Latest Clinton Spin Tactic
zu...@ix.netcom.com
In article <199805221920...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
membe...@aol.com (MemberVRWC) wrote:
>
> In response to my original post:
>
> >> Have you noticed that Team Clinton and
> >> the more compliant members of the media
> >> refer to the latest scandal as a transfer of
> >> "satellite" technology? Of course the real
> >> issue is the transfer of launch vehicle (i.e.
> >> ICBM/rocket) technology. But then
> >> "satellite" sounds so benign, doesn't it?
>
> Arne Langsetmo (zu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> >The reason they talk about satellite technology is that
> >this is the issue under discussion. No one gave them
> >ICBM technology, and it's not at all clear that even
> >any _satellite_ technology was given to them.
>
> >No. This hysteria is one more example of people
> >that are clueless about what happened blowing
> >things completely out of proportion, inventing
> >"facts", and spreading rumours, all for hoped-for
> >political effect.
>
> Hey shill, did I "invent" the AP article below?
> After reading the article, people can draw their own
> conclusions about who is the clueless person inventing
> "facts."
The article repeats the "suggestion" and innuendo, but
once again is woefully short on _real_ facts. . . .
Here let me help you with some "conclusions" here:
> not to be used for commercial purposes
[included of purposes of criticism]
> Friday, May 22, 1998
>
> CIA Releases China Technology Info
>
> By JOHN DIAMOND, Associated Press Writer
>
> WASHINGTON--Information China may have gained about improving
^^^
> its commercial satellite-launch rockets likely would be useful in
^^^^^^
> its long-range nuclear missiles, including those pointed at the
> United States, according to CIA information provided to Senate
> investigators.
Those same people that told us all about the imminent Indian
nuclear tests?
> Amid persistent questions about whether U.S. companies provided
> missile technology to China, a Senate panel released CIA
> materials Thursday underscoring similarities between Chinese
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> satellite launchers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Yep. They're both long and skinny. Rather dangerous LF vehicles
(Chinese ICBMs, at least). Have rocket motors. Not you father's
Oldsmobile.
Hey, tell you what: Can you tell me which is more similar:
U.S. ICBMs vs. Chinese ICBMs or Chinese ICBMs vs. the Long
March commercial launch vehicle? When you have made this
distinction, then explain what relevance this has for you
arguments WRT national security.
> Staging mechanisms, guidance systems, re-entry vehicles and
> rocket motors all involve identical or similar technology, the
> CIA said in a rare public disclosure of intelligence that it
> supplies to congressional committees.
As explained to another person who posted this stuff, this
shows exactly how clueless these people are (or how dissembling
they are). Re-entry of commercial satellites is quite different
from re-entry of military warheads. See if you can figure out
why.
> The Senate Governmental Affairs international security
> subcommittee released previously classified portions of a secret
> briefing the CIA gave Senate investigators on Chinese missile and
> space launch capability last week.
>
> Weeks earlier, the CIA provided top officials with a classified
> assessment saying that 13 of China's ICBMs were targeted at U.S.
> cities.
And tell me what practical difference it makes if eleven of
thirteen or all thirteen of thirteen Chinese ICBMs deliver
their payload.
> Congressional Republicans are opening investigations into
> concerns that a satellite export approved by President Clinton
> this year for a company headed by a major Democratic donor may
> have aided China's missile programs.
Yes. And? . . .
> Administration critics say the similarity between satellite
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> launch vehicles and ICBMs increases the chances that Clinton's
> export decisions may have led to the disclosure of valuable
^^^
> military technology. . . .
Yep. As I was saying above. . .
> . . . The administration counterattacked on
> multiple fronts.
>
> "No controlled information relative to ballistic missiles or
> warhead delivery technology has been authorized to be made
> available to Chinese authorities," State Department spokesman
> James Rubin said. "The whole underlying suggestion that somehow
> we want to transfer technology to the Chinese ... is simply
> fatuous." The president, in an interview with USA Today, said he
> "absolutely" would attend his summit meeting in China next month,
> despite Republican calls for him to postpone the trip until
> questions surrounding missile export issues were resolved.
> Canceling the trip would be a "big mistake," he said. Republicans
> were seeking a link between Chinese donations to the Democratic
> Party and Clinton's national security and export decisions.
>
> "Our future, the interests of the American people in continuing
> to build the right sort of partnership with China and fight for
> the things that we believe in ... overwhelm any considerations
> that would argue for not going," Clinton was quoted as saying in
> today's editions.
>
> Clinton said the United States would raise the issue of Chinese
> donations with Beijing "at the very highest level." The president
> also said "there was never a case where (such donations) affected
> the policy decisions of this administration. And we can't let it
> affect it now." Clinton said it would be "a very stupid thing ...
> to feel that you could influence the policy of the government"
> through improper foreign contributions.
>
> Investigations of the export license deal were under way both on
> Capitol Hill and at the Justice Department. The Justice probe was
> focusing on whether U.S. trade policy may have been affected by
> campaign fund raising.
>
> A CIA chart released Thursday by the Senate Governmental Affairs
> panel, which is investigating the issue, indicated that only one
> aspect of a rocket -the payload -differs substantially between
> civilian satellite launchers and nuclear weapons-tipped missiles.
Not really. Rockets to orbit don't have to be accurate the first
time through. Velocity is important, but position is not. There
is plenty of time to move an orbit for satellites. The ICBM
has to be spot on the first (and only) pass.
ICBMs have to be at a constant state of readiness, and they
have to stay that way for long periods of time. Satellite
launches can be done (for orbital satellites) at pretty much
any time, have plenty of time for preparation, repair, etc.
ICBMs must rely on guidance systems that are independent
of ground control (of which there might be precious few
in an operational scenario). They need to be hardened
against EMP, blast, etc.
I imagine that this is only a few of the areas of significant
differences in operational requirements.
> In other respects they are identical or similar: -Re-entry
> vehicles would operate similarly whether the object was a
> commercial capsule carrying such things as photographs and data
> or a nuclear weapon.
How many _commercial_ satellites are doing this? Tell me.
I'm _real_ interested in the answer. . . .
I point out that all the satellites launched for us by the
Chinese have been communications satellites. Maybe you
can take a gander at the _re-entry_ requirements of these
satellites?
Do you get a feeling yet that this is grasping at straws?
A little bit of hysteria? Why has the story been blown
up so big, so much bigger than seemingly warranted?
> -Payload separation from the rocket would involve similar
> procedures for a satellite or nuclear weapons.
Yes and no. Yes from a mechanical standpoint. It has to
be reliable. Accuracy of separation is crucial in ICBM
technology; absent MARV, the final trajectory is determined
by this separation. Essentially _all_ communications satellites
have on-board thrusters for attitudinal control and for
positioning, so that inaccuracies in separation are not so
critical.
