WikiLeaks reveals US global interests list

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/wikileaks-reveals-global-interests-list/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


WASHINGTON (AFP) – WikiLeaks has divulged a secret list compiled by Washington of key infrastructure sites around the world that could pose a critical danger to US security if they come under terrorist attack.

The newly released diplomatic cable is one of the most explosive yet out of many leaked by the whistle-blowing website that have heaped embarrassment on Washington and caused anger around the world.

Among other revelations, the latest WikiLeaks document dump showed Australia's then leader Kevin Rudd warning US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that force might be needed against China "if everything goes wrong".

A State Department cable from February 2009 asked US missions to update a list of infrastructure and key resources worldwide whose loss "could critically impact" the country's public health, economic life and national security.

MORE at the link ---

[Azathoth]

1. Good job Julian. Next time, just hand them the keys to the local nuclear reactor n/t

[cornermouse]

3. Do you know how big a nuclear reactor is?

And do you know how "secret" their location is not? Nuclear reactor locations are not secret. They advertise far and wide every time they start to hire people to build them and then again for employees and the building can be seen from at least a mile away. They have roads, even highways that go right to them.

There is nothing secret about the location of a nuclear reactor.

[Azathoth]

4. Yes, but which ones are the least secure? Which would hurt us most if it were attacked?

No nuclear facilities near by? Which other targets would hurt the US the most?

Thanks to our pal Julian, neither we nor the terrorists have to ask these kinds of pesky questions anymore.

WikiLeaks: "We take the guesswork out of target selection."

[cornermouse]

5. Answer to your questions.

By the way, you're really stretching on this to make Wikileaks a villain.

Any or all of them would be effective. They typically build them near an area with high electric usage and even if they're rural and growing food in the beginning (think loss of farm land on this because its becoming more and more important to overall survival), the area typically builds up population due to job availability.

Wikileaks: Not telling them anything they didn't already know or couldn't have found in the help wanted ads and/or the front page of the newspaper.

[Azathoth]

6. Well, you dodged my questions

"Any or all of them would be effective" doesn't exactly answer what I asked. Moreover, you seem determined to (mis)interpret my nuclear plant metaphor in the most literal way possible. Let me rephrase it for you: The only thing worse then handing terrorists a complete list of our most vulnerable and critical assets is to just hand them the keys to a nuclear power plant.

[cornermouse]

9. No. I didn't.

They are typically built well within range of affecting the area who they are expected to serve, therefore, any or all of them would be effective because any or all of them could be expected to kill more than 3,000. Now, if you're saying you think that the lives of people who live in selected areas are somehow more "valuable" or more "special" than the lives of people elsewhere, you might have a point. But if the loss of 3,000 lives results in invasion of other countries any or all of the nuclear reactors, the locations of which are not secret as I pointed out to you previously, would suit the purpose of a terrorist.

I repeat. Nuclear reactor locations are not secret and never were.

[Azathoth]

11. Yes, you did.

You seem to be measuring the effect of taking out a nuclear plant simply based on how many people live nearby. What if the plant powers particularly critical infrastructure? What if one plant is more vulnerable (another question you dodged)? What if the location of a particular plant dramatically increases the risk that released radioactive material could spread well beyond the people who live in the immediate area? The possibilities here are endless, and they aren't really worth going into because (1) the cable talks about all kinds of strategic assets (from defense contractors to vaccine and insulin manufacturers) and (2) the whole power plant thing was a metaphor anyway.

[cornermouse]

27. I'm using your measurement.

Clearly you think lives in one location are worth more than lives in another location. I pointed out that location is a moot point because the people who expect to be served by the nuclear power plant are within range of the destructive effects and that all plants are vulnerable. I'm merely using the parameters you gave. I'm also guessing you think people in the metropolitan areas are more valuable than those in the north or the midwest or the south, but whatever.

[Billy Burnett]

24. In Florida there's nuke plant news in the papers weekly.

Leaky pipes. Contaminated ground water. Falsified maintenance records. Sleeping Wackenhut security guards. Missing 50 cal rifles from nuke plant security stations (I kid you not). Failed security checks.


