alb@alice.UUCP (09/02/83)
It's just like the people who stay argue that the Holocaust never occurred. It's scary that people can think that things like this never happened. If it were a massive propaganda hoax, why would the Soviets help us by confirming that the jet was in their airspace (they confirmed little or nothing else of course and didn't step near saying they blew it away).
weh@druny.UUCP (09/02/83)
Having had the benefit of a days worth of news, I can say that "Politically Aware in Rochester" shown his/her rather extreme naivete concerning what the Soviets can and will do. The "arch-conservatives", who have been trying to convince everyone of the true nature of the Soviet government, were shown to be correct beyond any shadow of a doubt (US intelligence gathering in that area is rather impressive). This must come as a real blow to all those out there who believe that the Soviets are really a peace loving group, and that the US is responsible for the tensions that exist. They are truly a ruthless bunch, where the lives of 269 people is of no concern to them, especially when one considers the millions who have also died at their hands. The ultimate criteria for any action they do is whether it furthers their goal of bringing down the West (confirmed by almost everyone who has defected from government positions in the Eastern block, most notably the former Polish ambassador to Japan, Zdzislaw Rurarz). One can only hope that those 269 people will not have died totally in vain, in that people will wake up and become aware of the true nature of the Soviet government.
ecn-ec:ecn-pc:ecn-ed:vu@pur-ee.UUCP (09/03/83)
Ah shut up rochester!brown. The Soviets did admit the fact by: 1) sending out a search team (Do you think they do that for free ? While they can use their soldiers for better ( for them, that is ) purposes. 2) keeping their d**n mouths shut. Do you suppose they would have to keep silence if it's not true ? With a far better propaganda machinism than we have, they could have denied their crime were it not obvious. Your mistake is that you ( and all of us ) view the case as the killing of 200 people. The pilot who shot down the plane and those who ordered him to do so only see it as shooting down an airplane in their airspace, and view the action as in the interest of the Party. The net is not the place to tell you how humanism is taught in Soviet schools, so I won't. Ask me if you want to know. Hao-Nhien Vu ( pur-ee!vu, soon pur-ee!norris )
padpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell[Admin]) (09/03/83)
Well, when it comes to that, I think that
A. Some junior political officer is packing his bags, and looking forward
to a life sorting salt...
B. There is clearly a group inside the Kremlin who are not crying over the
incident... Andropov has very powerful allies and enemies inside
the politbureau (read "Congress" if you are unfamiliar with the
Soviet goverment structure).
C. I think this makes a good reason for the US to try their new generation
of hunter/seeker missiles out on live targets in the northern
Canadian Arctic... which Soviet bombers and fighters regularily
pass over... trying out various antiradar and other things.
Patrick ("Somebody sure wanted a major political incident") Powellajh@sdcsvax.UUCP (Alan Hu) (09/04/83)
I do know that the Soviets have a number of military installations on their pacific coast (not very pacific!). A number of these are supposed to be top-secret. Shooting down a civilian jetliner is an easy way to warn the world to keep their distance. It's tough to shoot down an SR-71 or a spy satellite. It's easy to shoot down a 747. By doing this, civilian aircraft which might serve double duty as a spy plane won't dare enter the area. The Soviets have shown that they don't care about the PR; they just want people to stay away. (Incidently, if any of you have played UN*X Empire, you've probably noticed that individual lives don't mean much. Who cares if 3000 people starve, as long as your country is strong enough to survive. When you're on top, 200 people getting blown up in a plane is pretty insignificant. You just have to worry about the bad press. If you're like most of us, though, it's a different story.) One thing that I thought was interesting: Not only the arch-conservatives, conservatives, and moderates are enraged. It seems that most liberals are quite angry at the Soviets (Kennedy, O'Neill, etc.). The only person I know of who isn't upset is Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) who said something to the effect that that's what you get for getting the Soviets mad by trying to build nuclear weapons. Just don't get them mad and they'll be really nice. (That's the way I read it in my newspaper (San Diego Union).) (I don't think I want that guy to be my senator!) --Alan J. Hu sdcsvax!ajh
alb@alice.UUCP (09/04/83)
Alan Hu makes an interesting comparison to Empire. Unfortunately, it's not quite the same. Empire is a game, this is not. In Empire, people are worth practically nothing; given food and iron, I can turn out about 10000 people a day (and note they will be full fledged adults capable of work in other sectors); I can't do that in real life. So if I lose several hundred people in Empire, no one cares. If some country shoots down a few hundred in real life though, people care (as they should) -- it's just a low down, barbarious, terrorist act.