> -Inertial guidance and control systems would use "similar
> hardware with tailored software."
Not really. Inertial guidiance is not of such importance to
commercial launches; they have plenty of opportunity for
control from the ground, or through other navigational aids.
WRT the hardware, one has only to compare our ICBM arsenal
with those oof the Chinese to realize that we are not helping
them into the 21st century in ICBM technology even if we helped
them with the Long March missile design (on which there is no
evidence we did much of anything in this regard).
> -Staging mechanisms, rocket
> propellants, air frame and motor cases, insulation and liners,
> engines or rocket motors, and thrust vector controls would be the
> same.
Ummm. Name the _big_ difference between even the obsolete and
retired Minuteman II, and the Chinese Long March missile.
The CZ-3 (Long March) used to launch the failed Hughes/LORAL
satellite was: ???
The Minuteman II is: ???
If you need assistance, try:
"http://tele-satellit.com/tse/online/lanc_long_march.html"
> -Exhaust nozzles are "similar and usually identical." The CIA
> illustration showed a Chinese CSS/4 ICBM in comparison with an
> unidentified solid-rocket satellite launcher. If anything, the
> similarities are greater than indicated on the chart because the
> Chinese use a modified version of the CSS/4 as their satellite
> launch vehicle.
They're doing a _snow_ job here. This is downright deceptive
on their part. Look at the web page. What's the CIA up to
here?
> "It is important to understand how foreign countries can apply
> information and technology gained from launching U.S. satellites
> to their own ICBM and satellite programs, and whether the
> administration's current policy is sufficient to prevent this,"
> said Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the subcommittee's chairman.
The next time I need a rocket scientist to represent me
in court, I'll keep this in mind. . . .
> Additional CIA briefing papers not made public by Senate
> investigators but obtained Thursday by The Associated Press
> pointed to other differences between ICBMs and satellite
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> launchers.
Hmmmm. . . . Is this a typo, or are they really saying
what I _think_ they're saying.
> ICBMs must be more rugged and more easily maintained because
> they are designed to sit in silos for long periods, according to
> the CIA material.
OK. Thanks. I think I said this above. . . And a couple of
other things. Why is it that _this_ information is not
being promulgated, but we hear all this stuff about how
"similar" the things are?. . . .
> In 1996, Loral Space & Communications and Hughes Electronics
> hired a government-owned Chinese rocket manufacturer to launch a
> commercial satellite into space.
>
> Under U.S. export laws, the satellite itself would not be
> handled by the Chinese. But when the rocket exploded, the
> Pentagon said, Loral and Hughes provided China with an accident
> assessment that contained valuable missile-related information.
Yep. It's on that web page above. They had an electrical failure,
and complete loss of attitutde control. I think the Chinese
just _might_ have figured out that the attitude control
system failed. I don't know if the Hughes and LORAL people
were able to tell them anything more specific here. We'll
see.
> Republicans want to know why, with a Justice Department probe
> still pending, Clinton in February approved another satellite
> export by Loral, and whether the generous Democratic donations by
> Loral board chairman Bernard Schwartz had anything to do with the
> decision. The Clinton administration and Loral both deny such an
> allegation.
I would guess because they had already looked into it, and found
that there wasn't a big deal. Which is probably what the Justice
Department will find as well. . . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
jim hofmann
Nope, they and the Indian government warned TEAM Clinton and TEAM
Clinton decided that we, the people, were not to be informed.
> > Amid persistent questions about whether U.S. companies provided
> > missile technology to China, a Senate panel released CIA
> > materials Thursday underscoring similarities between Chinese
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > satellite launchers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
>
> Yep. They're both long and skinny. Rather dangerous LF vehicles
> (Chinese ICBMs, at least). Have rocket motors. Not you father's
> Oldsmobile.
Facetious response at best, Arne.
>
> Hey, tell you what: Can you tell me which is more similar:
> U.S. ICBMs vs. Chinese ICBMs or Chinese ICBMs vs. the Long
> March commercial launch vehicle? When you have made this
> distinction, then explain what relevance this has for you
> arguments WRT national security.
IF all you are concerned about is shape and whether they have rocket
motors, I'm sure you would ask a naive question like this.
>
> > Staging mechanisms, guidance systems, re-entry vehicles and
> > rocket motors all involve identical or similar technology, the
> > CIA said in a rare public disclosure of intelligence that it
> > supplies to congressional committees.
>
> As explained to another person who posted this stuff, this
> shows exactly how clueless these people are (or how dissembling
> they are). Re-entry of commercial satellites is quite different
> from re-entry of military warheads. See if you can figure out
> why.
Ejecta from a PBV are somewhat similar be they RVs or commercial
payloads.
>
> > The Senate Governmental Affairs international security
> > subcommittee released previously classified portions of a secret
> > briefing the CIA gave Senate investigators on Chinese missile and
> > space launch capability last week.
> >
> > Weeks earlier, the CIA provided top officials with a classified
> > assessment saying that 13 of China's ICBMs were targeted at U.S.
> > cities.
>
> And tell me what practical difference it makes if eleven of
> thirteen or all thirteen of thirteen Chinese ICBMs deliver
> their payload.
*snort* How low can you go, Arne when the security of our nation's
children is at stake...
>
> > Congressional Republicans are opening investigations into
> > concerns that a satellite export approved by President Clinton
> > this year for a company headed by a major Democratic donor may
> > have aided China's missile programs.
>
> Yes. And? . . .
What do you mean, yes, and... is there no connection in your mind from
the CIA report and this?
>
> > Administration critics say the similarity between satellite
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> > launch vehicles and ICBMs increases the chances that Clinton's
> > export decisions may have led to the disclosure of valuable
> ^^^
> > military technology. . . .
>
> Yep. As I was saying above. . .
Do you at least admit it is worth investigating?
Yes, but you do admit there are similiarities and that technology
advances in nuclear ICBM technologies proceeds with little "baby steps"
(in many cases) because of the complexity.
>
> ICBMs have to be at a constant state of readiness, and they
> have to stay that way for long periods of time. Satellite
> launches can be done (for orbital satellites) at pretty much
> any time, have plenty of time for preparation, repair, etc.
I can imagine the discussion in some dark Beijing Politboro office...
"Efficienices within our launching industry due to this (so-called)
commercial technology transfer are welcome to the continued success of
the Great Long March rocket. Stupid Americans are practically giving it
away. Haw! "
>
> ICBMs must rely on guidance systems that are independent
> of ground control (of which there might be precious few
> in an operational scenario). They need to be hardened
> against EMP, blast, etc.
>
> I imagine that this is only a few of the areas of significant
> differences in operational requirements.
See my above quote. Yes, military systems have many different
requirements than commercial systems - but is this the current Clinton
spin tactic then?
