preece@uicsl.UUCP (09/13/83)
#N:uicsl:16300013:000:2519 uicsl!preece Sep 12 11:02:00 1983 Well, according to the radio (NPR) this morning the administration concedes that there was evidence on the tapes that the Soviet interceptor did in fact fire warning shots in front of the airliner. We already knew that the 747, shortly before being shot down, had begun climbing, which could have been interpreted as evasive action. As to identification of the aircraft involved, someone from the intelligence community said on tv that radar would not distinguish between the 747 and an rc135. Given that visual identification is the only tool we have to ask, could the Soviet pilot, at 2 km distance, in the dark, determine not only that the aircraft was a 747 but also that it was a civilian plane? My understanding is that the airforce does in fact use 747s (I think as command posts) and that some of the airforce radar planes do have funny profiles. A couple of questions for consideration: Could the Soviet pilot, when he said the navigation lights were on, have been referring not to the 747's lights, but to his own? (I don't have the transcript anymore.) A conversation heard from one end only is always a good place for mis-interpretation. Similarly, could the pilot of the SU15, when he said he was now in front of the plane, have been responding to a request from the ground that he try to signal the aircraft visually (wing wagging). Reports indicate the KAL pilot started to talk to Tokyo AFTER being hit. Why hadn't he mentioned to the ground before that he was being circled by Soviet interceptors? (He really ought to have been able at least to see the exhaust of the SU15 when it was in front of him) It's pretty clear that the Soviets have a different world view than we do. It's not impossible they would have shot down the plane even knowing that it was a civilian airliner. What I do find a little amusing about response to the event (there's nothing amusing about the event itself) is the dilemma it creates for the more conservative elements on the net. They are, after all, the ones who have screamed for tighter borders, they are the ones who have claimed a positive right to shoot housebreakers, they are the ones who have called for more defense, for more aggressive reponses to Soviet aggression. I suspect that a lot of the people who have responded to this incident with the most outrage would not have been at all disturbed if WE had shot down a Cuban airliner over Florida, saying we thought it was smuggling and had had its lights off. scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece