Woodruff wrote: patches70 wrote:
stahrgazer wrote: is it THAT ludicrous to think that someone, somewhere, actually may have shared our secrets across what was then the Berlin Wall?
It's not ludicrous to think that, it's called espionage
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I got the impression that she wasn't referring to an enemy stealing our secrets...
Hahah, I know, I was kind of making a joke. But in truth, people did share secrets, which is by definition espionage. He says it himself, that those secrets shared would not have been known about at the time but would be found out later to induce outrage. In other words, clandestinely, which is espionage. The clandestine element makes it something other
than simple intelligence sharing, cooperation or intelligence gathering (the latter is mainly done legally and ethically through public sources open to all)
Someone obviously shared nuclear secrets with Soviet Russia not long after the dropping of the first atomic bombs after all, and that was certainly espionage. We didn't give it away willingly I'll bet ya! Hahaha.
There is nothing wrong with cooperation between rivals/enemies. But if one is trying to hide said cooperation, then it isn't cooperation anymore, is it? Such things become something different, which is what I took from the OP's statements. See?-
stahrgazer wrote: Would anyone defend an administration if we found out that during our "cold war" with Russia, some president or congress or secret committee decided to secretly share nuclear or other weapons with "rebels" in East Germany (Russian, at the time) in hopes to "protect our interests" in West Germany?
Yeah, that's espionage IMO. Otherwise it wouldn't have been clandestine. The very act of cooperating with rebels in foreign territory is espionage, is it not? Regardless of the reasons be they good or bad.