>
> > In other respects they are identical or similar: -Re-entry
> > vehicles would operate similarly whether the object was a
> > commercial capsule carrying such things as photographs and data
> > or a nuclear weapon.
>
> How many _commercial_ satellites are doing this? Tell me.
> I'm _real_ interested in the answer. . . .
>
> I point out that all the satellites launched for us by the
> Chinese have been communications satellites. Maybe you
> can take a gander at the _re-entry_ requirements of these
> satellites?
>
> Do you get a feeling yet that this is grasping at straws?
> A little bit of hysteria? Why has the story been blown
> up so big, so much bigger than seemingly warranted?
You have always been mushy on national security, Arne...
>
> > -Payload separation from the rocket would involve similar
> > procedures for a satellite or nuclear weapons.
>
> Yes and no. Yes from a mechanical standpoint. It has to
> be reliable. Accuracy of separation is crucial in ICBM
> technology; absent MARV, the final trajectory is determined
> by this separation. Essentially _all_ communications satellites
> have on-board thrusters for attitudinal control and for
> positioning, so that inaccuracies in separation are not so
> critical.
>
> > -Inertial guidance and control systems would use "similar
> > hardware with tailored software."
>
> Not really. Inertial guidiance is not of such importance to
> commercial launches; they have plenty of opportunity for
> control from the ground, or through other navigational aids.
> WRT the hardware, one has only to compare our ICBM arsenal
> with those oof the Chinese to realize that we are not helping
> them into the 21st century in ICBM technology even if we helped
> them with the Long March missile design (on which there is no
> evidence we did much of anything in this regard).
There is a clear timeline which draws clear and warrented suspicion on
the Clinton administration. This regards national security and it
should proceed apace with swiftness.
>
> > -Staging mechanisms, rocket
> > propellants, air frame and motor cases, insulation and liners,
> > engines or rocket motors, and thrust vector controls would be the
> > same.
>
> Ummm. Name the _big_ difference between even the obsolete and
> retired Minuteman II, and the Chinese Long March missile.
>
> The CZ-3 (Long March) used to launch the failed Hughes/LORAL
> satellite was: ???
> The Minuteman II is: ???
>
> If you need assistance, try:
>
> "http://tele-satellit.com/tse/online/lanc_long_march.html"
>
> > -Exhaust nozzles are "similar and usually identical." The CIA
> > illustration showed a Chinese CSS/4 ICBM in comparison with an
> > unidentified solid-rocket satellite launcher. If anything, the
> > similarities are greater than indicated on the chart because the
> > Chinese use a modified version of the CSS/4 as their satellite
> > launch vehicle.
>
> They're doing a _snow_ job here. This is downright deceptive
> on their part. Look at the web page. What's the CIA up to
> here?
Do tell. Should Clinton fire Tenet, now?
>
> > "It is important to understand how foreign countries can apply
> > information and technology gained from launching U.S. satellites
> > to their own ICBM and satellite programs, and whether the
> > administration's current policy is sufficient to prevent this,"
> > said Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the subcommittee's chairman.
>
> The next time I need a rocket scientist to represent me
> in court, I'll keep this in mind. . .
Sounds like a legitimate concern for the Senator. Sounds like he is
finally doing his job.
>
> > Additional CIA briefing papers not made public by Senate
> > investigators but obtained Thursday by The Associated Press
> > pointed to other differences between ICBMs and satellite
> ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > launchers.
>
> Hmmmm. . . . Is this a typo, or are they really saying
> what I _think_ they're saying.
Yes, I believe they are holding back papers that might be useful to your
side of the argument. Why is the Senate holding back on these?
>
> > ICBMs must be more rugged and more easily maintained because
> > they are designed to sit in silos for long periods, according to
> > the CIA material.
>
> OK. Thanks. I think I said this above. . . And a couple of
> other things. Why is it that _this_ information is not
> being promulgated, but we hear all this stuff about how
> "similar" the things are?. . . .
But it is... in the bottom of the story ... that's because the
worst-case scenario is very, very serious. Look, AP has been generally
fair to Clinton. Usually, it features the Clinton spin in its reporting
and buries the opposing side's story in the end.
>
> > In 1996, Loral Space & Communications and Hughes Electronics
> > hired a government-owned Chinese rocket manufacturer to launch a
> > commercial satellite into space.
> >
> > Under U.S. export laws, the satellite itself would not be
> > handled by the Chinese. But when the rocket exploded, the
> > Pentagon said, Loral and Hughes provided China with an accident
> > assessment that contained valuable missile-related information.
>
> Yep. It's on that web page above. They had an electrical failure,
> and complete loss of attitutde control. I think the Chinese
> just _might_ have figured out that the attitude control
> system failed. I don't know if the Hughes and LORAL people
> were able to tell them anything more specific here. We'll
> see.
>
> > Republicans want to know why, with a Justice Department probe
> > still pending, Clinton in February approved another satellite
> > export by Loral, and whether the generous Democratic donations by
> > Loral board chairman Bernard Schwartz had anything to do with the
> > decision. The Clinton administration and Loral both deny such an
> > allegation.
>
> I would guess because they had already looked into it, and found
> that there wasn't a big deal. Which is probably what the Justice
> Department will find as well. . . .
Clinton has denied any wrongdoing in the matter. The die has no doubt
been cast at Justice as you note above (guilty or not, no way will Janet
Reno's department do anything but deflect Clinton wrongdoing to a
scapegoat).
Now, can they get those editorials in the USA Today and heartland
newspapers toned down? ;->
--- Jim
Bob K
On Fri, 22 May 1998 23:15:32 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
<clip>
>And tell me what practical difference it makes if eleven of
>thirteen or all thirteen of thirteen Chinese ICBMs deliver
>their payload.
A couple hundred thousand dead bodies? Guess that's not really much
of a practical difference unless you happen to be one of them.
Bob K (remove NOSPAM to reply by email)
zu...@ix.netcom.com
In article <3566ac05...@news.packet.net>,
bkm...@bigfoot.NOSPAMcom (Bob K) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 May 1998 23:15:32 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> <clip>
>
> >thirteen or all thirteen of thirteen Chinese ICBMs deliver
> >their payload.
>
> of a practical difference unless you happen to be one of them.
If we _ever_ have this exchange of nuclear weapons, it won't
matter a whole lot whether you're alive or dead. Many of those
alive will _wish_ they were dead.
And my _other point was that it is quite easy for the Chinese
to simply _add_ a couple more missiles to the arsenal to
achieve the same delivery capacity, and they can do this
without our help, thank you.
I think you start verging on the borders of loony land when
you start to think that the difference between 10 million dead
and 12 million is signiificant, even from a _military_
perspective.
