Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (02/01/89)
Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2 MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING, Washington, DC: Faces opposition from DoD. A satellite which could provide im- mediate photos of military activities to the media "poses a greater threat to national security" than current foreign-owned tech- nology, the AAAS was told recently. Editorial comment: The above is to be expected. The military does not foster a mentality that is compatible with a truely free society. The more power that mentality is given over society, the farther said society will be driven from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy. It is high time the Europeans got together and put up such a satellite. I would love to see a US firm do it and make a business out of it. But the DoD does not care about America being the forerunner in opening new technology markets, so I would rather see this important contribution to world peace and stability done by statists than to see it not done at all. Someone has to put a check to the power hungry SOB's in ALL of the military establishment's of the world. The US is not unique in this respect, because the mentality comes with the territority. So what if some US soldiers get wasted because they are on TV? The same will happen to the guys on the other side of whatever worthless imaginary line they are battling over. Maybe it will make ALL of them think twice about whether what they are doing is worth dying for. If they stayed home and concentrated on defending US territorial waters and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD. I know there are lots of Europeans out there on Space Digest, and some of you may be involved in your nation's space efforts, or even better, involved in a real company. Use whatever influence you have to get a high resolution (maybe 1M) satellite with real time imaging capability and with a high slant range. Screw the warrior class. It's about time we outgrew their paleolithic mindset. While we still have time. Free Minds, Free Markets and an intact planet to be a capitalist on, Dale Amon PS: And while you are at it, why not push for kicking ALL of our troops off of European soil and waters and airspace? The $50,000,000,000 or so saved per year would wipe out the US national debt, stabilize the dollar and make Europe less of a trip wire to WWIII.
jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Notes from the Underground) (02/02/89)
In <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> csustan!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!Dale.Amon states: > > [...MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING...] > >The above is to be expected. The military does not foster a mentality >that is compatible with a truely free society. Surprise, surprise. A military is meant to protect the CURRENT society. A changing society is difficult to deal with and therefore unwanted by the military. >The more power that mentality is given over society, the farther said >society will be driven from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy. So you're saying that our society is RIGHT NOW a liberal, laissez-faire democracy? Please go look outside. >It is high time the Europeans got together and put up such a satellite. >I would love to see a US firm do it and make a business out of it. But >the DoD does not care about America being the forerunner in opening new >technology markets, so I would rather see this important contribution >to world peace and stability done by statists than to see it not done >at all. Oh terrific. Give every quack and terrorist in the world full up-to-date information on all our citizenry visiting other countries while you're at it. >Someone has to put a check to the power hungry SOB's in ALL of the >military establishment's of the world. The US is not unique in this >respect, because the mentality comes with the territority. Ok. First, I'd like to see EXACTLY what's going on in that Libyan chemical factory. Think they'd let us if we told them where all our military might is? >So what if some US soldiers get wasted because they are on TV? The same >will happen to the guys on the other side of whatever worthless >imaginary line they are battling over. Maybe it will make ALL of them >think twice about whether what they are doing is worth dying for. IT WON'T REALLY MATTER IF THEY'RE DEAD, NOW WILL IT???? >If they stayed home and concentrated on defending US territorial waters >and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY >is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD. Just like all those students who died in the the Air BOMBING over Scotland, or the Ambassadors who get kidnapped or blown up for being "Emmisaries of America". > Dale Amon > >PS: And while you are at it, why not push for kicking ALL of our troops >off of European soil and waters and airspace? The $50,000,000,000 or >so saved per year would wipe out the US national debt, stabilize the >dollar and make Europe less of a trip wire to WWIII. WHOAH!!! The Europeans were kicking and screaming NOT to take out the medium range missles that the INF treaty suggested. Only some clever maneuvering by the people in Geneva made them think otherwise. And what $50 billion? What are you going to do with all the displaced military people? Put them on welfare until they all find jobs? Get real. You have no idea what you're talking about. -- James A. Salter (jim/jsalter) | If everyone believed in conservation of jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | baryon number, there wouldn't be all those ...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jsalter | experiments looking for proton decay.
