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

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

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:
From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:
From Scott Kozel:
The Soviets also considered ICBMs to be long-range artillery.

Accurate ICBMs and SLBMs existed by the thousands, on both sides of the
Iron Curtain, long before GPS ever existed.

I don't see how those facts refute anything I've stated.

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.

If you're concerned with disinformation, you might want to be more
careful about the words you choose to put quotes around, because that
isn't what I said.

What I put in quotes, is a paraphrase of what you were asserting.

Your paraphrase completely altered the meaning of what I said.

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.

- 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.

- I'm well aware of Soviet offensive weapons (to include space station
armament).

It's nice that you finally acknowledged that.

GPS is incapable of killing a single person.

Or damaging other satellites.

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.

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

(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

"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

"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! :-]

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

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

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

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