When people conspire to keep something a secret from the public, is that ever a good thing? Or even a sincerely well-intentioned thing? Can you say this about any actual coverups that later came to light? How about hypotheticals? If you were a president or FBI official or corporate exec or otherwise in a position to try to cover something up, under what circumstances, if any, would you do it? (This discussion should be limited to things that are covered up for fear of broad public reaction. Secrets classified for military-strategic purposes are another matter – one does not speak of the Army as “covering up” its troop movements. Although I’m open to debate on whether there is really bright line between the two.)
Well, if you’re dealing with purely hypotheticals, it’s pretty easy to come up with a scenario where a conspiracy might be a good idea. Suppose, for instance, that I learned that mixing a few household chemicals together created the equivalent of a nuclear explosion. If I were about to make my discovery public, wouldn’t it be a good idea for the government to do anything possible to shut me up, even if they had to break the law to do so? I’d say yes.
Now, in reality, most conspiracies are simply to cover up not only legal wrongdoing, but unethical behavior, and this is what makes them bad. But here’s one to think about: I suppose it could be argued that some of the stuff done by early civil rights leaders was a conspiracy - they purposely broke unjust laws, but they did so in a non-violent way, and it’s hard to argue these days that they were on the wrong side ethically (though many did at the time).
Uh, somewhere between starting that response and finishing it I forgot that you were speaking specifically of cover-up conspiracies. In fact, my entire response indicates that I wasn’t paying attention.
My wife and I are watching the 24 seasons so I think I am more than qualified to discuss prudence when divulging information
One thing that came to mind reading the OP was in season 2, when Nina was to be pardoned for executing Jack (and other terrorist acts) in exchange for information leading to the nuclear bomb. I’m not sure that this would constitute a conspiracy, but I think it illustrates that some decisions made behind the scenes are not disclosed because the public would not understand. I think the general public does not have the stomach to do what it takes to protect their country (there is a quote about that somewhere but I can’t recall it atm).
But can you cite any real-life instance where, in hindsight, that proved to be the right decision? Remember, our government got into Vietnam by flying under the radar of public opinion, and by the time that changed we were “committed.”
How about something like the witness protection program? They give criminals a pardon and a new identity and don’t tell the public what the new identity is.
For a while we were able to keep plans for a nuclear bomb secret. The longer nuclear secrets were kept from the Soviet Union the better. And for years, even through the 1960s, US and British WWII codebreaking exploits were kept from the public, because we didn’t want the Soviets to know just how good we were.
FDR was confined to a wheelchair much of the time and the public was never allowed to know. Everyone believed it would make him unelectable and they were probably right. I say that was a good coverup at the time.
Nor could we have. Even if the Soviet Union had no spies at all, once the thing was proven possible, and the general principles known, they could have set their own physicists to work on the problem. They would have made their own Bomb about the same time they did IRL, or maybe a year or two later.
The Katyn Forest massacres - when the Nazi’s discovered mass graves of Poles slaughtered by the Soviets in 1939 they announced the facts to the world. Our government cooperated with our allies on -not- blaming the soviets in the interests of amity between the allies.
Years ago I had a quick skim through the book Trading with the Enemy. It left me with the general impression that if the trade between long-related US and German firms that continued during WW2 hadn’t been hushed up, there would likely have been mass labor walkouts that would have brought the defense industry to a standstill.
After Pearl Harbor, the FDR administration worked very hard to ensure that the actual extent to which our fleet had been destroyed was covered up. Most of the Navy brass felt that it would be another year or two before we had any sort of effective presence in the Pacific following Pearl Harbor; the Roosevelt adminsitration realized that revealing that would cause panic and defeatism, and downplayed the actual damage done.
It also depends upon your definition of “coverup” and “conspiracy”. Would the Manhatten Project fall into that category?
Government scientists actually discover a way to travel back in time. They go back to Moses/Jesus/Mohammed’s eras and find out that it was nothing like the Bible and other writings say.
Does the government reveal this to the world, definitively invalidating all religions?
I think the “comets are dirty snowballs” coverup was well-intended. If people knew that comets were something to be feared like they were back in the day, they would of freaked when Hale-Bopp flew by. They would freak if another one was ever headed right for us… Also not telling us about the true eletrical nature of hurricanes and tornadoes is probably well-intended, as this would open up the “whole can of worms.”
First of all time travel isn’t possible, and this would never happen. But if they did, things would actually be crazier back in those times. These men would find out how all this prophecy stuff and great catastrophes actually did happen and would find out how it all works. Then they would come back to our time and rule all of mankind.
