In the discussion thread: If Big Brother is listening to everything was say and everything we do, why do we have crime? [View all]
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:49 AM
Savannahmann (3,016 posts)
11. Churchill was given a test of his resolve to win the war.
The Germans were going to bomb Coventry, and through Ultra, the decryption of German radio traffic, Churchill learned of this attack. He could evacuate the city, and focus intensive anti-aircraft fire there and destroy many German Planes, and save many lives. But in doing so, he would let the German's know that we were reading their messages. Churchill sacrificed Coventry, and the people, and the vital industrial base there producing aircraft components, to save the secret of Ultra.
With this simple understanding, remember that our Government is and was well aware of this historical fact. How would they react if they had a choice. Give up a vital intelligence asset, be it technical like Prism, or a well placed spy, and sacrifice a few hundred, or thousand people, or save those few peoples, and risk much more down the line.
We sent people into the Pacific, who died because we assumed that sacrificing them was better than the intelligence we would lose if the Japanese changed their codes, and we lost Magic.
The CIA didn't mind one bit when the Rosenberg's were executed, because they had been reading the Russian traffic, and the Rosenberg's had been named during the Venona project. Interestingly enough, the CIA had been ordered to end the project, but they decided they knew better than those pesky politicians always interfering in things.
So when you say that our Intelligence Agencies, and Contractors are not out of control, and not invading our privacy, I know better because I know history. The CIA has never walked away from the chance to read someone's mail. Despite the fact that reading someone else's mail has caused as many problems as it solved. The Zimmerman Telegram started American direct involvement in the First World War. We would probably gotten in anyway, we were too closely tied to the Allies to allow them to lose, our economy would have been ruined a decade earlier.
We killed Yamamoto because we learned from Magic where he would be. In doing so, we killed one of the greatest tactical leaders the Japanese had. Yet, even Yamamoto could not turn the events around at Guadalcanal, and his operation at Midway was an abomination of Byzantine complexity. All we did was take their best, and give someone else a chance to be better. What would have happened if the next guy was an actual genius, who understood the need for combined arms attacks better than Yamamoto? We would have lost hundreds of thousands of more lives.
How many of you would have moved to Coventry to make the bombing look good if you had known it was vital to save the secret of Ultra? How many Civilian lives were lost to make sure we kept our secret? You can argue that the lives saved was two or three or ten to one. But why do we allow ourselves to be the pawns sacrificed to keep a secret?
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|liberal N proud||Jun 2013||OP|
|liberal N proud||Jun 2013||#5|
Churchill was given a test of his resolve to win the war.
Please login to view edit histories.