In response to Tim's post. Here is my two cents:
The cat is out of the bag!
Point one, everything I have seen on websites is something that could
be obtained from a diligent search or from someone else. Those of us
who had/have jobs in these areas are very familiar with what
information would be classified and refrain from going into those
areas. However compiling alot of information into one area such as a
website could be argued as a free ride for the enemy. We should not
blame ourselves for possibly giving the enemy a free ride. The enemy
would love to say "we got our Pentagon information from FAS or saw it
on television". My observation is that there is so much information
on the web it would be hard for someone to compile it and create an
accurate assessment of a facility or plan, etc.
Second, once anything is posted on the web its gone. Taking it down
may legitimize the information. Realize websites are fragile, they
disappear frequently, the rule is if you like what you see capture it
before its taken down. Someone somewhere has looked at it, saved it,
or sent it on to someone else. Search engines like google.com have
cached the pages for future reference should the pages be taken
down. There is software like WinHTTrack Website Copier 3.01 or Adobe
Acrobat 4.0 which captures the website automatically and you can
leave it on your hard drive or cut a CD-ROM for future viewing. I do
Third, alot of information is historic. Since the early nineties so
much has changed that unless you work in the field there is no real
way to accurately know just what is really going on. We may have a
pretty good idea but can we be sure and the enemy would certainly
want a higher level of assurance that a target really was worthy of
Fourth, many people believe government secrecy is excessive.
Taxpayers have a right to know what is going on. So much has been
declassified over the years I would hate to see those spearheading
those efforts curtailed. I am afraid the secrecy pendulum is
swinging the opposite way and those of us not in the "know" are going
to be in the dark and the government will use it to prevent outside
scrutiny of its activities. This time even state and local agencies
are getting on the secrecy bandwagon. One local pol on television I
saw stated, we were not going let the public know which hospitals can
handle bioterrorism cases and those that can't, nor what medicines
they have on hand or quantities.
Fifth, I don't know much about the enemy, but I believe they already
have a plan and the information and means to execute it. These guys
are either really good and our government should enlist their
services or were extremely lucky. Two million dollar cruise missiles
shot at $10 dollar tents versus, the enemies purported investment of
$500,000 to create a $1 trillion dollar plus damage and disruption
event adds new meaning to "more bang for the buck".
Six, if there is any blame let it go to some of the talking heads on
television and in think tanks who have said things that make my eyes
pop out. If the government wanted to clamp down, start there. An
individual website doesn't have the credibility of a thinktank. Even
if that website has accurate information. We have the most wonderful
means to communicate, lets not let the government censor the
information that goes on it.
Seven, information posted on a website is wide open to anyone. If
we wanted to keep information proprietary then restrict the access.
Information posted in a Yahoo group, is restricted, the moderator can
demand to their satisfaction the person seeking entry is who they
are. It could be as simple as an email enquiry to documentation.
Information on a website could be posted the same way. This opens
the door to a subscription based website. FAS.org would be a prime
candidate for that. I suspect many of us would pay a nominal
membership fee ($1-$15) to belong to or at least let the owner know
who you are to gain entry into the site. Many sites do that already.
It wasn't too many years ago we had nuclear loaded B-52/B-1s sitting
alert. Someone bent on terrorism could have visited each location,
documented the number of bombers in the alert area, viewed weapon
uploads and downloads, etc. They probably could have gotten the
information they needed listening to the VHF radios using a Bearcat
One thought I had is what would the Air Force have done if we still
had nuclear loaded bombers and tankers on alert across the US? Would
they have taken the bombers off alert and locked down the weapons,
which would have impacted the war plan or would they have reinforced
areas and hope a Cessna Suicide mission didn't create one awful
mess. This new threat certainly needs to be thought out should the
nation ever have to have bombers on alert again.
Thanks to Albert, Tim and many others who have taken the time to put
up these sites. Being an old SAC troop I appreciate seeing many of
the systems we worked with and locations that were only names on a
map. They have provided hours of browsing pleasure.
If the US is at war then why is our government only asking us to fly
--- In coldwarcomms@y..., hooligan@a... wrote:
> Oh boy! ;)
> I pulled all my C3,I stuff off the web about an hour after the
> not knowing if it was "terrorism" or a creative start to WW-III.
> I could put one or two of the pages back up, such as the page on
> National Emergency Command Post Afloat program (which terminated
> 1970), but would have to re-write a lot of the main C3,I page that
> links to the NECPA page, removing the references to the Site-R,
> et al. pages, which I'm uncomfortable in putting back up in their
> state, but would also have trouble butchering up to remove anything
> everything even remotely sensitive.
> Then another thing that occured over the past month is that
> finally harvested the account of mine, since I terminated that
> Over the Winter, I hope to put some pages back up, on a Home.com
> I'm just not sure what the balance should be between the
> what had always been open-source info (mixed with a healthy dose of
> speculation) --albeit that which ended up as a whole presenting a
> comprehensive report on a rather sensitive facility/program-- and a
> operational security posture based on specific concerns & general
> I'm very happy that FAS, and even DOD 'redacted' some web data as
> but the question is that if it was sensitive enough to be pulled in
> to the 11 SEP attacks, should the info have ever been posted in the
> In a message dated 11/7/2001 3:13:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> rickchem@h... writes:
> > Anybody on the list have the web address for Tim Tyler's C3I
> > have tried many links but they all give a 404 error. The last
> > had was the Mindspring address- www.mindspring.com/~timtyler/C3I
> > Thanks. . .