Salisar
Bob K wrote in message <3566ac05...@news.packet.net>...
>>thirteen or all thirteen of thirteen Chinese ICBMs deliver
>>their payload.
>
>of a practical difference unless you happen to be one of them.
In addition, because China now has MIRV capability thanks to Billy Bob's
generosity, each of those missiles can now deliver 10 warheads each ... so
even 2 or 3 would wreak sufficient havoc ... but .. what the hell, the
economy is good.
Richard W. Bates
http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
God Almighty
On Sun, 24 May 1998 00:35:38 GMT, lho...@erols.com (lhotse) wrote:
>On Fri, 22 May 1998 23:15:32 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>Hey, tell you what: Can you tell me which is more similar:
>>U.S. ICBMs vs. Chinese ICBMs or Chinese ICBMs vs. the Long
>>March commercial launch vehicle? When you have made this
>>distinction, then explain what relevance this has for you
>>arguments WRT national security.
>
>No prob, Yucch. According to the National Space Development Agency of
>Japan, the Long March and the CZ2 and CZ3 ICBMs are identical.
>Therefore, the security implication of improving the reliability of
>the Long March is that one is simultaneously improving the reliability
>of the CZ2 and CZ3 ICBMs.
>
>http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/DB/kaihatu/Rocket/Rocket_E/Tyousei_e.html
>
> Name: Chang Zheng/Long March
> (Chang Zheng 3, Chang Zheng 3A, Chang Zheng 3B)
> Belongs to:
> China National Space Administration (CNSA),
> China Great Wall Industry Corporation
> Developed by: China National Space Administration (CNSA)
> Used by:
> China National Space Administration (CNSA)
> China Great Wall Industry Corporation
> Lift off from: The Xichang Space Launch Center
> Mission from: January 29th, 1984 (The ignition of the third stage
>failed. The launch later succeeded on April 29th , 1984)
>
> China started to develop a launch vehicle along with medium and
>long range nuclear missiles like the U.S.A. and Russia (former Soviet
>Union). The Chang Zheng 2, the prototype of Chang Zheng 3, is an
>improved version of the 2 stage ICBM, East Wind (DF-5) and the Chang
>Zheng 3 is a further improved version equipped with a third stage.
>
> The CZ-3A with an up-graded third stage was used on February 8th
>, 1994 and the CZ-3B with a fourth stage was used on February 14th ,
>1996. The latter lost control just after liftoff and fell on a
>civilian house near the Xichang Space Launch Center.
>
> Since their economic liberation, China has been actively
>developing a launch business, however the failure of the Chang Zheng
>series including the Chang Zheng mission of the Apstar for launch in
>Hong Kong created serious damage to the Chinese space program.
>
>>And tell me what practical difference it makes if eleven of
>>thirteen or all thirteen of thirteen Chinese ICBMs deliver
>>their payload.
>
>I think the practical question is zero payload delivery versus 13
>payload deliveries. Loral has assisted in the success of the latter.
>
>>Yes. And? . . .
>
>>> Administration critics say the similarity between satellite
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>>> launch vehicles and ICBMs increases the chances that Clinton's
>>> export decisions may have led to the disclosure of valuable
>> ^^^
>>> military technology. . . .
>
>I guess you know that two of those "administration critics" are the
>CIA and the Pentagon. And that reporters always use "may" as a
>half-assed CYA effort.
>
>>I imagine that this is only a few of the areas of significant
>>differences in operational requirements.
>
>Per the cite above (and again below). I guess you should be consulting
>to the People's Liberation Army, genius:
>
> Name: Chang Zheng/Long March
> China started to develop a launch vehicle along with medium and long
>range nuclear missiles like the U.S.A. and Russia (former Soviet
>Union). The Chang Zheng 2, the prototype of Chang Zheng 3, is an
>improved version of the 2 stage ICBM, East Wind (DF-5) and the Chang
>Zheng 3 is a further improved version equipped with a third stage.
>
>>Do you get a feeling yet that this is grasping at straws?
>>A little bit of hysteria? Why has the story been blown
>>up so big, so much bigger than seemingly warranted?
>
>Not at all, Yucch. I simply get the feeling that you are incredible
>bullshit artist and a dissembling liar. I'm curious about that.
>
>>Yep. It's on that web page above. They had an electrical failure,
>>and complete loss of attitutde control. I think the Chinese
>>just _might_ have figured out that the attitude control
>>system failed. I don't know if the Hughes and LORAL people
>>were able to tell them anything more specific here. We'll
>>see.
>
>That's not the point. The point is that Loral, et al, turned over the
>entire 200 page assessment report. Your "might have figured out" is
>simply a hallucination.
>
>>I would guess because they had already looked into it, and found
>>that there wasn't a big deal. Which is probably what the Justice
>>Department will find as well. . . .
>
>Actually, it was underway as of February, 1998, when Der Fuhrer
>allowed Loral to march ahead with its various technology transfers,
>thereby neutering both the Justice and Customs *criminal*
>investigations.
>
>So, your "guess" is wrong again. You do a lot of "guessing" when
>you're taking a break from slinging a lot of unverified and
>unattributed bullshit.
DAMN!!!!!!!!!!
Arne, you are hereby officially notified that you just got the shit
spanked out of you! Proceed directly to the biggest Liberal rock you
can find and crawl back under it.
Hopefully you are a little better educated than when you first opened
that shit-hole you call a mouth.
Now while under that rock don't forget to do the ELF chant..... "My
god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My
god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My
god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My
god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,, repeat with your fingers stuck in
your ears. Maybe if Billybob hears your chant he will help you get a
job, at least until he is "de-throned" or his term ends.
!
*
*
--------------------------------------------------BEGIN
xmdkgfjghu8746*#^llj&^^93jkhgg&23KGH
389457699090JNWU#*990300-=/.,cv;fku
457-----ryuy%&987hknvxdf#69>=
-----------------------------------------------------END
***Note to members: Decode with 24869-alpha-tango
COROMANDEL
Now all the children and now adults are under the threat of commie Chinese
nukes, thanks to that draft-dodger. I guess Slick was too busy protecting
children from tobacco and raping women and accepting bribes for the donkeys
(wonder how much went into personal Swiss accounts). The stupidity of the
liberals and their stupid paper signing of peace treaties and accords and
think all will be well. A country at peace is a country with a strong
leadership and strong in military and defense-this prevents other countries
from invading them or even entertaining this thought. Leftist twits have
claimed on TV that as if Slick Willie will put the USA in jeopardy-why not?
