al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) (03/08/86)
The French recently orbited the SPOT earth resources satellite with a minimum resolution of 10 meters. This resolution is good enough to be militarily useful in some cases. RUMOUR has it that there has been some discussion in the Pentagon about destroying SPOT with an ASAT should SPOT detect 'sensitive' military information not normally available to anyone but the US and Soviet armed forces (both organizations have satellites with far better resolution than SPOT). My question for the net: under what circumstances should the US destroy SPOT? My own opinion: only if Congress has declared war on France. I will summarize for the net if there is sufficient response.
rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) (03/13/86)
> The French recently orbited the SPOT earth resources satellite with a > minimum resolution of 10 meters. This resolution is good enough to > be militarily useful in some cases. RUMOUR has it that there has been > some discussion in the Pentagon about destroying SPOT with an ASAT > should SPOT detect 'sensitive' military information not > normally available to anyone but the US and Soviet armed forces (both > organizations have satellites with far better resolution than SPOT). > > My question for the net: under what circumstances should the US destroy > SPOT? > > My own opinion: only if Congress has declared war on France. > > I will summarize for the net if there is sufficient response. If this is a joke, it's not particularly funny. Otherwise, this is an extremely irresponsible posting on a network which is read around the free world. Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another nation -- particularly an ally. How do you think the European sites feel when reading a posting which so casually discusses the idea of the US smacking a smaller country on the nose for daring to stand toe-to-toe with the ``superpowers''? I don't know about you, but I'd feel pretty pissed off. It seems like this newsgroup in particular should be a forum which harbors a sense of global community on Spaceship Earth rather than crass parochialism. I'm sorry to find that that's not necessarily the case. -- Ray Lubinsky University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ...!cbosgd!uvacs!rwl or ...!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl
kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) (03/16/86)
In article <261@uvacs.UUCP> uvacs!rwl (Ray Lubinsky) writes: >> My question for the net: under what circumstances should the US destroy >> SPOT? >> >> My own opinion: only if Congress has declared war on France. >Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no >reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another >nation -- particularly an ally. He did say "only if Congress has declared war on France." (for his own opinion). Assuming such a condition, France would no longer be an ally; and I think there is every reason to believe that the USA would "infringe on the rights of another nation" that we are at war with at the time. Aha, I bet you are interpreting the original poster as suggesting that we declare war on France _because_ of SPOT, whereas I was assuming such a war already in existence which would _justify_ shooting down SPOT. I certainly don't think the existence of SPOT justifies a declaration of war, especially since (as noted in the original posting) the USSR already has better resolution, and we are not at war with them. Personally, I have no grudge against France, and have no objections to any country launching a high-resolution satellite. It might keep the superpowers more honest. Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/16/86)
In article <261@uvacs.UUCP> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes: >> The French recently orbited the SPOT earth resources satellite with a >> minimum resolution of 10 meters. This resolution is good enough to >> be militarily useful in some cases. RUMOUR has it that there has been >> some discussion in the Pentagon about destroying SPOT with an ASAT >> should SPOT detect 'sensitive' military information not >> normally available to anyone but the US and Soviet armed forces (both >> organizations have satellites with far better resolution than SPOT). > >If this is a joke, it's not particularly funny. Otherwise, this is an >extremely irresponsible posting on a network which is read around the >free world. Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no >reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another >nation -- particularly an ally. This is certainly an oxymoron; if the source is reliable is that not a "reason to believe"? (Not that I don't agree that the idea is absurd, just that your statement is equally so.) And what does "irresponsible" mean in this context? Is even discussing any topic which might be offensive to any individual "irresponsible"? Is it better to bury our heads in the sand? >How do you think the European sites feel when reading a posting which so >casually discusses the idea of the US smacking a smaller country on the nose >for daring to stand toe-to-toe with the ``superpowers''? I don't know about >you, but I'd feel pretty pissed off. What is casual about the posting? It practically equates the destruction with an act of war. Hardly a casual tone. >It seems like this newsgroup in particular should be a forum which harbors a >sense of global community on Spaceship Earth rather than crass parochialism. >I'm sorry to find that that's not necessarily the case. In other words, we should all ignore reality and pretend that the whole world is one big happy family? Would it be better to ignore the possibility and then when it actually happens say, "Well, we knew it was coming but we thought it would be rude to warn you."? After finally getting the censorship discussion out of net.columbia, it looks like it is going to reappear here. You seem to be saying (please correct me if this paraphrase is inaccurate), "Certain topics should not be discussed, because some might find them offensive." This is called censorship when practiced by those with the actual power to control what is said. -- David desJardins
