|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
From Scott Kozel:
Sander Vesik wrote: Scott M. Kozel wrote: Sander Vesik wrote: Scott M. Kozel wrote: GPS is not "offensive space-based weaponry", and for you to assert that it is, shows you have an agenda to post disinformation about the topic. Fine. And I doubt many people would argue against that. But surely you don't want to claim that specificly military tailored and military controlled navigation satellites used in weapons targeting are part not of space militarisation? I just got done refuting that notion. GPS has many civil uses, and is no more "space militarisation" than is things like computers, calculators, and microelectronics that makes modern satellites feasible, plus weather satellites and other communication satellites. This is simply nonsense. When was the last time you saw a receiver on sale that could actually make use of all GPS? GPS is not in any way comparable to computers or modern electronics. It is not even designed for civilian use, you may as well claim military cargo planes are not military aircraft at all. You're the one who is posting nonsense. Obviously you've never seen the commercially available receivers that instantly provide the exact coordinates of a location to within a few feet. That has valuable civil navigational uses. I totally agree that GPS has many civil uses. You can say the same thing about the internet. But that does nothing to change the history of the origins of either system stemming from nuclear warfare. Here is a fact that: "it is commonly known that civil users outnumber military users by 100 to 1 and the ratio is increasing". Along with internet use, the civil/military user ratio for interstate highways is way up there too. But the fact remains that the funding for many infrastrucure elements that we take for granted today came as a direct result of nuclear warfare strategy. Accurate ICBMs and SLBMs existed by the thousands, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, decades before GPS ever existed. Which is utterly irrelevant to whetever GPS is space militarisation or not. It is totally relevant, since those ICBMs and SLBMs can be (and were) very accurate without GPS. Inertial navigation systems are (and were) notoriously lacking in reliability. This translates to a lack of reliable accuracy in the nuclear triad (bombers being far more susceptible than ICBMs to INS inaccuracies since acceleration errors build over time). And this translates to a decrease in deterrent effect. GPS was essentially funded as a force multiplier that helped tip the balance of power in the favor of the US. You're just looking for any far-fetched excuse possible to attack the U.S. I don't speak for Sander, but I hope you don't see my efforts as an _attack_ against the US. As I've stated elsewhere, offering criticism toward the US does not necessarily make someone anti-US. Every country has its faults. Patriotic nationalism can have a negative effect of *hiding* those faults (note that Nazi is a contraction of a German word for nationalist). My definition of patriot includes working to identify and fix critical faults. ~ CT |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 13:44:47 -0400, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote: GPS is not a weapon, and it is not an "offensive" system either, ....No, but if it was, I think it's pretty clear that we'd have used it to wipe CT, the Maxsons, Brad Guth and LaToilet off the map a long time ago. But since we haven't, I think that puts yet another final nail in the coffin for one of CT's bull**** conspiracy theories. Just killfile the dogsucking ******* and be done with him. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
(Stuf4) wrote:
From Scott Kozel: Obviously you've never seen the commercially available receivers that instantly provide the exact coordinates of a location to within a few feet. That has valuable civil navigational uses. I totally agree that GPS has many civil uses. You can say the same thing about the internet. But that does nothing to change the history of the origins of either system stemming from nuclear warfare. The initial projected uses of them were far more diverse than things related to nuclear warfare. Here is a fact that: "it is commonly known that civil users outnumber military users by 100 to 1 and the ratio is increasing". Along with internet use, the civil/military user ratio for interstate highways is way up there too. But the fact remains that the funding for many infrastrucure elements that we take for granted today came as a direct result of nuclear warfare strategy. You've mentioned Interstate highways several times now, and highway administration happens to have been my profession for 30 years, so let's set the record straight with respect to Interstate highways. The Interstate highway system was first approved in plan in 1943 (before nuclear weapons existed), and in actual construction beginning in 1956, and the federal funding mechanism was 90% federal funds from the Highway Trust Fund which was stocked with the receipts of direct road user tax revenues. The Interstate highway system never got funding from the U.S. Defense Department, and the prime impetus for beginning the system was to provide more capacity for the burgeoning civilian traffic in the nation, and the "and defense" in the system name "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" was tacked on by politicians who wanted to add weight to getting the 1956 Highway Act passed; but the IHS always was intended primarily for handling civilian traffic. About 3,000 miles of state-built (with no federal funds) turnpikes predated the Interstate highway system, and they were built for the same