He dodged the draft which shows how unpatriotic his character is. A criminal
will get guns even if every stupid gun control law was created every
day-that is why they are criminals. The total law breaking exhibited by
Slick and his Donkey comrades proves the lack of morals and character
despite the fact they are expected to implement the law and follow it
faithfully in the White House and set an example to its citizens. All these
new revelations and their motives should not surprise anyone because we have
criminals in the White House and this is how they behave when they want
power and need to maintain it by hook or crook. They will rob the destitute
and their own mothers if they have to.
lhotse wrote in message <358164f1...@news.erols.com>...
>On Fri, 22 May 1998 23:15:32 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>Hey, tell you what: Can you tell me which is more similar:
>>U.S. ICBMs vs. Chinese ICBMs or Chinese ICBMs vs. the Long
>>March commercial launch vehicle? When you have made this
>>distinction, then explain what relevance this has for you
>>arguments WRT national security.
>
>>And tell me what practical difference it makes if eleven of
>>thirteen or all thirteen of thirteen Chinese ICBMs deliver
>>their payload.
>
>I think the practical question is zero payload delivery versus 13
>payload deliveries. Loral has assisted in the success of the latter.
>
>>Yes. And? . . .
>
>>> Administration critics say the similarity between satellite
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>>> launch vehicles and ICBMs increases the chances that Clinton's
>>> export decisions may have led to the disclosure of valuable
>> ^^^
>>> military technology. . . .
>
>I guess you know that two of those "administration critics" are the
>CIA and the Pentagon. And that reporters always use "may" as a
>half-assed CYA effort.
>
>>I imagine that this is only a few of the areas of significant
>>differences in operational requirements.
>
>Per the cite above (and again below). I guess you should be consulting
>to the People's Liberation Army, genius:
>
> Name: Chang Zheng/Long March
> China started to develop a launch vehicle along with medium and long
>range nuclear missiles like the U.S.A. and Russia (former Soviet
>Union). The Chang Zheng 2, the prototype of Chang Zheng 3, is an
>improved version of the 2 stage ICBM, East Wind (DF-5) and the Chang
>Zheng 3 is a further improved version equipped with a third stage.
>
>>Do you get a feeling yet that this is grasping at straws?
>>A little bit of hysteria? Why has the story been blown
>>up so big, so much bigger than seemingly warranted?
>
>Not at all, Yucch. I simply get the feeling that you are incredible
>bullshit artist and a dissembling liar. I'm curious about that.
>
>>Yep. It's on that web page above. They had an electrical failure,
>>and complete loss of attitutde control. I think the Chinese
>>just _might_ have figured out that the attitude control
>>system failed. I don't know if the Hughes and LORAL people
>>were able to tell them anything more specific here. We'll
>>see.
>
>That's not the point. The point is that Loral, et al, turned over the
>entire 200 page assessment report. Your "might have figured out" is
>simply a hallucination.
>
>>I would guess because they had already looked into it, and found
>>that there wasn't a big deal. Which is probably what the Justice
>>Department will find as well. . . .
>
zu...@ix.netcom.com
In article <3566C0...@erols.com>,
Oh, so then the hysterical Republicans and sanctimonious
pundits screaming about the way this Clinton administration
had fatally weakened that bulwark of freedom, the CIA
(which has brought us Pinichet and the Shan, not to mention
Vietnam), and this last "intelligence lapse" showed it,
were maybe overplaying it? As I have been maintaining
for quite some time, I think there is a lot less here to
this all than meets the eye. But then I forget what NGs
this thread is being posted in for the most part. . . ;-)
But as is usually the case, the CIA story WRT the blasts
is probably somewhere in the middle, and a bit more muddled
and complicated than most people would make it out to be.
There probably was some lapse in vigilance; the Indians
probably did a good job of hiding the preparations from
prying eyes (I saw some posts about sandstorms, satellite
overflight times, etc.; and the CIA _did_ both warn
the administration several months back, and the administration
in turn expressed their concern to the Indians, AFAIK.
> > > Amid persistent questions about whether U.S. companies provided
> > > missile technology to China, a Senate panel released CIA
> > > materials Thursday underscoring similarities between Chinese
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > satellite launchers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
> >
> > Yep. They're both long and skinny. Rather dangerous LF vehicles
> > (Chinese ICBMs, at least). Have rocket motors. Not you father's
> > Oldsmobile.
>
> Facetious response at best, Arne.
No. What I was pointiong out is that the superficial aspects
show some of the greatest similarities. See below.
> > Hey, tell you what: Can you tell me which is more similar:
> > U.S. ICBMs vs. Chinese ICBMs or Chinese ICBMs vs. the Long
> > March commercial launch vehicle? When you have made this
> > distinction, then explain what relevance this has for your
> > arguments WRT national security.
>
> IF all you are concerned about is shape and whether they have
> rocket motors, I'm sure you would ask a naive question like this.
If you had a clue as to what the _answer_ was, you'd know that
neither do I think that superficial aspects are the _only_
relevant characteristics, nor do I think that they _are_
very similar, and also, you would know that question was
_hardly_ naive. So try again. I gave you a web page to
go to to get technical specs on the Chinese Long March
series. . . .
> > > Staging mechanisms, guidance systems, re-entry vehicles and
> > > rocket motors all involve identical or similar technology, the
> > > CIA said in a rare public disclosure of intelligence that it
> > > supplies to congressional committees.
> >
> > As explained to another person who posted this stuff, this
> > shows exactly how clueless these people are (or how dissembling
> > they are). Re-entry of commercial satellites is quite different
> > from re-entry of military warheads. See if you can figure out
> > why.
>
> Ejecta from a PBV are somewhat similar be they RVs or commercial
> payloads.
I said "re-entry", not release buses. The article _also_ said that
"re-entry vehicles" were "similar". You're right about PB release
buses. I note your use of the word "somewhat similar". I think I
addressed that issue below WRT the _differences_.
> > > The Senate Governmental Affairs international security
> > > subcommittee released previously classified portions of a
> > > secret briefing the CIA gave Senate investigators on Chinese
> > > missile and space launch capability last week.
> > >
> > > Weeks earlier, the CIA provided top officials with a classified
> > > assessment saying that 13 of China's ICBMs were targeted at U.S.
> > > cities.
> >
> > And tell me what practical difference it makes if eleven of
> > thirteen or all thirteen of thirteen Chinese ICBMs deliver
> > their payload.
>
> *snort* How low can you go, Arne when the security of our nation's
> children is at stake...
Oh, no, Jim. These missiles aren't aimed at _children_. They're
aimed at Republicans. We have too many of those, anyways.
But seriously, it _doesn't_ matter much whether there are
11 or 13 that may hit. By the time _this_ event comes about,
we _all_ have some serious problems, and there aren't going
to be too many winners or loser. The calculus of "sustainable
losses" is the Cold War calculus of military egg-heads, Dr.
Strangelove types, that has fallen in disfavour. . .