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/16/86)
In article <261@uvacs.UUCP> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes: >If this is a joke, it's not particularly funny. Otherwise, this is an >extremely irresponsible posting on a network which is read around the >free world. Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no >reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another >nation -- particularly an ally. Except possibly for Lichtenstein, Andorra, San Marino, and Luxemborg, and most of the Pacific island countries, I cannot think of one government in the world which has existed longer than one month that has NOT infringed on the rights of another nation--allied or not. Try reading newspapers now and then. The United States props up right wing dictators as long as they say the magic words "anti-Communist", bombs Cambodia without asking anyone's permission, mines the harbors of Nicaragua, refuses to do anything about acid rain in Canada until even more study is done, actively overthrew Chile's election winner Allende, tries to force New Zealand to be a nuclear target, etc etc. The military with Reagan's blessing has announced on more than one occasion they will ignore our own Congress. Refusing to negotiate with the Soviet's on arms reductions--by making the "defensive" SDI program as unbudgeable--violates every single human being's rights to anything. Perhaps this last part is somewhat exaggerated on my part, but your statement "no reason to believe" above is complete nonsense. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
Crew@SU-SUSHI.ARPA (Roger Crew) (03/16/86)
> From: Ray Lubinsky > ... > There is no reason to believe that our government would infringe on the > rights of another nation -- particularly an ally.... WHAT???? ? ? ! ! ! ! Try telling that to the Cambodians. -Roger Crew@SU-SUSHI.ARPA (Stanford Computer Science Dept.) -------
allen@mmm.UUCP (Kurt Allen) (03/17/86)
In article <364@vger.UUCP> al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) writes: >The French recently orbited the SPOT earth resources satellite with a > ... >RUMOUR has it that there has been >some discussion in the Pentagon about destroying SPOT with an ASAT >should SPOT detect 'sensitive' military information ... I hope people will read the 'RUMOUR' disclaimer. Could I ask where you heard this ? Please don't interpret this as sarcasm, but as this rumour is somewhat scandalous, I would like to know if there is any evidence to substantiate it, or if it is purely rumour/conjecture.
al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) (03/18/86)
In article <639@bentley.UUCP>, kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes: > In article <261@uvacs.UUCP> uvacs!rwl (Ray Lubinsky) writes: > >> My question for the net: under what circumstances should the US destroy > >> SPOT? > >> > >> My own opinion: only if Congress has declared war on France. > >Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no > >reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another > >nation -- particularly an ally. Our government regularly infringes on the rights of many nations. E.g., multiple invasions of Mexico and Central America over the last century, U2 flights over Russia (until they shot Gary Powers down), covert involvement of the overthrow of South Vietnamese and Chilean governments, invasion of Cuba (bay of pigs), extermination of the American Indian nations, invasion of Canada (War of 1812), mining of Nicaraguan harbors, etc. Of course, most (perhaps all) powerful governments do this, many to a greater extent than Uncle Sam.
karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (03/18/86)
I for one welcome the existence of SPOT, and congratulate ESA (not just France) on their efforts. It is good to see that there is now another route into polar orbit. I would very much like to someday see a group of independent, neutral nations fly a fleet of low earth orbiting observation satellites, making ALL results public. As someone else here commented, it would do a lot to keep both superpowers honest. I am tired of the US administration's habit of "selectively declassifying" spy photos whenever it will sway public opinion in favor of its policies. Phil
knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) (03/21/86)
> I for one welcome the existence of SPOT, and congratulate ESA (not just > France) on their efforts. It is good to see that there is now another route > into polar orbit. > > I would very much like to someday see a group of independent, neutral > nations fly a fleet of low earth orbiting observation satellites, making ALL > results public. As someone else here commented, it would do a lot to keep > both superpowers honest. I am tired of the US administration's habit of > "selectively declassifying" spy photos whenever it will sway public opinion > in favor of its policies. > > Phil References: <261@uvacs.UUCP> <639@bentley.UUCP> <376@vger.UUCP>, <56@petrus.UUCP> Good idea, Phil. It would also make it harder for one small (or large) country to mount a massive sneak attack on another. If say, Nicaraguan troops were massing along the Honduran border, the independent satellite would spill the beans. Since nations could count on advance warning of major attacks, they could all maintain smaller armies and be less paranoid in general. mike k PS: In fact, if everyone knew where everyone else's armies were all the time, wars could become rather unpractical! Can't wait for the Scaninavians to get up there and do this! This may be mangled; my terminal is sick!