@DaveedGR I even wonder whether dominance in telecom/SIGINT leads us to allow diplomacy, HUMINT, to atrophy to our disadvantage.
@20committee So counterfactuals imagining those developments in absence of dominance on tech invalid? Simply invalid exercise? @DaveedGR
-
-
@emptywheel@DaveedGR US spends a lot of money on HUMINT, returns questionable WRT value; it's a separate issue, nothing new. -
@20committee Yes. All that was presumed by my point. All of it.@DaveedGR -
@emptywheel@DaveedGR Moreover basic US HUMINT model deeply flawed, needs serious revamp eghttp://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-counterintelligence-imperative-6195 … -
@20committee Again, that was also presumed and reflected in my point.@DaveedGR -
@emptywheel@DaveedGR Perhaps obvious to you. You have very little understanding of cross-INT dynamics in US IC. -
@20committee Assuming that's true, how in a counterfactual do we know what might be?@DaveedGR -
@emptywheel@20committee decrease in sigint capabilities cannot be replaced with other "ints" like humint, if that's what you asked -
@entropy68 Nope. Not exactly. It's if we didn't have distinct technical advantages in SIGINT we'd approach intel differently.@20committee - 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.