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

Too bad. Japan started the war, committed numerous horrendous war
crimes against the U.S., China and other Asian countries (and not a peep
out of Stuffie about that), and Japan effectively lost the war at the
Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944, and if their government had any
sense, they would have surrendered then. The B-29 fire raids started in
1945. Japan sowed the wind, and they reaped a whirlwind.

But Japan didn't have a space policy in 1944 and the primitive B29 couldn't go
into space!

Look at the sunject title: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July
4th, 1982)

Not that anything of significance was accomplished in 1982. The Shuttle was
flying but so what?

Tom

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

A completely inappropriate analogy, as there is no comparison between
the principles utilized in police work, and the principles utilized in a
world war.

It was a simple analogy about discriminate killing vs indiscriminate
killing - bystanders compared to non-combatants.

The analogy is bogus. Police work is within one country, and it deals
with one or a few criminals in an incident, and is not to be compared to
two countries that are at war with each other. Police powers are quite
limited and circumscribed, whereas when two countries are at total war,
all possible resources are mobilized to win the war.

Regarding the principles of the military and the police, I happen to
see them as more similar than different. Particularly in recent times
when military operations have been justified as actions of
"international law enforcement".

Those are properly called a "war".

Japan started the war, committed numerous horrendous war
crimes against the U.S., China and other Asian countries (and not a peep
out of Stuffie about that), and Japan effectively lost the war at the
Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944, and if their government had any
sense, they would have surrendered then. The B-29 fire raids started in
1945. Japan sowed the wind, and they reaped a whirlwind.

They also intermingled military areas with civilian areas, so it was the
fault of the Japanese government that their civilians got hurt in those
cities.

Incindiary and nuclear weapons are not exactly weapons known for their
surgical precision.

Too bad. The U.S. was under no obligation whatsoever to use "surgical
precision" on those military targets. The Japanese had 6 months to
surrender after Leyte Gulf, before the first Tokyo fireraid occurred,
and this was at a time when about 300,000 people per month were dying on
the Asian mainland as a direct result of WWII.

Japan "justified" those raids as part of their attempt to
conquer the whole western half of the Pacific Ocean and its islands and
its rim countries, to create the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere", a Japanese Empire with vast amounts of natural resources, taken
by military power.

Perhaps the Japanese modeled their expansionism on the American
example of "sea to shining sea (and beyond)".

Economic expansion is not to be compared with attempted world conquest
of a dozen countries by military force.

What about what China and the Indochina countries had to say about the
"Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"?

That shows just how unaware you are, then. Stuffie.

Douhet's theories of aerial bombardment of non-combatants as practiced
in WWII happens to be mainstream history. I see your position here as
out on the fringe.

-Your- position is what is on the fringe, the lunatic fringe.

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.

One could also attempt to justify the targeting of high schools
because that is where a considerable portion of draftees flow out of.

Bogus. The "cottage industry" aspect meant that in many homes, hardware
and electronic sub-assemblies were manufactured there for the war
effort, and then transported to the main war factories. That made the
homes an extension/feeder of the war factories.

I recommend that you read this outstanding book, as it will expose a lot
of the mush that is in your mind, Stuffie --

_Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire_, by Richard B.
Frank, 1999

If you have any quotes to offer that support your position, I'd be
glad to consider them.

You obviously haven't read the book.

He's correct ... including in the case of Japan and the U.S. in WWII.

It's not hard to imagine that Tojo (who unlike LeMay, was tried and
punished for war crimes) wanted the raid on Pearl Harbor to be an
example of overwhelming force.

Whether Tojo thought of the attack as *saving* American lives, I do
not know.

If the Allies had to invade Japan by land, it was estimated that they
would have lost between 150,000 and a million lives, and that the
Japanese would have lost (additionally) between 3 million and 20 million
lives. These were reasonable estimates, and the war as prosecuted by
the Allies avoided such a land invasion.

Obviously Stuffie would have preferred to see the U.S. lose far more
lives in WWII that it did. Stuffie doesn't care about the Japanese,
either.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Hmmmm, who was it who was saying CT doesn't know what he's talking about?
:-)

That would be *nearly everyone*, and thus far there's no evidence to the
contrary.

(Stuf4) wrote:
GPS was designed from the outset to create new capability for
offensive strategic forces.

Cite, please.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
Again, you might as well class cell phones as offensive weapons.

