All readers of
Human affairs, however, are much more complicated, particularly where the whole truth - with no omissions - is concerned. I still recall a dinner at a Chinese restaurant with a young lady whom I dated during graduate school. There was some difficulty which the idealistic student was certain could be resolved if all relevant facts, thoughts, and feelings were entirely and openly expressed and discussed. I busied myself during the dinner in putting this theory into practice. I do not remember the specifics of the issues or discussion, but I have never forgotten the fortune cookie that I opened at the end of that dinner. It said, "Young man who is open book is soon on shelf.'' A good rule of truthfulness in human affairs is to try to never knowingly leave another individual with an impression that is fundamentally different than he would have if he knew all of the facts, particularly regarding a subject that you know is important to him. This avoids the common practice of literally correct lying by double-en-tendre and by deliberate falsehoods of omission.
A better rule is absolute candor in all matters - if you are able to take the heat. I have a friend who is greatly admired for his many fine attributes of character of which one is total candor. In a draft of a book, he wrote that his wife is the second smartest woman he has ever met. She reacted with good humor, but the risks are clear.
On the other hand, overt lying and secrecy are generally accepted as permissible when in combat with an enemy. I once caused the capture of a burglar and the loot from several robberies in San Diego by lying to the burglar in a back alley at 2:00 am. I convinced the fellow that I, too was being chased by the police. In fact, the police and I were both chasing him. Jeff Cooper would have done this more honorably, but then I did not have his skills or equipment available.
War between nations usually involves a great amount of secrecy and disinformation. Nuclear weapons development during World War II and during the Cold War included much deliberate dishonesty and secrecy. This stimulated a substantial debate. Edward Teller has, for decades, consistently argued against this secrecy.
Nuclear secrecy deprived most American scientists of the information needed to contribute their own talents to the defense of their country. It also left most Americans uninformed of the facts needed to prudently evaluate their country's policies toward nuclear weapons, civil defense, and even nuclear power development. It has been convincingly argued that these effects of secrecy did far more harm than good to the United States - especially since our totalitarian opponents managed to learn our secrets anyway. Secrecy was really only effective against honest, patriotic Americans.
Incomplete knowledge of matters of crucial public importance is inherently dangerous to a free society even regarding issues less spectacular than nuclear weapons. At present, for example, suspicion and distrust concerning numerous semi-secret events is completely shredding the remaining credibility of the current American President. If the truth is so bad that it must be hidden, then we need another Presi dent. If it is not, then we need the truth, so that the President can do his job in an atmosphere of trust and confidence.
In fact, experienced people usually watch for signs of secretive ness as a negative measure of veracity and also as a measure of mind set. If a person or group is secretive, it is reasonably probable that they view those to whom they are secretive as enemies or potential enemies. Privacy is, of course, an entirely different matter. Privacy a valuable and enjoyable benefit of freedom. Secrecy is manipulative Sensible application of secrecy (and even overt dishonesty) in combat with an enemy requires the wisdom to determine whether or not the secrecy is actually beneficial - whether it does more harm to one's enemy than it does to one's allies. In retrospect, regarding the international contests in nuclear weapons development, it is highly probable that Edward Teller was right. Secrecy about nuclear tech nology has been counterproductive.
As nuclear, chemical, and biological technology has advanced and knowledge has become more widespread, however, all decent people face an increasing danger from an old enemy - terrorism. With cur rent technology, terrorists can threaten or destroy the lives of very large numbers of people. Moreover, successful terrorist attacks of large magnitude could damage all of our lives by means of the dimi nution of our freedom that might take place in reaction to such acts.
Terrorists are always our enemies. Press spinmeisters use words such as "freedom fighters'' and "insurgents'' for the leftists and re serve "terrorists'' or "right wing extremists'' for the rightists. We wonder what euphemisms would have emerged if the suspects in Oklahoma City had called themselves "environmentalists.'' Every person, given special circumstances and potential mental instability, is a potential terrorist, but the risk that any single individ ual will commit a terrorist act is very, very small. How far can we go, therefore, in describing the details or even the general potentialities of terrorist acts without raising the risk of those acts? Conversely, in free society, how will we ever raise awareness of this risk high enough to stimulate reasonable protective measures if we do not dis cuss the potential acts? Wisdom dictates that we balance the chance that each discussion will lead to protective measures vs. the chance that it will enhance the daydreams of a twisted mind. After all, five decades of open discussion of the risk of nuclear war have failed to stimulate realistic American civil defense.
As a countermeasure to terrorism, we might try national publicity and well-publicized conferences concerning terrible weapons for ter rorism - mythical weapons that will not work. This would, however, probably just fool our friends and not the terrorists.
We do not claim to know whether or how much public discussion of potential terrorist weapons and actions should be restricted. Se crecy and dishonesty are justified when in mortal combat with an en emy. Sometimes they are counterproductive. Terrorists - dangerous and difficult to deter enemies of us all - may constitute a case in which wise use of secrecy is the best course.
|
|
Vol. 23, No. 1
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 23, No. 1 Date: September 01, 1995 12:45 PM (For actual publication date see newsletter.) Title: Secrecy
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|