You need to know what are you looking for in a potentially hostile device. I really like the story about The Thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) You’ll never know what opponent has discovered and using for his advantage.
Especially with a potential war partner - if they have a capability you do not, even if you can't figure out a reason for that capability; the enemy may have and you'll need to be able to counter it.
Then you're creating an unwieldy situation where analysis is very difficult. That's just an advanced form of security by obscurity. What you're saying is, that it's better to go in blind, wearing lots of armor and padding. That strategy works if your enemies don't have anything more potent than a knife. It absolutely doesn't work if they have guns and explosives. Better to clearly know what you're up against.
I think there's two conflated questions here. I should ideally plan my attack as if my opponent knows my moves, where possible. I should not tell my opponent my moves, where possible. Just because it's not on the news networks doesn't mean the enemy has no way of observing you.
But in todays world where your enemy has enormous intel, letting him know that there is a risk of guerrilla warfare may stop him from invading in the first place.
The stronger you stand on the escalation ladder the better.
You do realise that comment supports strongly the dark forest theory right? The best thing do do before you have a tank is to shut up and hide. Of course you don't pick fights when you could get squashed
Implied was that the actions to take if we had full info are obvious. If their capabilities are known you would not have to resort to "shoot first, ask later"...
Also if you're a diligent red teamer, you're investigating the impact of your attacks to understand the noise you're generating. That's fundamental to evasion and persistence. Easy to deploy the same knowledge in a defensive context.
reply