You assume for some reason that "the enemies" know everything, I see no reason to believe this. You might have noticed id did not mention codes, I mentioned security arrangements (that is, letting people in, right?) and the way to activate, which I assume is more complicated (on the silo) then knowing some code. You should also remember that there are many who can be described as "enemies", which one knows this and which ones doesn't? Then, why do you think these things are kept secret? This is not a cover-up... Lastly, what is the benefit to the public from releasing this information, even if we accept that there is almost no damage?

Why do you think they knew it? This information was leaked from the US, this is something PRC told to some US diplomat. I would assume they told the DPRK something on the lines of "we can't keep with you if you won't calm down". Not "we think your country should be joined to the south", especially since the south is twice as big (population) and the government will stay in Seoul in this case.

Being that the incidents were this August, it's on the other order (introducing skeletons to your closet while advocating glass house policy?). The accusations are, as far as I understand, about encounters that turned non-consensual in the middle (in one case, when the condom broke...).

Why do you think it helps calm things down? I would guess it makes the situation worse. DPRK now knows it can't trust china to back it up, especially not after the death of Kim Jong-il, so they might try to set a balance of terror on their own, forcing them to first show how dangerous they are...

That's stupid, what about publishing the security arrangement of some nuclear missile silo with a description of the way to launch the missile at a chosen target? transparency is transparency...

The system needs some privacy, for internal communication. Not for decisions, but for communication.

Are you also happy that, for example, DPRK knows that PRC were discussing uniting Korea? I'm not an expert on DPRK, but it seems possible the leak of this information might even lead to a war.

Not every publication of classified information is whistle-blowing.

If there is no shortage of ways getting data on the internet anonymously, how is wikileaks a solution to anything? Why is it needed?

What does Assange do in international politics? Who does he represent? I thought he was only passively allowing publication of information...

I have no idea what do you mean by "Free, Ethically Correct Democracy", and why would you disallow "losers" (or which are those losers) to vote, but Since you asked for a logical and healthy debate, I'll suggest an idea of how to fix the system.

The way I see it, the main problems with modern democracies are campaigns and voters' ignorance. There are other (for example, the election mechanism), but this are the fundamental ones. I don't think this can be solved as long as elections are on a national level , so I would suggest this: divide the country to about 200-500 parts, each will elect one representative, but the representative will be elected by a governing body of 200-500 people, supported by a similar subdivision. So with 3-4 layers you can get at the bottom groups of this size. (500^3 = 12.5M, 200^4=1.6G) As a result you get a system where everyone only elects a representative to the layer above, each time he chooses from 200-500 people he personally knows (neighbours on the bottom, associates above). Thus, campaigns are impossible (that is, mass media campaigns), because of the number of races, in any race there are only a few hundred voters. Voter ignorance is also mostly removed, because you know the candidates...

The first obvious problem, by the way, huge number of elected positions, that have little actual work due to no requirements... But maybe this is already the case.

Well, no one is ignoring the masses now, they make examples of some people, ruining their lives (financially) for some downloaded stuff. So, not ignoring them, but still what the OP meant by ignoring...

Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

The idea that no one ignored "the masses" since the French revolution is simply ignorant. You can see all sorts of riots since then, including in the US, which ended in nothing at all, or sometimes small compromises by the government. You simply don't understand the level of unrest required for a revolution, IP will never be enough, an economic collapse that will cause lack of food supplies might do it...

Oh, and stop romanticising the revolution, they beheaded not only the king, but tens of thousands, most of which were not part of the previous government. Thomas Paine was sentenced to the guillotine. It's not a coincidence they call (part of) it "The Reign of Terror".

Such attacks happened in Israel, I specifically remember this one. It is, however, significantly less effective then taking down a plane. Also, you can still find large crowds outside checkpoints in Israel (not in the airport, but in Tel Aviv's central bus station, for example).

The difference is that deciding not to buy from a store is legal, as is advising your friend not to buy a game. Surprisingly, you are allowed to cause harm to other people in many legal ways, even physical harm might be legal in some cases. However, copyright violation is illegal. You see, copyright violation is a crime with a victim, whereas protesting against Wallmart, trying to convince people not to buy there just outside the store, is a non-crime with a victim. Now, you might argue copyright laws should be changed, but that's a different argument.

I'm an Israeli, and therefore unfamiliar with domestic flights, but I can't see how this is relevant. The only difference I see is that you don't go through passport control, and passport control have nothing to do with security...

Whenever I take a flight out of Israel it takes me about 30 minutes to get from the airport entrance to the gate, I don't believe domestic flights require shorter passage.

People voted against them for other reasons, of course, but you should look for the amount of money in their campaigns and their opponents' (including indirect, after Citizens United). It might be just my impression, but from here (I'm not an american) it seems like the electorate is easily swayed if you have enough money for publicity. And you should ask yourself who pays for it and why, not why people vote.