basic reasons as the Interstates, to the same basic superhighway design standards, so the concept and need for such superhighways was well established before the Interstate highway system was started; in fact, much of that turnpike mileage was later incorporated into the Interstate highway system, route-wise. This aside on highways is instructive, because it highlights how misconceptions can arise about the origins of things. It is totally relevant, since those ICBMs and SLBMs can be (and were) very accurate without GPS. Inertial navigation systems are (and were) notoriously lacking in reliability. This translates to a lack of reliable accuracy in the nuclear triad (bombers being far more susceptible than ICBMs to INS inaccuracies since acceleration errors build over time). And this translates to a decrease in deterrent effect. Still, GPS did not provide any new unique capability, and all 3 legs of the U.S. nuclear triad were quite accurate in their own right prior to GPS. GPS was essentially funded as a force multiplier that helped tip the balance of power in the favor of the US. That claim could be made about many things, such as better computers, better radios, more education for military personnel, better C-rations for soldiers, etc., etc. -- 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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message ... That claim could be made about many things, such as better computers, better radios, more education for military personnel, better C-rations for soldiers, etc., etc. .... The Soviets' winter boots. There's a good force multiplier right there |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gerace" wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote: That claim could be made about many things, such as better computers, better radios, more education for military personnel, better C-rations for soldiers, etc., etc. ... The Soviets' winter boots. There's a good force multiplier right there Their vodka is a good force multiplier, also! :-] |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote: From Scott Kozel: (Stuf4) wrote: 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). ~ CT |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote: From Scott Kozel: Obviously you've never seen the commercially available receivers that instantly provide the exact coordinates of a location to within a few feet. That has valuable civil navigational uses. I totally agree that GPS has many civil uses. You can say the same thing about the internet. But that does nothing to change the history of the origins of either system stemming from nuclear warfare. The initial projected uses of them were far more diverse than things related to nuclear warfare. Of course. Now try to build a case to fund those multi-billions of dollars so that the Army grunts won't get lost. Or any other application. Notice that it wasn't the Army who got funded for GPS R&D. Notice that is wasn't the FAA. Notice that it wasn't the USGS. Not the Coast Guard. Not EMS 'R' US. It was not a federal grant to Cadillac. Just two players: - The US Air Force, - The US Navy. Now notice the correlation between GPS funding and the nuclear triad. It is wonderful for Emergency Medical Services, for one example, to have precise ambulance navigation to help them save lives. But how much is this capability worth to Americans? It is when *our own lives* get threatened when we open up our pocket books. National security is worth top dollar. This is the reason why GPS was funded. This is the reason why Apollo was funded. (Along with many many other national security programs.) Here is a fact that: "it is commonly known that civil users outnumber military users by 100 to 1 and the ratio is increasing". Along with internet use, the civil/military user ratio for interstate highways is way up there too. But the fact remains that the funding for many infrastrucure elements that we take for granted today came as a direct result of nuclear warfare strategy. You've mentioned Interstate highways several times now, and highway administration happens to have been my profession for 30 years, so let's set the record straight with respect to Interstate highways. The Interstate highway system was first approved in plan in 1943 (before nuclear weapons existed), and in actual construction beginning in 1956, and the federal funding mechanism was 90% federal funds from the Highway Trust Fund which was stocked with the receipts of direct road user tax revenues. The Interstate highway system never got funding from the U.S. Defense Department, and the prime impetus for beginning the system was to provide more capacity for the burgeoning civilian traffic in the nation, and the "and defense" in the system name "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" was tacked on by politicians who wanted to add weight to getting the 1956 Highway Act passed; but the IHS always was intended primarily for handling civilian traffic. About 3,000 miles of state-built (with no federal funds) turnpikes predated the Interstate highway system, and they were built for the same basic reasons as the Interstates, to the same basic superhighway design standards, so the concept and need for such superhighways was well established before the Interstate highway system was started; in fact, much of that turnpike mileage was later incorporated into the Interstate highway system, route-wise. This aside on highways is instructive, because it highlights how misconceptions can arise about the origins of things. So what are you saying is a missconception? You yourself highlight how politicians added "and defense" to add weight to getting it passed. Here is an excellent reference about the military aspects