Politics Trump blurts out classified info again, worrying Pentagon officials

https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnb...ed-info-again-worrying-pentagon-officials/amp





When Donald Trump chatted with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, it was unsettling enough that the American leader started their conversation with unprompted praise for Duterte's extra-judicial killings. But we now know that Trump also decided to tell Duterte that the United States dispatched two nuclear submarines, which are off the coast of the Korean peninsula.Trump blurts more classified information
BuzzFeed reported that some in the Defense Department are less than pleased.

Pentagon officials are in shock after the release of a transcript between President Donald Trump and his Philippines counterpart reveals that the US military had moved two nuclear submarines towards North Korea.
"We never talk about subs!" three officials told BuzzFeed News, referring to the military's belief that keeping submarines' movement stealth is key to their mission.

The Atlantic's James Fallows added that countries like China and Russia are likely to exploit the revelation, going back and calibrating their sensors accordingly for future detection.
Some may want to be charitable, cutting the amateur president some slack because he doesn't have any background in or understanding of sensitive intelligence, but let's not forget that this is the second time -- that we know of -- that Trump has been caught sharing classified information with a foreign country for no apparent reason.

The significance of a story like this goes well beyond marveling at Trump's ineptitude. As the president develops a reputation as someone who's recklessly blurting out secrets to foreigners, it's easy to imagine our allies abroad withholding intelligence from U.S. officials, U.S. officials withholding intelligence from the White House, or both.
The message was straightforward: “It’s simple: Individuals who are ‘extremely careless’ [with] classified info should be denied further access to it.”

The day before Ryan’s declaration, 14 Republican senators introduced legislation to revoke Clinton’s security clearance and demand that anyone in the executive branch who shows “extreme carelessness” in their handling of classified information be denied access to that information. (They no longer want to talk about the issue.)

The same day, then-RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said those who’ve mishandled classified information “have had their security clearances revoked, lost their jobs, faced fines, and even been sent to prison.” Soon after, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked, “What do I say to the marines in my district when Hillary Clinton handles classified information in a careless way yet has no ramifications?”

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) argued in the fall that even the possibility of exposing sensitive intelligence to foreign adversaries is “treason.”
And then, of course, there’s Donald J. Trump, who had all kinds of things to say about this subject during his campaign, when he insisted that anyone who’s mishandled classified information should obviously be disqualified from positions of authority.

 

Because they were recently in the area, that makes it okay for him to confirm that they are still in the area even though they are no longer at port?

 

Denny is the new Mags.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_security

Operations security (OPSEC) is a term originating in U.S. military jargon, as a process that identifies critical information to determine if friendly actions can be observed by enemy intelligence, determines if information obtained by adversaries could be interpreted to be useful to them, and then executes selected measures that eliminate or reduce adversary exploitation of friendly critical information.


Women's Army Corps anti-rumor propaganda (1941–1945)
In a more general sense, OPSEC is the process of protecting individual pieces of data that could be grouped together to give the bigger picture (called aggregation). OPSEC is the protection of critical information deemed mission essential from military commanders, senior leaders, management or other decision-making bodies. The process results in the development of countermeasures, which include technical and non-technical measures such as the use of email encryption software, taking precautions against eavesdropping, paying close attention to a picture you have taken (such as items in the background), or not talking openly on social media sites about information on the unit, activity or organization's Critical Information List.

 

Someone pointed something out yesterday when this first broke.

Trump says F35's flew over Japan and weren't detected by Radar.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/trump-f-35s-japan-time-interview/

Benign thing to say, right?

Wrong.

If they weren't detected on radar, and you tell them roughly when they flew through their air space, then can review their logs and determine the radar signature of the planes. No plane is completely stealth. They just have a significantly reduced radar signature. If you can narrow down the signature, it makes it easier to detect those planes if they fly through again. It's just a stupid thing to say on his part. There's no reason to publicize things like this.

 

It doesn't matter. You're missing the point. Saying that the planes will be there at some point and saying "they flew over last night" are two different things. And there's just no reason to give that kind of information.

 

Solright Greg. Presidents have revealed the locations of ships and fleets for years now.

Kennedy revealed that the entire Atlantic fleet would meet the Russian ship carrying missiles to Cuba.
Eisenhower revealed the 7th fleet would protect Tiawan.
Obama revealed that 5 Burke class Destroyers were in range of Syria.

The one revealing Obama did not do that has mystified me, he did not reveal that Two Burke Class destroyers were less than 10 hours flank speed from Benghazi while he threw up his hands and flew to Vegas.

 

That's a little bit different than talking about stealth technology or nuclear subs. Talking about deploying a fleet is to be used as a deterrent. It's meant to be visible. It's meant to be intimidating. Nuclear subs are meant to be unseen. The whole point of nuclear subs is that you don't know where they are, so if you nuke the US, we'll still get you.

 

I think you have one use correctly stated.