Quote:
No, thats the last thing a good leader would do because it tells the enemy how they were nabbed. It tells the enemy that whatever codes and other security procedures they are using have been compromised.
Take WW2 for example. Had the allies went public with Ultra it would have achieved similar objectives to those you mention, but that would also have rendered it useless for gaining subsequent intelligence.
And PS: The administration has mentioned several plots that have been foiled including one to blow up the Brooklyn bridge, so your analogy "Ok,i did it,but what if i had caught someone" is way off base..
|
What you say about not betraying their knowledge of the broken code makes sense,but there is something that i m not sure if it can be comparable to WWII.In WWII ,losing a battle or a sub,couldn't betray the fact the german code was broken.Because it's war,the enemy may make better manouvers or have a lucky encounter ,so you can't suspect your code is broken.In fact the Germans never did.When Rommel was stopped in North Africa ,also thanks to Enigma,it seemed a normal military manouver ,well made from the British side and indeed that could have been a logical explanation for the Germans.
In terrorism though,the situation is less prone to "luck".There are no "lucky" events in such a war,because the enemy is hidden and your goal is to prevent him from striking.Both finding him and preventing him from striking,means that you got there first by intelligence,not by luck or better "manouvering".So if a terrorist attack is prevented,this automatically rings the alarm bell to the terrorists that their cover isn't good enough and the enemy intelligence has managed to penetrate their comms,simply because there is no other way.I hope i was clear enough.
I didn't know about the Brooklyn Bridge btw,if he prevented it ,i would suppose they got arrested too,right?Because what's the use of letting free terrorists out once they know that they 've had their cover blown?