> > > Congressional Republicans are opening investigations into
> > > concerns that a satellite export approved by President Clinton
> > > this year for a company headed by a major Democratic donor may
> > > have aided China's missile programs.
> >
> > Yes. And? . . .
>
> What do you mean, yes, and... is there no connection in your mind
> from the CIA report and this?
Actually there is. See above:
"The Senate Governmental Affairs international security
subcommittee released previously classified portions of a
secret briefing the CIA gave Senate investigators on Chinese
missile and space launch capability last week."
The portiops of the CIA report released by the _Senate
subcommittee_ seem to be intended to do political damage, to raise
concerns (unfounded in my mind, as I detail here), to try to tar
the administration on some specious "national security" charge now
that the sex charges seem not to be bearing fruit. . . . This
seems to be working, judging by the ill-informed and unfounded
hysteria I see all over on this. But maybe I can do my little
part to set the record straight here.
> > > Administration critics say the similarity between satellite
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> > > launch vehicles and ICBMs increases the chances that Clinton's
> > > export decisions may have led to the disclosure of valuable
> > ^^^
> > > military technology. . . .
> >
> > Yep. As I was saying above. . .
>
> Do you at least admit it is worth investigating?
Not really. Not worth a literal circus of _five_ committees.
What I was pointing out was the tentativeness of the accusations,
which then get turned into "fact" by the fast-acting
rumour mill and the RWFers pontificating. If they don't
_know_ (as indicated by the use of the vague language and
the words "may" above), then why are they making such a
big production of it?
> > > . . . The administration counterattacked on
> > > multiple fronts.
> > >
> > > "No controlled information relative to ballistic missiles or
> > > warhead delivery technology has been authorized to be made
> > > available to Chinese authorities," State Department spokesman
> > > James Rubin said. "The whole underlying suggestion that somehow
> > > we want to transfer technology to the Chinese ... is simply
> > > fatuous." The president, in an interview with USA Today, said he
> > > "absolutely" would attend his summit meeting in China next month,
> > > despite Republican calls for him to postpone the trip until
> > > questions surrounding missile export issues were resolved.
[snip]
> > > A CIA chart released Thursday by the Senate Governmental Affairs
> > > panel, which is investigating the issue, indicated that only one
> > > aspect of a rocket -the payload -differs substantially between
> > > civilian satellite launchers and nuclear weapons-tipped missiles.
> >
> > Not really. Rockets to orbit don't have to be accurate the first
> > time through. Velocity is important, but position is not. There
> > is plenty of time to move an orbit for satellites. The ICBM
> > has to be spot on the first (and only) pass.
>
> Yes, but you do admit there are similiarities and that technology
> advances in nuclear ICBM technologies proceeds with little "baby
? steps" (in many cases) because of the complexity.
Not really. The similarities are superficial, but the devil's
in the details. And it is in these _details_ that the
differences start to become more and more significant.
The Chinese seem to have the basics down pretty well
already without our help. Any help from diverging programs
(and the web page I mentioned went into quite a bit of
detail on some of the modifications that _have_ been made
for commercial launch vehicles, such as cryogenic third
stages, etc., which are not really feasible for ICBMs)
would become more and more miniscule, as each fixes its
own little problems. I've seen this process enough to
know that technological transfer actually happens much
less than one might hope it would. But that's just my
(educated) opinion. . . .
> > ICBMs have to be at a constant state of readiness, and they
> > have to stay that way for long periods of time. Satellite
> > launches can be done (for orbital satellites) at pretty much
> > any time, have plenty of time for preparation, repair, etc.
>
> I can imagine the discussion in some dark Beijing Politboro office...
> "Efficienices within our launching industry due to this (so-called)
> commercial technology transfer are welcome to the continued success of
> the Great Long March rocket. Stupid Americans are practically giving it
> away. Haw! "
It seems you _do_ have a fertile imagination. That may be part of
the problem here.
> > ICBMs must rely on guidance systems that are independent
> > of ground control (of which there might be precious few
> > in an operational scenario). They need to be hardened
> > against EMP, blast, etc.
> >
> > I imagine that this is only a few of the areas of significant
> > differences in operational requirements.
>
> See my above quote. Yes, military systems have many different
> requirements than commercial systems - . . .
Thank you.
> . . . - but is this the current
> Clinton spin tactic then?
I dunno. What are _they_ saying? I'm not at all sure they
are doing much better in discussing the matter than the
Republicans. . .
> > > In other respects they are identical or similar: -Re-entry
> > > vehicles would operate similarly whether the object was a
> > > commercial capsule carrying such things as photographs and data
> > > or a nuclear weapon.
> >
> > How many _commercial_ satellites are doing this? Tell me.
> > I'm _real_ interested in the answer. . . .
Non-response noted.
> > I point out that all the satellites launched for us by the
> > Chinese have been communications satellites. Maybe you
> > can take a gander at the _re-entry_ requirements of these
> > satellites?
Non-response noted.
In your defence, you seem to be intelligent enough to have
understood the above point. Let's see if you _use_ this
understanding appropriately. . . .
> > Do you get a feeling yet that this is grasping at straws?
> > A little bit of hysteria? Why has the story been blown
> > up so big, so much bigger than seemingly warranted?
>
> You have always been mushy on national security, Arne...
Hmmmm. You're not using the new-found wisdom yet.
You are avoiding the point I was trying to make here.
This is a "red herring", and a bit of an insult. I
do appreciate "national security" concerns, but I also
gove consideration to other concerns. . . . Unlike
our old Cold Warriors seeking new windmills to joust
against to fill that void in their hardened souls.
Why are they making specious comparisons? Do they _need_
to slant and distort the facts to get what _they_ think
is an appropriate recognition of the "national security"
concerns that seem to trouble them? Or is it being done
entirely for _political_ ends?
> > > -Payload separation from the rocket would involve similar
> > > procedures for a satellite or nuclear weapons.
> >
> > Yes and no. Yes from a mechanical standpoint. It has to
> > be reliable. Accuracy of separation is crucial in ICBM
> > technology; absent MARV, the final trajectory is determined
> > by this separation. Essentially _all_ communications satellites
> > have on-board thrusters for attitudinal control and for
> > positioning, so that inaccuracies in separation are not so
> > critical.
Lack of response noted.
> > > -Inertial guidance and control systems would use "similar
> > > hardware with tailored software."
> >
> > Not really. Inertial guidiance is not of such importance to
> > commercial launches; they have plenty of opportunity for
> > control from the ground, or through other navigational aids.
> > WRT the hardware, one has only to compare our ICBM arsenal
> > with those of the Chinese to realize that we are not helping
> > them into the 21st century in ICBM technology even if we helped
> > them with the Long March missile design (on which there is no
> > evidence we did much of anything in this regard).
>
> There is a clear timeline which draws clear and warrented suspicion
> on the Clinton administration. . . .