They are. They are used as the triggers for car bombs, among other things,
especially the disposable ones.

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
According to what you are saying, in the middle of a war, a group of
soldiers can put on civilian clothes and take a train ride into the
heart of the capital city of the country that they are fighting, put
on their uniforms, pull out their guns, and *then* initiate combat.

*We should be so lucky* as to be able to do that. Sounds like an absolutely
wonderful way to get into position.

I'd be interested to see the references you are basing these
statements from.

You first. You are way behind in producing verifiable references.

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

A completely inappropriate analogy, as there is no comparison between
the principles utilized in police work, and the principles utilized in a
world war.

It was a simple analogy about discriminate killing vs indiscriminate
killing - bystanders compared to non-combatants.

The analogy is bogus. Police work is within one country, and it deals
with one or a few criminals in an incident, and is not to be compared to
two countries that are at war with each other. Police powers are quite
limited and circumscribed, whereas when two countries are at total war,
all possible resources are mobilized to win the war.

To check the notion of all possible resources being mobilized to win a
war, evidence the fact that no nuclear weapons have been used in
combat since 1945.

Police actions are limited and circumscribed. Pentagon actions are
limited and circumscribed. Both use deliberate homicide as a method
of dealing with problems.

Differences I see are primarily in scale.

Regarding the principles of the military and the police, I happen to
see them as more similar than different. Particularly in recent times
when military operations have been justified as actions of
"international law enforcement".

Those are properly called a "war".

Just War Theory is in large part an extension of Law Enforcement
Theory.

Japan started the war, committed numerous horrendous war
crimes against the U.S., China and other Asian countries (and not a peep
out of Stuffie about that), and Japan effectively lost the war at the
Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944, and if their government had any
sense, they would have surrendered then. The B-29 fire raids started in
1945. Japan sowed the wind, and they reaped a whirlwind.

They also intermingled military areas with civilian areas, so it was the
fault of the Japanese government that their civilians got hurt in those
cities.

Incindiary and nuclear weapons are not exactly weapons known for their
surgical precision.

Too bad. The U.S. was under no obligation whatsoever to use "surgical
precision" on those military targets. The Japanese had 6 months to
surrender after Leyte Gulf, before the first Tokyo fireraid occurred,
and this was at a time when about 300,000 people per month were dying on
the Asian mainland as a direct result of WWII.

Perhaps we could agree that if an alternative solution that did not
involve the targeting of non-combatants was known to be effective,
that we would both prefer it.

Japan "justified" those raids as part of their attempt to
conquer the whole western half of the Pacific Ocean and its islands and
its rim countries, to create the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere", a Japanese Empire with vast amounts of natural resources, taken
by military power.

Perhaps the Japanese modeled their expansionism on the American
example of "sea to shining sea (and beyond)".

Economic expansion is not to be compared with attempted world conquest
of a dozen countries by military force.

How do you think America got to be dominant over the entire planet?
Military conquest of the British, Spanish, Iroquois, Apache,
Hawaiians, etc.

A point I have made in the past...

If you take a globe and stick a pin hole in every place that a US
military base has been built, the Earth starts to look like Swiss
cheese.

What about what China and the Indochina countries had to say about the
"Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"?

Leads me to wonder how the phrase "manifest destiny" translates to
their languages.

I recommend that you read this outstanding book, as it will expose a lot
of the mush that is in your mind, Stuffie --

_Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire_, by Richard B.
Frank, 1999

If you have any quotes to offer that support your position, I'd be
glad to consider them.

You obviously haven't read the book.

(Whether either of us have read the book or not is irrelevant to
points made in this discussion.)

He's correct ... including in the case of Japan and the U.S. in WWII.

It's not hard to imagine that Tojo (who unlike LeMay, was tried and
punished for war crimes) wanted the raid on Pearl Harbor to be an
example of overwhelming force.

Whether Tojo thought of the attack as *saving* American lives, I do
not know.

If the Allies had to invade Japan by land, it was estimated that they
would have lost between 150,000 and a million lives, and that the
Japanese would have lost (additionally) between 3 million and 20 million
lives. These were reasonable estimates, and the war as prosecuted by
the Allies avoided such a land invasion.

Obviously Stuffie would have preferred to see the U.S. lose far more
lives in WWII that it did. Stuffie doesn't care about the Japanese,
either.

