Pointless Classification.
I can understand why you might want to attempt to reclassify bomb plans, but the number of US nuclear missiles in 1965?
So, as a my little act of civil disobedience, I'm going to link to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists list of nuke warheads worldwide from 1945-2006.
(1965 - US - 31,982 warheads, Russia - 6,129, Britain - 310)
(2006 - US - 10,104 warheads, Russia - 16,000, Britain - 200)
Am I in violation of the law for spreading classified information?
The Bush administration has begun designating as secret some information that the government long provided even to its enemy the former Soviet Union: the numbers of strategic weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.
So, as a my little act of civil disobedience, I'm going to link to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists list of nuke warheads worldwide from 1945-2006.
(1965 - US - 31,982 warheads, Russia - 6,129, Britain - 310)
(2006 - US - 10,104 warheads, Russia - 16,000, Britain - 200)
Am I in violation of the law for spreading classified information?
posted by mikevotes at
7:53 AM
3 Comments:
It all depends on when you coded that HTML link there...
By
Bravo 2-1, at 11:32 AM
Today. Afterwards.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:04 PM
Classification gone retro! I can only think of Henry VIII and his assault on the Catholic monestary libraries. Well, that and Rock & Roll's reaction to disco, but I can get behind that one.
By
Anonymous, at 7:41 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home