For _what_? I spend all this time pointing out that the
suggested scenarios for even an incidental "help" to
their military are quite implausible, and you come back
with more vague accusatory statements. And the timeline is
_wrong_ in several respects. The waivers were given before
the alleged donation to the DNC through Chung.
> . . . This regards national security
> and it should proceed apace with swiftness.
It should proceed apace with _facts_. It regards "national
security" _only_ if you can show that there was any chance
that national security _was_ compromised. You and others
have ignored repeated requests for a plausible scenario
whereby such could have happened.
> > > -Staging mechanisms, rocket
> > > propellants, air frame and motor cases, insulation and liners,
> > > engines or rocket motors, and thrust vector controls would be the
> > > same.
> >
> > Ummm. Name the _big_ difference between even the obsolete and
> > retired Minuteman II, and the Chinese Long March missile.
> >
> > The CZ-3 (Long March) used to launch the failed Hughes/LORAL
> > satellite was: ???
> > The Minuteman II is: ???
> >
> > If you need assistance, try:
> >
> > "http://tele-satellit.com/tse/online/lanc_long_march.html"
Lack of response noted. Seems you didn't do your homework.
> > > -Exhaust nozzles are "similar and usually identical." The CIA
> > > illustration showed a Chinese CSS/4 ICBM in comparison with an
> > > unidentified solid-rocket satellite launcher. If anything, the
> > > similarities are greater than indicated on the chart because the
> > > Chinese use a modified version of the CSS/4 as their satellite
> > > launch vehicle.
> >
> > They're doing a _snow_ job here. This is downright deceptive
> > on their part. Look at the web page. What's the CIA up to
> > here?
>
> Do tell. Should Clinton fire Tenet, now?
I dunno. Maybe they think such slanting is in the "national
interest", and therefore the rigth thing to do. But then they
thought the same of Pinochet and the Shah. . .
It does puzzle me why they did this though, unless the Senate
managed to mangle the report in order to do this. I thought for
a second that I had misunderstood the rockets involved here,
so I went to the web and found that Long March information,
including on the specific vehicles used for the launches in
question. These are LF rockets! Why they would be showing
picture of an "unidentified" SF rocket is beyond me. . . .
If you have any thoughts on this, feel free to share them.
> > > "It is important to understand how foreign countries can apply
> > > information and technology gained from launching U.S. satellites
> > > to their own ICBM and satellite programs, and whether the
> > > administration's current policy is sufficient to prevent this,"
> > > said Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the subcommittee's chairman.
> >
> > The next time I need a rocket scientist to represent me
> > in court, I'll keep this in mind. . .
>
> Sounds like a legitimate concern for the Senator. Sounds like he is
> finally doing his job.
My sarcastic point is that I wouldn't hire a rocket scientist
to defend me in a court of law, and I don't expect a legislator
to have much of a clue when it comes to rocket science. . . .
Thus, this pronouncement from the good Thad Cochran is _not_
very persuasive in my eyes. . . .
> > > Additional CIA briefing papers not made public by Senate
> > > investigators but obtained Thursday by The Associated Press
> > > pointed to other differences between ICBMs and satellite
> > ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > launchers.
> >
> > Hmmmm. . . . Is this a typo, or are they really saying
> > what I _think_ they're saying.
>
> Yes, I believe they are holding back papers that might be useful
> to your side of the argument. Why is the Senate holding back on
> these?
At least I have you thinking about it. Some progress. ;-)
> > > ICBMs must be more rugged and more easily maintained because
> > > they are designed to sit in silos for long periods, according to
> > > the CIA material.
> >
> > OK. Thanks. I think I said this above. . . And a couple of
> > other things. Why is it that _this_ information is not
> > being promulgated, but we hear all this stuff about how
> > "similar" the things are?. . . .
>
> But it is... in the bottom of the story ... that's because the
> worst-case scenario is very, very serious. . . .
No, I beg to differ, the worst case scenario is very, very
_fanciful_. If you disagree, then please show me where I
have gone astray. . . .
> . . . Look, AP has been generally
> fair to Clinton. Usually, it features the Clinton spin in
> its reporting and buries the opposing side's story in the end.
"Spin" depends on where you're sitting, doesn't it? But
it isn't "spin" as long as you take the _facts_ at hand and
consider them fairly, in toto. Which is what I've been
trying to do here. . . . Unfortunately, it's the details
at the bottom of the page that get left off a lot. And
sometimes these get left off _because_ they are inconvenient
to a point someone is attempting to make, or to the
comclusions that one would like to instill in others.
That has happened here. When the people call in to C-SPAN
or RWFer talk-radio and start spewing about our "selling
ICBM guidance technology" to the Chinese, I see the
results of this. . . Rush Limbaugh with his "right
so much, right down the middle right" "facts" is one
of the worst of these. Just the other day, he once again
insisted that there is no ozone hole (possibly confabulating
the global-warming/greenhouse-gas controversy with the
compellingly documented 60+% polar ozone depletion,
complete with the chemical theoretical basis for this).
So he's been pushing this "ICBM technology" nonsense,
and the Dodo-heads believe every word. . . . *sigh*
I doubt they will even do that. AFAIK, nothing wrong was done,
so no need for a scapegoat.
> Now, can they get those editorials in the USA Today and heartland
> newspapers toned down? ;->
I duuno. Maybe if I start writing them some letters or articles
with some of this stuff in it. . . .
Anyone that would like to use this information or pass it on,
feel free.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
In article <6k70nk$5...@examiner.concentric.net>,
"Salisar" <Sal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> Bob K wrote in message <3566ac05...@news.packet.net>...> ><clip>
> >
> >>And tell me what practical difference it makes if eleven of
> >>thirteen or all thirteen of thirteen Chinese ICBMs deliver
> >>their payload.
> >
> >of a practical difference unless you happen to be one of them.
>
> In addition, because China now has MIRV capability thanks to Billy Bob's
> generosity, each of those missiles can now deliver 10 warheads each ... so
> even 2 or 3 would wreak sufficient havoc ... but .. what the hell, the
> economy is good.
Ummmm. Which ICBMs were these that have ten warheads each? A few
details here (and sources) would be in order.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
In article <199805240718...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
membe...@aol.com (MemberVRWC) wrote:
>
> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >> Arne, thank you for conceding my original point that the transfer of
> >> launch vehicle technology is the real issue.
> >
> >Never did I make any such concession.
>
> Not intentionally anyway.
>
> Nor have you ever refuted my original point that
> the transfer of launch vehicle technology is the
> real issue.
For your complaints to make sense, three things must have
happened:
1). We gave the the Chinese information that helped their
commercial satellite program.
2). This commercial satellite technology must have helped
their sister military capability (your "launch vehicle"
claim).