lukas@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00771g-Lukas) (02/03/89)
In article <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: I agree with most of what you say, except: >Editorial comment: >and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY >is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD. Tell that to the Czechs, the Poles, the Hungarians, etc. Of course, that was different ... >PS: And while you are at it, why not push for kicking ALL of our troops >off of European soil and waters and airspace? The $50,000,000,000 or >so saved per year would wipe out the US national debt, stabilize the >dollar and make Europe less of a trip wire to WWIII. Since the debt is increasing at over $100G a year, "wiping out" is a little strong - but it sure would help! :^) However, I suspect that a unilateral, immediate withdrawal would actually increase the risk of war. A mutual, phased withdrawal is, however, a different thing. -- John Lukas att!ihlpf!lukas 312-510-6290
millard@eos.UUCP (Millard Edgerton) (02/03/89)
>From vn Wed Feb 1 13:43:06 1989 >Subject: Re: Pigs will be pigs... >Newsgroups: sci.space >References: <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> >From article <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU: > Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2 > > deleted-----stuff > > If they stayed home and concentrated on defending US territorial waters > and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY > is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD. Obvious you do not remember Czechoslovakia and Poland, 1939. Russia, 1940, Pearl Harbor, 1941. As a former Prime Minister of Israel said: A people with out a sense and understanding of history are DOOMED to repeat it! *************************************************************************** * Intelligent people talk about ideas. | Standard disclaimer(s) * * Average people talk about things. | Millard J. Edgerton, WA6VZZ * * Small people talk about other people. | millard@eos.arc.nasa.gov * * -o- | -o- * * Employed by Sterling Software at NASA Ames Research Center. * ***************************************************************************
khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering) (02/03/89)
In article <7624@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jsalter@polyslo.UUCP (Tasslehoff) writes: Good thing...I'd missed part of the original screed >In <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> csustan!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!Dale.Amon states: >> > >>If they stayed home and concentrated on defending US territorial waters >>and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY >>is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD. I suppose Germany invaded France, Poland, Czech., etc. because they were all giving Germany a hard time ? Muggers only pick on folks who opress them ? Minding ones own business does not result in peace, quit, or much of anything else. These opinions are mine. Keith H. Bierman It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus
jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) (02/03/89)
In article <88166@sun.uucp> khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering) writes: >In article <7624@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jsalter@polyslo.UUCP (Tasslehoff) writes: >Good thing...I'd missed part of the original screed >>In <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> csustan!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!Dale.Amon states: >>>If they stayed home and concentrated on defending US territorial waters >>>and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY >>>is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD. >I suppose Germany invaded France, Poland, Czech., etc. because they >were all giving Germany a hard time ? >Muggers only pick on folks who opress them ? >Minding ones own business does not result in peace, quit, or much of >anything else. This thread is both completely inappropriate to sci.space and remarkably stupid from the the original posting in the thread on down. It would benefit everyone in sci.space if all discussion on it were immediately dropped. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results guaranteed to advance science, satisfy every special interest group, generate 2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.
gtww2z9z@umiami.miami.edu (Jason Gross) (02/04/89)
In article <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2 > > MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING, > Washington, DC: Faces opposition from > DoD. A satellite which could provide im- > mediate photos of military activities to the > media "poses a greater threat to national > security" than current foreign-owned tech- > nology, the AAAS was told recently. > [stuff deleted] > > It is high time the Europeans got together and put up such a satellite. > I would love to see a US firm do it and make a business out of it. But > the DoD does not care about America being the forerunner in opening new > technology markets, so I would rather see this important contribution > to world peace and stability done by statists than to see it not done > at all. > You have got to be out to lunch! The DoD welcome any and all advancements in imaging technology. And how would hundreds of satellites spying on every living promote peace and goodwill. Just thinking about it gives me the willies. > Someone has to put a check to the power hungry SOB's in ALL of the > military establishment's of the world. The US is not unique in this > respect, because the mentality comes with the territority. This is why he have civilian control of ou military. You note that the guys who get to push the buttons are all civilians, and the military cannot act without consent of the civilian government (please don't let this break off into some other thread, you'll lose the point). The places where the military has control are those places that provided for such power in forming their governments. > > So what if some US soldiers get wasted because they are on TV? The same > will happen to the guys on the other side of whatever worthless > imaginary line they are battling over. Maybe it will make ALL of them > think twice about whether what they are doing is worth dying for. If > they stayed home and concentrated on defending US territorial waters > and borders they wouldn't be on TV in the first place. Because NOBODY > is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD. > I hope you are not serious about this one. I don't care if you hate the military so much that you think we should abolish it, to deem their lives less than ours makes us the despots and not them. And on the other point, we tried the isolationist route before, and it never worked. The British attacked in 1812, the Germans attacked the Czechs, Austrians, and Poles without provocation, and the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor (you remember that one, I hope). We tried staying out these "European affairs" and we lost. We have too much influence and power to sit back and let events around us control our actions. [more goobledygook deleted] > Screw the warrior class. It's about time we outgrew their paleolithic > mindset. While we still have time. I rather screw your paleolithic mindset. All you want to do is close our doors and hide behind a wall of isolationism with satellites spying on the rest of the world. Gee, that would make me feel so much more secure. > > Free Minds, Free Markets > and an intact planet to be a > capitalist on, > Dale Amon > > > PS: And while you are at it, why not push for kicking ALL of our troops > off of European soil and waters and airspace? The $50,000,000,000 or > so saved per year would wipe out the US national debt, stabilize the > dollar and make Europe less of a trip wire to WWIII. if you remember recently that when INF came to pass, the Europeans we're begging to have our missiles stay. This is a distinctly libertarian remark which doesn't take into account that our recent buddy-buddy the Soviet Union still has nearly 50 or so divisions just sitting on the Eastern frontier. I agree that that Europeans should do more for the common defense, but you just cannot dismiss the risk that some "power-hungry SOB" on the other side wouldn't take such gesture as "Please, come and invade us". Go crawl back into your hole and come out when your ready to face the reality of this world. -- Jason Gross Comp Sci Ugrad University of Miami Class of '91 (?) =========================================================================== If you can read this, | "Some things never change...", but addresses do! then you are just | I-Net: gtww2z9z@umiami.miami.edu TOO CLOSE! | Bitnet: Coming Soon! =========================================================================== Disclaimer: The university and I basically do not agree on anything. Ever.