An alternative conclusion that can be gathered from the points I have
offered is that I value all life.


~ CT

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

If GPS had such a high military justification as you assert, then they
wouldn't have taken 18 years to implement the system (even the first 10
"Block 1" satellites took 7-1/2 years to implement), they probably would
have done the whole 24 in 3 years or less.

Had this capability been considered necessary, then I would agree. A
key factor to remember here is that no one knew for sure whether GPS
would actually work (let alone work so well).

Three satellites would have been sufficient to fully test the concept.

They started launching in 1978, and by the time they were finished in
1996, the Cold War had been over for five years. That shows that they
put hardly any priority on GPS.

I would agree that GPS was not a top priority program in the early
years. I don't see how that in any way refutes the point that GPS was
funded because of its military justification. (Again, it was seen as
a force multiplier, not as some necessary vital element that the
military could not do without.)

While we can agree that "National Defense Highway System" was not the
official title, I have no problem with its use as a short title.

I have a big problem with that very misleading name. It suggests that
"national defense" is the sole purpose of the Interstate highway system,
when that is and was only a minor role. It doesn't include the very
predominant "Interstate", which is the one system-related word that is
on the red-white-and-blue shield highway route markers.

Commonly used "short titles" such as "Interstate System" and "Interstate
Highway System", are appropriate and accurate, and implicitly would
include the transportation of all types of vehicles, people and cargoes,
both civil and military.

(I see these points as thoroughly covered.)

And I find your criticism of "military myths" particularly curious,
especially since you have stated that you have a wealth of background
on the matter. Here are quotes from a speech prepared by Eisenhower
himself:

...cited five "penalties" of the nation's obsolete highway network:
the annual death and injury toll, the waste of billions of dollars
in detours and traffic jams, the clogging of the nation's courts
with highway-related suits, the inefficiency in the transportation
of goods, and "the appalling inadequacies to meet the demands of
catastrophe or defense, should an atomic war come."

Of the "five penalties" cited in one Eisenhower speech, four were purely
civil and only one was for defense; and each of those four "civil
penalties" were -huge-.

It seems we can agree that the threat of atomic war was a concern.
That would make the disagreement a matter of degree.

Because of the significance of the interstate system to national
defense, Fallon changed the official name to the "National System
of Interstate and Defense Highways." This new name remained in all
future House versions and was adopted in 1956.

Like I said, the system was officially named "National System of
Interstate Highways" when it was first established by Congress in 1943,
and the "and defense" was tacked on in 1956, the year that final
approval for construction occurred and actual construction began.

You have piped in with an extended commentary to "set the record
straight with respect to Interstate highways" and then you support
your points with a webpage that tells us about the threat of atomic
war and "the significance of the interstate system to national
defense".


If you and I can agree with the points made in the very reference you
have provided, then there is nothing else for us to discuss about
highways here.


Where did I find these quotes? On the very webpage that you provided:

From the official DOT website for the Federal Highway Administration:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm

(I don't know whether you didn't bother reading the page you linked,
or whether you are choosing to ignore it.)

Of course I read it, Stuffie. You found the word "defense" in there,
and think you can make that the main justification for the Interstate
system, when in fact it was a minor element.

I don't recall ever communicating that defense was the main
justification for this legislation.

I said "quite accurate in their own right", as before GPS, U.S. ICBMs
were accurate enough to hit point hardened targets, U.S. manned bombers
were accurate enough to hit point hardened targets, and U.S. SLBMs were
accurate enough to hit cities, ports and industrial centers (but not
point targets).

I don't disagree with that. But once again...

The percentage expected to hit accurately with GPS is greater than
without. This fact is encompassed by the term "force multiplier".

By itself it doesn't do anything, and it wasn't completed until well
after the Cold War had ended.

By itself, a nuclear warhead does not "do anything" either. (Except
rust and decay.)


~ CT

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message ...
(Stuf4) wrote:
GPS was designed from the outset to create new capability for
offensive strategic forces.

Cite, please.

Any thorough reference on the history of GPS makes this clear.

More he

http://tinyurl.com/63s2p
.com)


~ CT

From Scott Hedrick:
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...

I'd be interested to see the references you are basing these
statements from.

You first. You are way behind in producing verifiable references.

(If anyone would like to discuss an issue, it helps to identify the issue.)


~ CT