A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Future Space War



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old May 24th 04, 02:19 AM
Andrew Swallow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Future Space War


"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.tech Derek Lyons wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
In sci.space.tech Derek Lyons wrote:

snip question about satellite phones stopping working during ODS

However, there is no evidence of intent behind the jamming, leaving
unanswered the question as to 'intentional or accidental'. Also,
there is no apparent advantage to intentional jamming during a raid,
which lessens the likelihood that it was intentional. Given that the
phone communicated with other equipment, which then communicated with
the satellite, there are two legs vulnerable to interference.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that iridium would provide
an improvised C&C system.


That's certainly true. But it's still a long leap from the facts (the
phone stopped working during a raid) to the conclusion reached by the
original poster (the military deliberately jammed the phone). Given
that the air raids went in behind an ECM/EW 'wall', it's impossible to
discern whether the jamming was intended, or a side effect.


There is of course the third possibility, that someone phoned iridium,
and asked them to turn of Iraq at 3AM Friday for 4 hours.


In 1991 I suspect that it was not the Iridium network.

Andrew Swallow

  #102  
Old May 24th 04, 11:57 AM
Ian Stirling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Future Space War

In sci.space.tech Andrew Swallow wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.tech Derek Lyons wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
In sci.space.tech Derek Lyons wrote:

snip question about satellite phones stopping working during ODS

However, there is no evidence of intent behind the jamming, leaving
unanswered the question as to 'intentional or accidental'. Also,
there is no apparent advantage to intentional jamming during a raid,
which lessens the likelihood that it was intentional. Given that the
phone communicated with other equipment, which then communicated with
the satellite, there are two legs vulnerable to interference.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that iridium would provide
an improvised C&C system.

That's certainly true. But it's still a long leap from the facts (the
phone stopped working during a raid) to the conclusion reached by the
original poster (the military deliberately jammed the phone). Given
that the air raids went in behind an ECM/EW 'wall', it's impossible to
discern whether the jamming was intended, or a side effect.


There is of course the third possibility, that someone phoned iridium,
and asked them to turn of Iraq at 3AM Friday for 4 hours.


In 1991 I suspect that it was not the Iridium network.


Oops, sorry wrong war.
This time they were rather more aggressive than just jamming his
phone. :/
  #103  
Old May 25th 04, 10:12 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Future Space War

"Andrew Swallow" wrote:
Irrelevant.


Incorrect.

If the ECM/EW was targeted or just hit every frequency. The
satellite channel was still jammed.


I have never debated that the channel was jammed, I have however
questioned your assertion that it was intentionally jammed. The
evidence is not sufficient to make a judgement between them.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  #104  
Old May 28th 04, 10:18 AM
Andrew Swallow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Future Space War

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Swallow" wrote:
Irrelevant.


Incorrect.

If the ECM/EW was targeted or just hit every frequency. The
satellite channel was still jammed.


I have never debated that the channel was jammed, I have however
questioned your assertion that it was intentionally jammed. The
evidence is not sufficient to make a judgement between them.


I never said that a particular channel was intentionally
jammed. You added that "information" your self.

Andrew Swallow

  #105  
Old May 29th 04, 06:09 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Future Space War

"Andrew Swallow" wrote:
I never said that a particular channel was intentionally
jammed. You added that "information" your self.


I quote your own writing:

I have just remembered there is an example of military
jamming of satellite communications.


snipped several other quotes to keep the post-to-quote ratio
reasonable.

No reasonable individual can interpret the tone or manner of your
statements, right from the very first (quoted above), in any manner
other than intentional jamming. Your further efforts to tie the
jamming to military activity, and references to 'probably classified'
equipment to accomplish the same only reinforce the impression.

Pherhaps in the future you will pay attention to what you post.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  #106  
Old October 25th 04, 09:16 AM
Juergen Nieveler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Abrigon Gusiq wrote:

Cell phones are also used by a number of terrorists. Such as the one
whose head was blown off by a Mossad replaced phone. They called his
cell number, made sure it was he, and blew the explosives up and his
head along with it, direct shaped charge?


You don't need a shaped charge if you're sure that the explosives are
right next to the head of the victim.

Which goes to show: Wireless headsets can save your life :-)

Juergen Nieveler
--
War does not determine who is right, war determine who is left.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
European high technology for the International Space Station Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 May 10th 04 02:40 PM
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 18 February 14th 04 04:28 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 02:32 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.