I guess that we shouldn't know about these things - it might be dangerous information. :eyes:

[tekisui]

15. That makes no sense. Baseless hyperbolic fear peddling.

[Azathoth]

19. Since when did being pissed that a classified list of our country's critical assets and interests

has been handed over to potential terrorists constitute "baseless hyperbolic fear peddling" ?

[tekisui]

21. I was specifically referring to the nuclear keys comment.

It makes no sense.

And, you overstate the threat. Potential terrorists can figure out what our interests and assets are on there own.

[jefferson_dem]

2. What a power-tripping asshole.

Not cool at all. He deserves whatever shit comes his way.

[leveymg]

7. This merely illustrates the ridiulous over-classification of everyday information.

Dah . . . nobody would ever think that dams, powerplants, and chemical factories were potential targets.

[Pholus]

8. +1! We do loves us the "Secret" and "Oh, so Secret" and the "Don't even go there Secret" stamps.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

[Lint Head]

10. Let me get this straight. The US is not adequately securing

'known' key infrastructures and Wikileaks points it out. How is that a crime? Our so called enemies already know the location of these places. How does an obvious infrastructure that anyone with two eyes can see be secret? Are they hiding nuclear facilities under tarps purchased a Home Depot. Are major bridges and buildings painted with camouflage?

I just don't see how a "key infrastructure" can be a secret. I think I'll make a secret list of my own.

[pipi_k]

20. I don't know if it's a crime or not, but....

I think it's comparable to (although on a much smaller scale) one of your neighbors printing up a list of all the homes in the general area that would be easy for thieves to break into and rob, and posting this list all over town. And the guy's rationale is that, hey...it's not HIS fault you don't have burglar alarms or deadbolt locks and hide all your valuables under your mattress...

If your home is on this list, are you going to give this guy a big thumbs-up for making your home vulnerable to a break-in?

Or maybe people only give a thumbs-up when it's not their own interests that are at stake?

[Lint Head]

26. I don't get the comparison between private homes and a federal government

that has the military, CIA, FBI and privately security contractors to openly protect our critical assets.

[lunatica]

12. The US should be busy securing all its vital interests sites then

How hard could that be? Just hire Halliburton, or Xe, or Dyncorp, and keep an eye on terrorist organizations and movements. Just like in the Clancy movies.

[TransitJohn]

13. We need to express outrage at this, since al Qaeda obviously can't use Google Earth. n/t

n/t

[Azathoth]

14. I wouldn't have thought to attack an insulin factory in Europe. Would you?

There is no compelling reason why this cable should have been made public, and on the flip side there is overwhelming reason why it should have been kept classified. Arguing that more intelligent terrorists might have figured out some of these targets on their own doesn't justify its release.

[tekisui]

16. None of the cables were 'classified'.Nothing leaked was classified.

The highest classification was confidential. There is a difference.

[Azathoth]

17. Say wha? 'Classified' isn't a classification level

And by your own admission, "confidential" *is*. Hence the documents are classified.

:eyes:

[tekisui]

18. You're right. I misspoke.

These were confidential, which is a classification level, but not the highest.

[Better Believe It]

22. Government made those "sensitive" documents available to 2.5 million people!

Kristinn Hrafnsson, a WikiLeaks spokesman, told The Times that the list had been made available to 2.5 million people including military personnel and private contractors by the U.S. government, saying this was a "very wide distribution for information claimed to be of such high sensitivity."

"In terms of security issues, while this cable details the strategic importance of assets across the world, it does not give any information as to their exact locations, security measures, vulnerabilities or any similar factors, though it does reveal the U.S. asked its diplomats to report back on these matters," he told the paper.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40526224/ns/us_news-security

[tekisui]

23. Isn't that interesting.

[Azathoth]

25. I guess the vulnerability assessments will be in the next batch of cables n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

28. YES!! long live freedom and truth!!

:sarcasm:


integrity is important.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Oh, Dear!! Quick! Give the Pentagon more money to "protect" us!!

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[laughingliberal]

30. Indeed. nt