• SuckMyWang@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No offence but if you have this line of thinking it’s fairly safe to assume other countries have people whose job it is to think this way who would have easily come to the same conclusion. I mean how quickly isn’t leaving too much to the imagination. I would just assume they’re capable of doing everything you mentioned plus more

      • SuckMyWang@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So assume they can do it but if you invest to heavily in countering that assumption and your assumption turns out to be wrong you wasted resource on something that may be a better assumption?

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The accuracy is a big part of it

      Saying “We heard something in that multi square mile area that may be worth looking into” is way different than “We know exactly where and what it was”

      And how quickly they could definitively identify what the sound was and where can play a big role in identifying capabilities of the systems at play and the how advanced they are

      And of course knowing capabilities is a key part in developing systems to circumvent such systems

      Basically what I’m trying to say in entirely too many words is that specifics matter a lot, especially to the military. And specifically knowing what someone is capable of can be used as a way of getting around it or using their own systems against them. Especially so that you know you’re not investing in systems research that is already defeated by anothers systems.