velu@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/08/83)
Allright, allright. I have now been told (many many many) times that it is quite normal to be able to destiguish A 747 from a 707 at 3km at 0330 hours... Fine. But still. The question remains, could the USSR with the equipment it posseses tell whether it was kal 007 or the USAF RC135/707 there. And yes, the pilot did say it had nav lights and the strobe on. BUT it still don't make no sense. As has been saidearlier - wouldn't the US do exacty the same thing if an Aeroflot jet started wandering around for two lousy hours over Alaska? -- Velu Sinha
eric@aplvax.UUCP (09/08/83)
Yes, the Soviets with their equipment (its not that out-moded) could tell the difference between a 747 and a military jet. They certainly could with visual contact, and I would be astonished if they could not from the ground. No, the US would not shoot down a commercial flight that cruised around Alaska for a couple of hours (this is not exactly what happened to KAL 007, but we will assume for now that it is). Aeroflot flights for some time wandered out of their flight plans when they were still allowed to fly over the US continent, and we never shot any of them down. We did restrict them from flying over our airspace, but I seriously doubt that if one violated this restriction that we would blow them to bits. I don't want to sound too hawkish, but the government and military of the US and the Soviets are different, they do not react the same. And this time, they were wrong. eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric
myers@uwvax.ARPA (Jeff Myers) (09/09/83)
Perhaps this belongs in net.flame, but there is a lot of politics there these days... A recently submitted article used the term "the US continent". There is no such thing... The US is *part* of the North American continent. Nothing like a little ethnocentrism to bitch about. Jeff Myers
franka@tekcad.UUCP (09/12/83)
#R:umcp-cs:-249000:tekcad:20100006:000:2074 tekcad!franka Sep 11 13:30:00 1983 I have an idea. Everyone is bitching about El Salvador these days, right? And everyone either wants the rebels or the government to be on top, right? And we know that BOTH sides have had their shares of massacres, rapes, pillaging, and looting, right? And we know that in any case either side would make a lousy government, OK? And we know that the only thing we want to happen is that we don't want the Russkis to make another puppet government, right? SO WHY DON'T WE JUST GO IN AND TAKE OVER THE PLACE OURSELVES? Why don't we annex El Salvador (and while we're at it, the whole North and South American continents)? We have the arms. We can start by taking over Canada, move into Mexico, down through Central America and into South America. As we go, we can annex these countries into states and put them under our constitution. If you truly believe that our style of life and system of government is the best in the world, why rule out American expansionism as an alternative? Why try to force countries with poor economies into a style of government that their economic systems cannot support? Instead, force them into a merger. As we annex these countries we can help the people with welfare, tax their people to pay for the services provided, and say to hell with puppet governments who usually don't end up doing what we want anyway. We can guarantee the human rights of these people who would be under our constitution, set up truly free elections, and not have to worry about the communist threat in out hemisphere any more. This is the real world, and this IS a battle between ideologies. If we don't like the way things are going we CAN change the rules. It worked in Eastern Europe for the Russians and it can work for us, Frank Adrian P.S. Some of you may think that this is not a serious proposal. I say that it makes as much sense as trying to Americanize the world indirectly. Personally, I think that it makes more sense. Historically, the ends DO justify the means (he who writes the history books says who is right and who is wrong).
franka@tekcad.UUCP (09/12/83)
#R:umcp-cs:-249000:tekcad:20100007:000:511 tekcad!franka Sep 11 13:45:00 1983 Oh, yeah. One other thing. This might mean that someday we might come down to an election in "our country" where the candidates didn't come from "our state". If you truly believe in democacracy (or republicacy) I don't think that this is a valid reason for opposing my scheme. Just because the "president" might someday come from ElSalvador or Brazil doesn't mean that he might be a bad choice. Frank Adrian P.S. I really think that a true world goverment is the solution, but I'll take what I can get.