National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Alan Anderson:
snip
Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that
GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.

I would say "enhances" rather than "offers".

tdadamemd-spamblock-@exc
wrote:

From Alan Anderson:

Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.

Well, no, what you said is tantamount to what Alan said, almost the same
thing. All the weapon systems that you mentioned, including the U.S.
nuclear triad, already had massive amounts of "offensive weapons
capability", before GPS was implemented, as the U.S. nuclear triad could
have destroyed the Soviet Union several times over. Therefore, GPS did
-not- "offer offensive weapons capability".

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Alan Anderson:
snip
Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that
GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.

I would say "enhances" rather than "offers".

Note here a case where GPS *creates* an offensive weapons capability:
GPS bombs.

Imagine during the biggest, most recent raid on Baghdad...

All of a sudden turning off GPS the constellation.

This would have had an effect reminiscent to that scene in a new Star
Wars episode where in the heat of battle, all of the robot warriors
instantly become useless.


Despite the facts presented here, the general public will continue to
see GPS as a benign technology.


GPS was designed from the outset to create new capability for
offensive strategic forces. Consider, for example, the planning of
the route taken by a B-52. The Strategic Air Command had a
requirement for how often navigational fixes needed to be available
for updates of the nav system to prevent the INS position from
wandering off.

One consequence was that missions planned over the open ocean had to
periodically be within radar fix distance of identifiable land points.
GPS eliminates that constraint, creating new capability for mission
planning.


~ CT

From Scott Kozel:
tdadamemd-spamblock-@exc wrote:

From Alan Anderson:

Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.

Well, no, what you said is tantamount to what Alan said, almost the same
thing. All the weapon systems that you mentioned, including the U.S.
nuclear triad, already had massive amounts of "offensive weapons
capability", before GPS was implemented, as the U.S. nuclear triad could
have destroyed the Soviet Union several times over. Therefore, GPS did
-not- "offer offensive weapons capability".

That conclusion does not follow.

An illustration as to why, consider the case of satcom. The triad had
the capability to destroy the USSR several times over prior to satcom
(and after satcom). Yet satcom still offered new offensive strike
capability in the command and control aspects.

GPS offered new offensive strike capability in the navigational
aspects.


~ CT

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:
From Scott Kozel:

I snipped the rest of your post because my comments above were
sufficient to refute your argument.

The space shuttle is not a "military aircraft" and it is not an
"aircraft" at all during the cruise portion of its mission, so your cite
the Hague Rules of Air Warfare is irrelevant.

There are many who would say that these Rules of Air Warfare are
irrelevant no matter what. Even for regular aircraft. Notice that
Tokyo firebombing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc came *well after* these
rules were drafted.

Strawman alert. It's also amusing that you don't mention that the
Japanese were the ones who first conducted the firebombing of cities.

Since the focus has been on NASA, I considered it to be more relevant
to focus on other US gov't observance/lack of observance of the Hague
rules (rather than the Japanese or anyone else).

The fact that the Japanese were the ones who "lowered the bar" and first
conducted the firebombing of cities in that war, is crucial to
understanding why they later got the same treatment, and those cities
that you mentioned were legitimate aerial targets by the standards of
Hague, in that they were defensed cities that contained valid military
targets.

It is clear to me that such indiscriminant bombardment was expressly
prohibited. In particular, Articles 22, 24 and 25:

http://lawofwar.org/hague_rules_of_air_warfare.htm


I suspect that these Hague articles formed the basis for LeMay's
post-war words:
--------------
"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose
if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal..."

(From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/pe...ndeAMEX61.html,
one of many sources where LeMay's quote can be found)
--------------

[The above quote was pasted from an old ssh post from two years ago.]


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Alan Anderson:

Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.

I would say "enhances" rather than "offers".

Note here a case where GPS *creates* an offensive weapons capability:
GPS bombs.

Imagine during the biggest, most recent raid on Baghdad...

All of a sudden turning off GPS the constellation.

This would have had an effect reminiscent to that scene in a new Star
Wars episode where in the heat of battle, all of the robot warriors
instantly become useless.

Give it up, troll. The 1991 Gulf War utilized smart bombs without GPS,
so your assertions are false, as usual.

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:
tdadamemd-spamblock-@exc wrote:

From Alan Anderson:

Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.

Well, no, what you said is tantamount to what Alan said, almost the same
thing. All the weapon systems that you mentioned, including the U.S.
nuclear triad, already had massive amounts of "offensive weapons
capability", before GPS was implemented, as the U.S. nuclear triad could
have destroyed the Soviet Union several times over. Therefore, GPS did
-not- "offer offensive weapons capability".

That conclusion does not follow.

An illustration as to why, consider the case of satcom. The triad had
the capability to destroy the USSR several times over prior to satcom
(and after satcom). Yet satcom still offered new offensive strike
capability in the command and control aspects.

GPS offered new offensive strike capability in the navigational
aspects.

Nonsense. GPS doen't offer "strike" nor does it offer "offensive nor
does it offer "new".

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

The fact that the Japanese were the ones who "lowered the bar" and first
conducted the firebombing of cities in that war, is crucial to
understanding why they later got the same treatment, and those cities
that you mentioned were legitimate aerial targets by the standards of
Hague, in that they were defensed cities that contained valid military
targets.

The Hague rules were never ratified by the signatories, so they were not
law.

It is clear to me that such indiscriminant bombardment was expressly
prohibited. In particular, Articles 22, 24 and 25:

http://lawofwar.org/hague_rules_of_air_warfare.htm

It wasn't indiscriminate. The "cottage industry" aspect of Japan's
military machine was well documented, whereby a considerable portion of
their military industrial output began in people's city homes and flowed
to the military factories and plants. That made the entirety of the
city a military target.

Those cities had other purely military targets. The accuracy of aerial
bombardment was not very good in WWII, so legitimate aerial bombardment
directed at a military objective could legitimately involve damage to
nearby areas.

See: The First Rules of Air Warfare, by Major Richard H. Wyman, USAF
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchr...apr/wyman.html

I suspect that these Hague articles formed the basis for LeMay's
post-war words:
--------------
"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose
if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal..."

With the nature of the Japanese military in WWII, they undoubtedly would
have tried and killed most of a losing country's leaders as "war
criminals".

Japan had already clearly lost the war by the time that the B-29s
reached Japan in 1945, so LeMay would have had no fears of the U.S.
losing the war.

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
An illustration as to why, consider the case of satcom. The triad had
the capability to destroy the USSR several times over prior to satcom
(and after satcom). Yet satcom still offered new offensive strike
capability in the command and control aspects.

GPS offered new offensive strike capability in the navigational
aspects.

I would say "enhanced existing strike capability". With the exception of the
Stealth aircraft, there isn't anything the USAF can do now it couldn't do in
1973, except now they do it much better.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...14-oberg_x.htm
Author: James Oberg

"...Suppose a small asteroid was a potential threat to Earth.
We'd want to divert its orbit. But despite Hollywood's best
imaginations, we don't know how. To gain that knowledge, we
need more probes to nearby asteroids and even small-scale
experiments. Instead of going to the moon or Mars, there
could be a human mission to an asteroid passing near Earth..."