of interstate highways: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ility/ndhs.htm Its message fits in with your message, as I see it (save the misconception part). It is totally relevant, since those ICBMs and SLBMs can be (and were) very accurate without GPS. Inertial navigation systems are (and were) notoriously lacking in reliability. This translates to a lack of reliable accuracy in the nuclear triad (bombers being far more susceptible than ICBMs to INS inaccuracies since acceleration errors build over time). And this translates to a decrease in deterrent effect. Still, GPS did not provide any new unique capability, and all 3 legs of the U.S. nuclear triad were quite accurate in their own right prior to GPS. ? I just stated that nuclear warhead delivery had unreliable accuracy. You are agreeing with that point. And then state that they were quite accurate. I agree that they *can be* quite accurate without GPS. But this takes a high degree of skill, and even then, the best navigators were known to unwittingly degrade their system accuracy (if not a hardware only problem). GPS is a no brainer. It pumps into the system many highly accurate fixes that keep the inertial part of the system *tight*. ....and that *is* a unique capability. It greatly increased the percentage of bombers that could be expected to reach their targets accurately. Same for other types of warheads. GPS was essentially funded as a force multiplier that helped tip the balance of power in the favor of the US. That claim could be made about many things, such as better computers, better radios, more education for military personnel, better C-rations for soldiers, etc., etc. I don't follow that point at all. A SAC navigator can eat *cardboard* for breakfast without affecting operational performance. C-rats, radios and computers only have potential to increase effectiveness in areas where effectiveness is deficient. Navigation was one of the poorly solved problems. GPS provided an exceptional solution. ~ CT |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
From Scott Kozel:
"Neil Gerace" wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: That claim could be made about many things, such as better computers, better radios, more education for military personnel, better C-rations for soldiers, etc., etc. ... The Soviets' winter boots. There's a good force multiplier right there Their vodka is a good force multiplier, also! :-] I'd call that a force *divider*. I've heard stories of desperate troops drinking the antifreeze for their vehicles just to get the effect of alcohol. An interesting aside about Russian alcohol is that Gorbachev recently filed a trademark on his wine-stain birthmark after a vodka company had used it as a marketing gimick. ~ CT |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote: From Scott Kozel: (Stuf4) wrote: And if you don't see how GPS was funded for its offensive capability, I suggest that you review the plethora of information in the links provided in this thread alone. Given that you have not posted one single jot about the USSR's offensive ballistic missile systems that the U.S. was trying to defend against during the Cold War, nor about the USSR's "hunter killer" sattelites which actually -were- an offensive spaced-based weapon, I have to question everything that you have posted and wonder why you are digging down so deep to construct your anti-U.S. rants, and complaining about a communication system. Please check what you've just said with the following: - GPS is not a communication system. It functions fundamentally by receiving and transmitting radio waves, and that makes it a communication system. You might want to re-evaluate the fundamental mission of GPS. Comm signals are used to facilitate its primary role, and that is -navigation-. A secondary role of GPS satellites is nudet location. Comm does not make the list of *any* missions that the system serves. - The US gave up on trying to _defend against_ Soviet ICBMs. The technology to directly do that didn't exist when GPS started in 1978, so the U.S.'s prime defense against Soviet ICBMs/SLBMs was to have a survivable second-strike capability, so that the Soviets would know that they couldn't launch a first strike that would prevent devastating retaliation from the U.S. Subtle, but critical point here is that second-strike is not a defense. It is a deterrence. ICBMs are indefensible. They were in 1957 with Sputnik. They are indefensible today as well. Laser systems such as Boeing's 747 ABL may get there. But they're not there. (Note that "Scud defense" during Gulf War I was more a PR fabrication than anything else.) - I'm well aware of Soviet offensive weapons (to include space station armament). It's nice that you finally acknowledged that. (That was never an issue in this thread until you brought it up.) GPS is incapable of killing a single person. Or damaging other satellites. Agreed. We are agreed that GPS is not a weapon. GPS is not a weapon, and it is not an "offensive" system either, since it is unlikely to have been built with military functions, if not for the decades-long threat of conquest of the U.S. by the USSR; so conceptually any military function of GPS was -defensive- in nature. For that matter, the U.S. is unlikely to have deployed ICBMs and SLBMs if not for the fact that the USSR was doing so and aiming them at the U.S. and NATO. GPS is not an offensive system?! Tell that to Sadam! ~ CT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gravity as Falling Space | Henry Haapalainen | Science | 1 | September 4th 04 04:08 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |
Space Calendar - July 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | July 24th 03 11:26 PM |