for military academies.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;26520291] What part of the public would really be interested in the schematics to an Apache? [/QUOTE] I would.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26520627]I would.[/QUOTE] OH OH ME! Seriously, I base all my military vehicles off of real ones.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;26520621] On today's battlefield, the usability of information gathered from battlefield reconnaissance can be invalidated faster than before. By the time such information goes on Wikileaks it'll be only of use to historians writing textbooks for military academies.[/QUOTE] That depends on the dates of the information. if it is future troop info on how they will do an attack, that could be extremely valuable.

[QUOTE=Swilly;26520633]OH OH ME! Seriously, I base all my military vehicles off of real ones.[/QUOTE] I'm in engineering buddy boy, I can actually read them. I always find it interesting how machines work and such, depending on the size of the blueprints/drafts, it would be interesting going through them.

[QUOTE=superdinoman;26520269] However I am in full support of sharing information no matter how dangerous it is.[/QUOTE] Good to know that some people are courageously willing to trade other peoples lives so that they may heroically know somebody's alias or the location strategic targets.

[QUOTE=superdinoman;26520644]That depends on the dates of the information. if it is future troop info on how they will do an attack, that could be extremely valuable.[/QUOTE] An adversary's intelligence and reconnaissance assets do that job just fine. I just don't see how something like a minutes-old OPORD will be of any use once it goes on Wikileaks.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;26520658]Good to know that some people are courageously willing to trade other peoples lives so that they may heroically know somebody's alias or the location strategic targets.[/QUOTE] Exactly when were aliases mentioned? [QUOTE=Tac Error;26520699]An adversary's intelligence and reconnaissance assets do that job just fine. I just don't see how something like a minutes-old OPORD will be of any use once it goes on Wikileaks.[/QUOTE] Which is why such info would probably do no more harm than give some angry people aneurysms.

[QUOTE=superdinoman;26520755]Exactly when were aliases mentioned? [/QUOTE] It was implied when you said, "no matter how dangerous."