WWW and Jacko. Quite surprising answers from two PPRuNers who have often showed greater clarity of thought.
Neither of you is qualified to know how much a potential enemy knows or what might be useful to him if his thinking and research is helped by public discussion.
You don't even know who all the potential enemies are.
And, before you say it, I don't know all these answers either.
It is not good enough for you to say "it is in the public domain", therefore we can all have a good cag about it.
Firstly, let the bad guys do their own leg work. While they're doing that, they can't be doing something else.
Secondly, those who join in anonymous discussions - especially new PPRuNers - are often anxious to air their knowledge and go one better than the last guy. Thus, it may not even be the topic of discussion that is compromised by a lose remark.
Jacko, you love writing your essays to show how clever you are and have just done so again. If the rules, and the spirit of the rules, restrict you doing your job, then you'll have to find a work around solution.
Because we don't and can't know what might help an enemy, and we don't know who might be the enemy reading these Forums, there is only one safe rule.
When we are at war, and our troops are in harm's way, don't speculate about any aspect of our military capability.
When the war is over, you can go back to your didactic discussions with rather fewer restrictions but still with an eye for security.
"Over protective" you say! That you set yourself up to be the judge of what is a correct level of protectiveness in time of war is astonishing. I might even say arrogant and selfish if I really wanted to let fly. Maybe you haven't worked out yet that we are almost certainly in the early stages of a long and costly war.
[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: fobotcso ]