Hacker News

points by awesome_dude 2 days ago | 0 comments

There is also a genuine case for National security in that - during the Second World War - releasing that information would (IMO) let the enemy know what maintenance was being held back, in bombers.

[–] jacquesm 2 days ago

That war ended at some point.

[–] awesome_dude 2 days ago

Absolutely - but another war quickly replaced it (actually several did)

WRT to this instance - I would likely argue that 50 years should have been more than enough time keeping the embargo

[–] rixed 2 days ago

Wars quickly replace one another, how unfortunate!

Or we have just independently rediscovered why most regimes seek the justification of some external threats to strengthen their power over their population, 1984 style.

[–] mxkopy 1 day ago

“The state makes war and war makes the state”

[–] emayljames 2 days ago

The planes in question would have been obsolete by that point, also those planes from WW2 would have already been widely distributed among allied (including Soviet) countries

[–] IAmBroom 21 hours ago

You are claiming we sold military aircraft to Soviet-bloc countries during the Cold War? Cite, please.

[–] jacquesm 18 hours ago

This is probably not about the Cold War but about lend-lease aircraft from WW2 supplied to the russians if I understand the GP correctly:

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact...

[–] kergonath 1 day ago

Yes, perpetual wars can be used as a tool of domestic control. The benign use is the rally around the flag effect. More harmful is using them as justifications to do anything without oversight. It’s one of the patterns shown by the vast majority of dictatorships and totalitarian governments. One of the aspects of fascism in Umberto Eco’s definition.

[–] simoncion 1 day ago

> ...releasing that information would (IMO) let the enemy know what maintenance was being held back, in bombers.

Nah. A single fucked-up maintenance shop is a single fucked-up maintenance shop. You can gut-check this by noticing that bombers weren't routinely falling out of the sky.

FedGov simply didn't want to be deeply embarrassed and wanted to try to wiggle out of paying a quarter million 1940s USD to the widows. Because they were unwilling to admit to their negligence and face the consequences, they did deep and lasting damage to the US justice system by introducing a mechanism that lets FedGov conceal nearly any evidence for any reason by uttering the words "state secrets privilege".

[–] awesome_dude 1 day ago

> You can gut-check this by noticing that bombers weren't routinely falling out of the sky.

1. One actually did.

2. Dear enemy - bombers maintained by shop X...

[–] simoncion 8 hours ago

> Dear enemy - bombers maintained by shop X...

If the enemy could track back the bomber to the shop that maintained it based on the information in that report, they

a) Already knew that it crashed.

b) Already knew if any other bombers maintained by that shop had crashed.

As I said, bombers weren't routinely falling out of the sky. And as I suggested, releasing a declassified report that only covered the reason for the crash revealed nothing that the enemy didn't already know.

[–] awesome_dude 5 hours ago

c) were learning that other bombers maintained by that shop were at high risk of being poorly maintained.

The enemy thanks you for your cooperation in telling them where possible weaknesses are

edit: While the FedGov absolutely abused the privilege in Reynolds to hide negligence, from a pure intelligence standpoint, operational maintenance audit trails are rarely "harmless" information to hand to an enemy during a War. (Cold or otherwise)

You're telling the enemy where to look.