Saturday, December 13, 2008

"Scary" report must be suppressed

Some bipartisan nonsense from Australia:
"A secret report on Australia's ability to recover from a catastrophe is being suppressed by the Government. The report, prepared in 2005, has been deemed too sensitive for release. It is believed to look at alarming scenarios such as terrorist strikes, disease pandemics and the total breakdown of food production.

The "Review of Australia's Ability to Respond to and recover from Catastrophic Disasters" was initially suppressed by the Howard government but the Rudd government also wants it kept under wraps.

Opposition Senator Gary Humphries said the public was being kept in the dark because the Government didn't want to frighten people. "I think that the plans are somewhat under-developed," he said. "And if you talk to people about bomb attacks or buildings falling down, they'll start to get nervous and panic. But I think it's profoundly dangerous to keep people happy by not giving them the knowledge that they might use."



Anonymous said...

While not talking about something because it might be scary is dumb, it is wise not to discuss your weaknesses in public where your enemies can read it.

Anonymous said...

In other words, they're FCUKED and don't want the world to know it!

Anonymous said...

"Barney Miller," an American Sitcom from the late 70s, had an interesting episode when Lt. Wojohowitz came to the sudden realization that there was no "City Evacuation Plan." He spent most of the episode trying to alarm people that New York had no plan to evacuate in the event of some sort of disaster (or nuclear threat, as in Cold War Days).

Barney sat him down finally and said "Wojo, there's just no way to get 4 million people out of New York City in a timely fashion - that's why there's no plan."

Let's face it, some disasters are just too big to have coherent, effective "plans" to handle. Shielding people from that fact does no good whatsoever. SOME of them eventually figure it out.

Anonymous said...

Nope, anonymous #1 is absolutely right. You can't reveal your weaknesses to your enemies. In every single pro sport, when play-offs rolls around if a player is injured it is always "A pulled muscle" Why? because you don't want to reveal any weaknesses.

Anonymous said...

Yes, anon-1 is right. Now try and convince the media of that.

Anonymous said...

There's a huge difference between:

1) Revealing your weaknesses to your enemies.


2) Having no comprehensive plans to deal with natural or man made disasters.

#1 Is sometimes a valid option.

#2 Is governmental incompetence.

Anonymous said...

Obviously, there is no difference between your 1 and 2, since revealing 2 amounts to 1. And revealing your weakness to your enemy is NEVER a valid option under any circumstance.

Anonymous said...

Even if the government has not made plans, individuals can still make their own contingency plans. Of course, they would also have to know WHAT to make contingency plans for. This smells like the superstition of not mentioning or whispering something scary on the idea that saying its name would somehow conjure it into existence.