janc@uofm-cv.UUCP (09/04/83)
Several people seem to be amazed that the Russians would do anything so stupid, and think, therefore that something big is being hidden. People seem to believe the Soviets are a lot better organized, and more in control of their actions than America is. Actually, I suspect they're bumbling around as blindly as we are, only they're a bit more paranoid. Remember the MiG pilot who defected a few years ago? When he landed in Japan people were really spooked because they didn't know what his intentions were. He didn't talk to the tower because his radio was set up so he could not. The soviets don't want their fighter pilots talking to westerners. It is entirely possible that the planes that intercepted KAL 007 could not have warned the airliner. Some time ago another Korean airliner wandered into Russian airspace and stayed there quite a while before the soviets responded. The Soviets were embarassed and, I understand, had the person in charge of air defense in that area shot. Consider the person in that seat during this incident. Was he thinking about foreign policy implications? Not likely. He was thinking about saving his own skin. What kind of decision do you expect under such conditions? In a situation where everyone is afraid of everyone else, and noone is able to trust anyone, stupid tragedies are hardly surprising. The real problem here is mutual paranoia on both sides. It keeps giving rise to incidents, like this one, that only seem to confirm the paranoia. The U.S. sees Germany wanting to buy oil from Russia, and moves to block it because we're afraid an important ally would be undermined. The soviets see this and say to themselves, "Gee, they really are out to get us". For some stupid, paranoid reason the soviets shoot down an airliner, and now people are running around in the U.S. saying, "Gee, they really are out to get us". This only gets worse. You have to break the cycle. Scared people behave in ways that can, in normal terms, be considered insane. Do you like having all those nuclear weapons in the hands of people who are functionally insane? The right response to this sort of incident is not to scream for revenge or reparations. If the soviets would say, "Gosh, we're sorry" then we should clearly say, "It's OK, these things happen". This may sound like weakness, but it ain't. As it is, the soviets silence makes it harder. If we just let it lie the US really looks bad. Like we really had spy devices on board or something. Remember a TV movie titled "World War III" or something? The US and USSR are on the brink of a nuclear holocaust. The president calls the Premier and says, "Please don't blow up America". The Premier says, "I won't if you don't blow up Russia". They agree, and after hanging up blow each other to smitheriens. Neither one believed the other. I find this very believable. Jan D. Wolter University of Michigan
bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/05/83)
While I think it is terrible to go around shooting Jumbo Jets, I was shocked to read in the paper that this is not entirely a new thing. We have all heard of the time the Russians did it before, but how many know that Israel shot down a 707 beloning to Libya? This was another plane full of innocent people, a commercial airliner, and it strayed over restricted airspace. This was in 1972, and I don't recall it at all. You can be sure there was not nearly the same stink raised. Why not? Is it OK for an ally to shoot down the passenger jets of enemies, but not vice versa? -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
lepreau@utah-cs.UUCP (Jay Lepreau) (09/05/83)
In today's paper the U.S. admits having a "spy" plane in the vicinity (75 miles) of the 747. From the description it sounds as if it were in the area for quite a while (discussion of crossing the 747's path 300 miles ahead, etc). The U.S. officials were busy reassuring everyone that the spy planbe was never in Soviet air space. Fine. What I want to know is why the hell the U.S. plane, and grond control, etc, apparently didn't make any effort to notify the KAL jet that it was over Soviet airspace and being shadowed by half-a-dozen Soviet fighters for two hours??
velu@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/06/83)
Ok. Ok. I think that at this point in this confrontation we should all take one step back and review the situation. First of all: What happened? A Korean Air Lines 747 Jumbo Jet, flight 007 [what do you expect with a number like 007, right!] was downed by a MiG fighter over Soviet airspace using a Heat Seaking missle. The plain was downed early in the morning Local Time (at the site of the incident it was 0430 hours when the plane fell.). Why was the plain there? The plain was about 250 miles too far inside Soviet territory. It flew inside The USSR's airsapce, over area which is clearly marked as being off limits to all. (on charts - go to your library and look for your self) It was inside the USSR's airspace for 2 hours - count them - that translates into more than 1000 miles... Why didn't they ASK it to leave? They did. But it wouldn't respond. On the Tapes made by the Jap's intelligence crew, there is a CLEAR message stating "Friend or Foe". The KaL jet DID NOT rspond.... Ok. So what do I think? I think that the Soviets should not be totally blamed - They were (at the nearest 3 km) quite far from the 747. The MiG pilot could not see the markings... Any way - what does 90 ft. (the differrence between the 747 and the AMERICAN AF - RC135(?) - a 707) mean at 3 km? The soviets should have forced the plane down, maybe even shot it, BUt NOT with a HEAT SEEKING missle. After being in ENEMY airspace for 2 hours, they deserved whatevr they got.Hey - why were both of the planes that infringed been KaL? Why? Why? Why? Flame off. - Velu But I think that we should all chastise them very strongly. 260 some people are very valuable. No price can repay their families. Remember however - US and Israel get along quite well. This is not as bad as the Libyan plane getting shot down. At least the Libyan's were not flying over territory that was explicitly marked off limits. Right now its US 104 / USSR 270. Those figures should both be zero! Any number larger is inexcusable. -- Velu Sinha
jj@rabbit.UUCP (09/07/83)
"It's US 104, USSR 270" I suppose that you're claiming, after all the events in Lebanon, the Iraqui reactor, etc, that we control the Israeli armed forces.? Bah! I'm NOT supporting the idea that anyone should shoot down planes, please note. <I know just how hard it is for some people to read opposed views without taking them to the extreme. (chuckle)>
madrid@auvax (09/09/83)
This may come as a surprise to you, buster, but the Canadian Arctic is just
that -- CANADIAN! If Americans who value ideology over human lives wish
to engage in a stupid, retaliatory Act of War, I would strongly prefer that
they do so on their own turf.
R.
auvax!madridpadpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell[Admin]) (09/11/83)
Well, the only little problem is that Canada is part of NORAD/NATO,
and both the US and Canada have joint agreements for Arctic defense.
This usually buggers the mind of visiting US congressman when they find
out the commanding officer of the "US" Air Defenses is a Canadian...
In my opion, if and when the US wants to shoot down a Soviet plane,
and it is over Canadian territory, I would not be surprised if a
Canadian officer in the NORAD/NATO structure gave the order...
Patrick ("Want to here about scientific exchange agreements?")
Powell