>Watergate was a leak about just one crime, this is a leak about a multitude of potential crimes and potentially embarrassing information, I think the comparison is a valid one because it exposes the hypocrisy present in many of the arguments against leaks of any sort.
I'm not arguing against leaks of any sort -- I brought up the Pentagon Papers specifically because I think their leak was ultimately a positive thing -- I'm arguing against the haphazard dumping of information without any particular rhyme or reason.
>Remember how it all came apart because of one tiny detail, a botched burglary.
Again, that was specific information.
>After all, they do represent all of us, and I'd like to them to be as accountable as possible.
There's more to this than simple accountability. Diplomacy often requires keeping your hand close to your chest. If your diplomats are negotiating the terms of an agreement and are given instructions that "ideally we would like this, but if you can't hardball them to those terms, we will still accept X", those instructions are worthless if they're out in the open.
In fact, one of the cables released by the NYT discusses negotiations with Pakistan to remove potentially weaponizable nuclear material from a nuclear reactor there. Apparently one of the sticking points for the Pakistanis was that if knowledge of the removal was made public, the local populace would be up in arms about American interference with Pakistan's nuclear weapons programs.
I think the reason that would happen is because there is a strong push in the Islamic world to own nuclear weapons too, because apparently that's the only way you will be taken serious at the diplomatic table.
That's the whole reason why Kim and his ilk as well as tons of other tin-pot dictators and movie star wanna-bes do the exact same thing.
The US is hypocritical in this sense that they would like to deny those weapons to others while hanging on to their own stockpile.
If US diplomats could work in the light of day on this subject it would be the Pakistanis that would have to bow, the hypocrisy is what drives the need for secrecy.
The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile...
You didn't answer the question, though - is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive? And that's just one example found in the absolute most cursory glance at a brief couple of page summary of part of this leak.
>The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile...
So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms? If not, I don't see why it matters. It's not like they're building up their stockpiles, either. Quite the opposite, in reality.[1]
> is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive?
I think this leak has done no such thing.
It has merely documented a situation, which will continue to exist for some time.
Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist.
Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb.
Fear mongering has very little effect on me in general, but I do perceive that the terrorists have gotten value for their money. After all fear runs rampant.
> So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms?
If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination.
The current reduction strategy is just a step back from the overkill situation in the cold war, which is offset in large part by better targeting and by higher yield as well as more reliable systems for simulation and stockpile control.
>Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist.
Or a government with a tenuous grasp on power will simply have to forgo any kind of agreement to dispose of the weapons-ready material to avoid internal backlash.
>Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb.
You know, there are reasons for seeking nuclear non-proliferation that have nothing to do with terrorism, like the fact that Pakistan borders a bitter enemy which is also a nuclear power.
>If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination.
That's the ultimate goal. It's not going to happen overnight, and treating steps toward that goal as if they don't count is nothing more than childish fantasy.
>30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference.
Ah, this is why preventing the production of more arms in Pakistan isn't that big a deal. If they've got one bomb, they may as well have them all, I guess.
The only country that has ever used nuclear arms and that currently holds one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons is not engaging in this diplomatic effort to further the interest of those that would like to see nuclear weapons disappear, they do so because they would like to maintain their edge.
One nuclear weapon is indeed almost as bad as all of them, imagine a nuke on Islamabad or New Delhi. In those places a single nuclear weapon could kill millions, and it would take a very large effort to add to the scale of devastation. 10 nuclear weapons on either the Pakistani or the Indian side used against the other could cause hundreds of millions of people to eventually die of the direct or indirect causes of the use of these weapons.
The US is like the parent that tells its children not to smoke because smoking is bad for your health but can not give up smoking themselves.
Pakistan already has all the nuclear weapons it needs, and so does India, and neither of those countries will give them up because of pressure from the US, they will only give them up because they themselves, together will decide that a nuclear stand-off is to nobodies benefit.
>The only country that has ever used nuclear arms and that currently holds one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons is not engaging in this diplomatic effort to further the interest of those that would like to see nuclear weapons disappear, they do so because they would like to maintain their edge.
So every American or Russian or other person from a nuclear power that argues in favor of non-proliferation is simply looking to "maintain their edge?"
>In those places a single nuclear weapon could kill millions, and it would take a very large effort to add to the scale of devastation.
Which is exactly why some of us think it'd be nice to keep even more of them from being built.
>The US is like the parent that tells its children not to smoke because smoking is bad for your health but can not give up smoking themselves.
Real progress is nearly impossible in an all-or-nothing world.
>Pakistan already has all the nuclear weapons it needs, and so does India, and neither of those countries will give them up because of pressure from the US, they will only give them up because they themselves, together will decide that a nuclear stand-off is to nobodies benefit.
Pressure from the US and Russia already helped divert at least one potential nuclear crisis between the two countries.[1] Is your argument seriously that the US should just shrug its shoulders and stand aside? I don't see how there's any other logical conclusion to this line of thought you're going down.
"A Defense Intelligence Agency report in May 2002 estimated that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could, in a worst-case scenario, lead to 8–12 million deaths initially and millions more later from radiation poisoning."
