Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

:The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive
:knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the
:group.
:

And this seems like an appropriate place for my usual disclaimer.

I will never say anything about specifics or capabilities that doesn't
derive from public sources (and yes, I usually go do a quick check -
Google is your friend). In point of fact, I will argue in favour of
positions or facts that I know to be incorrect if those positions or
facts are what the consensus of publicly available information says
and will argue against positions and facts I know to be correct for
the same reason.

In this period I'm working on a study/essay what I consider the best
"no-nonsense" classification rule sets, whose can be read on the UK's
Naval Rewiew in the very first issue, 1913, pp. 9-11, article "War
thought and Naval war", whose, in a nut, says "if something can be
extrapolated by intelligent people with public sources and/or plain
facts, classifying it it's useless"

Hence my original question. Aside the issues on the (perceived or not)
excesses of classification by the current US (and other) administration
& gov't, I guess that a balance with Occam's razor in classifications is
what current state of scientific & military research needs, to be
restarted after the many SNAFUs in the procurement (even civilian)
worldwide.

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.