kevin@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kevin S. Van Horn) (02/05/89)
In article <7570@ihlpf.ATT.COM> lukas@ihlpf.UUCP (00771g-Lukas,J.) writes: >>PS: And while you are at it, why not push for kicking ALL of our troops >>off of European soil and waters and airspace? The $50,000,000,000 or >>so saved per year would wipe out the US national debt [...] > >Since the debt is increasing at over $100G a year, "wiping out" is a >little strong - but it sure would help! :^) However, I suspect that >a unilateral, immediate withdrawal would actually increase the risk >of war. Actually, "wiping out" is correct, because the original poster's figure was too low -- $150 billion is a more accurate figure. But if you don't like a unilateral, immediate withdrawal, how about a unilateral, phased withdrawal, to give the Europeans time to strengthen their own defenses. Given that the Western Europeans are on the spot (instead of being thousands of miles away like the U.S.) and have a total population and total GNP exceeding the U.S.'s, it should be clear that they can do a much better job of defending themselves than the U.S. ever can. One more point -- doesn't it bother you that the average American pays more for the defense of West Germany than the average West German does? Kevin S. Van Horn
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (02/05/89)
In article <484@umiami.miami.edu> gtww2z9z@umiami.miami.edu (Jason Gross) writes: In article <602276265.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2 > MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING, Washington, DC: Faces opposition > from DoD. A satellite which could provide im- mediate photos > of military activities to the media "poses a greater threat to > national security" than current foreign-owned tech- nology, > the AAAS was told recently. > You have got to be out to lunch! The DoD welcome any and all advancements in imaging technology. And how would hundreds of satellites spying on every living promote peace and goodwill. Just thinking about it gives me the willies. Just thinking about ONLY the governments of the US and USSR having this technology gives ME the willies. Reagan's "Trust but verify" remark applies double here. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) "I saved the whales!" - Rebecca L. Nelson, 3.5 years old, on receiving her Christmas present of a whale "adoption" certificate. Bless her liberal heart.
PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) (02/07/89)
Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Because NOBODY >is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD. Almost all of the examples from history of countries being invaded that I am aware of were countries that were "minding their own business": Poland, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan... if you consider the Roman Empire the examples are legion (sorry, couldn't resist that one). >I know there are lots of Europeans out there on Space Digest, and some >of you may be involved in your nation's space efforts, or even better, >involved in a real company. Use whatever influence you have to get a >high resolution (maybe 1M) satellite with real time imaging capability >and with a high slant range. >[...] >PS: And while you are at it, why not push for kicking ALL of our troops >off of European soil and waters and airspace? The $50,000,000,000 or >so saved per year would wipe out the US national debt, stabilize the >dollar and make Europe less of a trip wire to WWIII. Unlikely that the Europeans would be launching non-essential payloads if they are paying the full cost of their own defence. >Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2 > > MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING, > Washington, DC: Faces opposition from > DoD. A satellite which could provide im- > mediate photos of military activities to the > media "poses a greater threat to national > security" than current foreign-owned tech- > nology, the AAAS was told recently. > > >Editorial comment: > >The above is to be expected. The military does not foster a mentality >that is compatible with a truely free society. The more power that >mentality is given over society, the farther said society will be driven >from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy. Actually I would be more worried by the likely misuse of cheap high-quality aerial pictures by the media. The possibilities range from the Miami Herald ("Gary Hart Takes Cruise on Monkey Business II: Pictures of Decktop Party") to the National Enquirer ("Supermodel and her Secret Love Nest in the Poconos") to _Geraldo_ ("Did the survivors of Air Peru flight 999 really resort to cannibalism in the Andes? We have the answers.") I don't think that organs of the media such as the Morton Downey Jr. Show have really demonstrated that they are responsible enough to use this information wisely. I'm not saying that the military are, either, but at least they don't broadcast it. I know that this assumes *really* cheap and *really* high-resolution photography, but not outlandishly so. Obviously the media would say that they would use such a satellite for pictures of things like the Chernobyl incident, but given the emphasis that the networks are placing on so-called `trash tv' these days, how long would it be before they found some way to pervert it for those purposes? Enquiring minds want to know... Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) Disclaimer: I'm not picking on the particular newspapers and shows I just mentioned, there are plenty of equally qualified others.
leif@cs.swarthmore.edu (Leif Kirschenbaum) (02/08/89)
I've noticed that many countries have been cited which have been invaded by powers which we consider inimical to ourselves. What about Vietnam? What about Nicaragua? What about Guatemala? etc. etc. What about the suggestion that this issue be dropped from this board and put somewhere more appropriate? (talk.politics???) -- Leif Kirschenbaum '91 Swarthmore College UUCP: rutgers!bpa!swatsun!leif CSnet: leif@swatsun.swarthmore.edu