On a subcontinent of over a billion people, it could be a lot worse. Sounds like a strong argument for keeping it from being able to.
>In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
EDIT:
Unless you mean the casualty estimates? Those were officially released to the press during the crisis.
Okay. I'm not sure what your point is. I've been the one arguing that some state secrets are acceptable and their disclosure can have a net negative impact on the world here.
My point is a simple one: controlling information in an effective way happens at the source.
Blaming wikileaks for the leak is just as stupid as celebrating a defector from a rogue nation state. That's just a change of viewpoint, the mechanism is the same.
If a government is operating clandestinely (and plenty of the material in these cables gives indications of not so clean dealings) then they have themselves to blame, do not create information that can embarrass you in the future, and if you do keep it on a need-to-know basis. If all that comes to light is how the various governments behaved impeccably and had our best interests at heart then there is nothing to fear right ?
Sooner or later all information will spread and will be used against you. Non-proliferation starts with disbanding research and with making all possession of such material illegal, not only when it suits you.
And so on. It's a principled stance, not one that tries to use these things as just another way to gain the upper hand as a nation.
Ask yourself why a person at this level in the government should have access to all this information and proportion blame accordingly. Keep in mind that the main reason people are upset is because the shady nature of their backroom dealings will become public not because 'lives will be in danger', surely more lives were lost by going after non-existent weapons of mass destruction than there ever were lost due to terrorism. If human lives were so important then surely Dr. Kelly would have been listened to, and Hans Blix to boot.
It's all just spun for what it's worth, and plenty of times for more than it's worth because 'our' governments are the good guys, or so we are led to believe.
> If all that comes to light is how the various governments behaved impeccably and had our best interests at heart then there is nothing to fear right ?
You keep making this assertion that the leaks will either expose something that's important for the public to know or that it will be totally benign while leaving no middle ground between the two.
I couldn't imagine going into business negotiations with the opposite party being privy to all the internal metrics in my head and not expect it to seriously disadvantage me. That's not malicious, it's looking out for my own best interests, and I wouldn't expect any different of a nation.
Similarly, there are cables that include information to the effect that Official Jack and Secretary Jane from Country X have a personality conflict that's useful to be aware of when you're dealing with them, but embarrassing for all parties involved if aired publicly. Again, that's not maliciousness, it's just basic courtesy.
>Ask yourself why a person at this level in the government should have access to all this information and proportion blame accordingly.
Sure, it's a problem. There are discussions going in other threads on the topic. I don't see how the fact that it's possible changes whether the release of the information is a good or bad thing from a global perspective, however.
>It's all just spun for what it's worth, and plenty of times for more than it's worth because 'our' governments are the good guys, or so we are led to believe.
My concern, in actuality, is less about the impact on the US itself as it is how the leak could affect other, less stable nations around the world.
If a rogue nuke goes off in Manhattan, you probably won't die (though fallout patterns are no one's friend), but your life will get measurably worse, guaranteed. The damage isn't just physical, it's psychological and economic, and the ripple effects will reach you, and they will be serious.
As far as making non-proliferation more difficult, this official documentation removes plausible deniability for several governments in condemning Iran's move towards nuclear weapons in private while remaining necessarily neutral in public. The effect isn't massive, but it is real, and it does matter.
If this happens (and I hope it doesn't) it will likely be because of nuclear material that was lost in former Soviet Republic states and it will likely have very little to do the with the US or with non-proliferation agreements.
If the US kept its secrets under wraps neither India or Pakistan would have the bomb in the first place, keeping things secret now is not going to put that genie back in the bottle.
The US has been spied upon successfully by countless nations to get those secrets including Israel, Pakistan, India (Canada also implicated there), the Russians took care of most of the rest of them, China gave some help to Pakistan and North Korea. France developed its nuclear arsenal independently, the UK had a lot of help from the US.
Non proliferation seems to mean: not to states not friendly to us. But in reality that translates to eventually the knowledge and the material will spread everywhere unless the production of the materials is halted. Which would mean a shut-down of all nuclear facilities, and that's a very difficult bridge to cross, it would cause a much stronger dependence on other fossil fuels.
The irony of all this is that now Iran uses the 'power plant' figleaf to set up it's own nuclear facilities.
I'm not arguing against leaks of any sort -- I brought up the Pentagon Papers specifically because I think their leak was ultimately a positive thing -- I'm arguing against the haphazard dumping of information without any particular rhyme or reason.
>Remember how it all came apart because of one tiny detail, a botched burglary.
Again, that was specific information.
>After all, they do represent all of us, and I'd like to them to be as accountable as possible.
There's more to this than simple accountability. Diplomacy often requires keeping your hand close to your chest. If your diplomats are negotiating the terms of an agreement and are given instructions that "ideally we would like this, but if you can't hardball them to those terms, we will still accept X", those instructions are worthless if they're out in the open.
In fact, one of the cables released by the NYT discusses negotiations with Pakistan to remove potentially weaponizable nuclear material from a nuclear reactor there. Apparently one of the sticking points for the Pakistanis was that if knowledge of the removal was made public, the local populace would be up in arms about American interference with Pakistan's nuclear weapons programs.
Guess what just happened? Is that a net positive?