3). This assistance to their military capability must have
been such as to adversely affect our national security
interests, taken as a whole along with any other effects
of this technological cooperation.
If any one of these didn't occur, there is no valid complaint.
Note that they may have advanced their military capability,
to our detriment, but if _we_ didn't do anything to cause
this (because of a failure of proof as to items 1 or 2
above), this is just the way the cookie crumbles.
> . . . The CIA seems to agree with me.
> As do the Associated Press, the New York Times,
> and numerous other news organizations. . . .
The CIA appears to be slanting their report, as I pointed
out in the portions you failed to respond to, and then
decided to snip. I don't know why. Jim Hoffman sees this
and seems to acknowledge that they did this. Not that
his voice has much authority here, but he has been arguing
the other side for a while, and at least he is willing to
look with more objective eyes at all that is being said. . .
The N.Y. Times sems to be taking the CIA stuff at face
value; the AP story originally posted had an interesting
snippet in the very last part that seems to go against
the conlusions that most people make from this report,
> . . . Your
> assertion that it is not the issue is proven
> false by numerous news accounts, as well as
> the CIA report. But of course, they are all
> wrong because Arne says so.
I pointed out ways in which they may be wrong, misguided,
or misinformed. Either you can read it and assume it's
all true (in which case you're an easy mark for the
unscrupulous), or you can read what you can with
some skepticism and logic, using what other facts
you have to evaluate what you have read and see if
it means what it purports to mean.
> >Having been to law school,
> >I am well versed in arguing in the alternative.
>
> I'm deeply impressed. Your rhetorical skills are
> a thing to behold.
Thank you.
> >The _real_ issue
> >is the issue of waivers for satellite launches as this is what
> >happened. When you start talking about it a being something it
> >isn't, people start to get confused, e.g. witness these NGs. . .
>
> Are you claiming that the CIA report, the congressional
> investigation, and news reports regarding the transfer of
> launch vehicle technology don't exist? . . .
No. If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that I read
them and responded to them.
> . . . If they do exist,
> ipso facto, this is an issue. (I thought I'd throw in a
> little latin since you've "been to law school.")
Tesekuller. I'll go look it up. ;-)
They do exist, but whether what they present shows that
either issue 1 or issue 2 above are true is a different
matter. I covered this in my prior posts. Why don't
you respond to what I said on these issues there instead
of simply referring what was already presented, and responded
to by me?
> >I did _also_ attack the views put forth below that there was
> >a possibility that such satellite launches contributed in any
> >significant way to Chinese military capability, and also
> >that any such gains in military capability have much significance
> >for U.S. security interests. I can do this;
>
> All you put forth was a string of dubious opinion,
> fallacious logic, and sarcastic remarks. I
> included the story to verify my point that launch
> vehicle technology transfer is the issue. . . .
And I responded to the article. If there is "dubious
opinion" or "fallacious logic" there, it should be
no problem for a person of your intellectual capacity
to point the instances out. But did you do that? No, you
just ignored it and finally snipped it. Perhaps you can
tell me what school of logic that technique comes from.
In your favour, I would sat that it seems to be a popular
school around here. . .
> . . . The mere
> existence of the article disproves your claim that
> launch vehicle techology transfer was not an issue.
The only thing we are _sure_ of is that the Chinese
launched U.S. satellites. People are trying to claim that
there is an issue of "launch vehicle technology"
transfer, but to do this they have to show that
issue 2 above is true. or at least _may_ be true
under plausible scenarios and the facts as known,
_and_ that issue 1 is _also_ true or may be true
under the same circumstances. Here is where most
stories on this start getting a little hazy. . . .
> I did not write the AP story. If you have a
> problem with it, take it up with the journalist who
> wrote it.
You _posted_ it in defence of your position. If you
do not want to defend it, then it has no worth as
support for _your_ argument. Or are you of the opinion
that _everything_ you read is God's own truth, regardless
of what is said, and the facts and logic _you_ can
bring to bear on the issues?
> >and if you don't
> >refute all of these points, _your_ implication that the
> >launching of satellites on Chinese launch vehicles was
> >a grave injury to U.S. national security is wrong.
>
> This is a childishly transparent logical fallacy. First,
> the degree of harm to US national security is in no way
> influenced by my response to your unsubstantiated claims.
We were arguing about _your_ stated implication. You're
right that nothing we say will change the pre-existing
truth about the underlying facts and the conclusions to be
drawn therefrom. What _I_ am trying to do here is to
see if the facts we know support your conclusion
(and the hysteria I keep hearing about this issue).
> Second, if even one of the concerns raised by the CIA has
> substance, US national security may have been adversely
> affected. . . .
"May" is a pretty weak word here. Let's put a specific
fact situation on the table, and see if it _would_
have hurt "national security" concerns, and if this
harm was not offset by any other considerartions.
So go for it. Pick one. Let's have at it.
> . . . And finally, the "implications" were not mine,
> but rather those of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Once again you seem to choose not to defend your
authorities. You simply take them on their word.
You'd be an easy mark for a demagogue.
I've already pointed out some rather "strange" points
in their "report", things that don't make sense to
me, and shouldn't to you if you thought about it at
all. Tell me, why would they talk about the similarities
in re-entry vehicles for commercial and military
missions? And why would they be talking about
CSS-4 rockets when the web page I posted states that
the CZ-1 (Long March) and its successors including the
CZ-3 that attempted to launch the failed LORAL
IntelSat 709 are derived from the IRBM CSS-3 (a.k.a DF-4
Dong Feng), a vehicle that supposedly never reached
operational service. It seems that the military and
commercial missile development diverged at this time.
The ICBM CSS-3 (DF-5) seems to be rather different
in operation capacity from the the CZ-2 and derivative
launch vehiicles. And what the SF missiles that the CIA
apparently showed pictures of has to do with all this,
I haven't the foggiest, other than some snow job or
obfuscation, or perhaps a report on some other aspect
of possible technological intercoures than really
applies to the situation we are concerned with in
the satellite launch waivers that actually _did_
issue.
> If you claim to have greater expertise regarding launch
> vehicle technology than does the CIA, I would be most
> grateful to hear how you came by it.
I read a lot. And have a web browser. Didn't take
long to find the information that I posted the URL
for. When I was young I was fascinated by space
technology, and while in college, read every AWST
that came out. I don't have as much opportunity now,
but I keep up as well I can, and at least I have
enough background to read the technical stuff I
can find and make sense of it. . . . Some of my
current work involves satellite communications,
but we are concerned more with using the birds once
tey're up. As a side note, I do know, and can guess
more, about U.S. capabilites for communications
interception. . . I don't doubt that the CIA has
many people that know far more than me about this
stuff. Which makes it _strange_ that they would
make such glaring misteaks as appeared in the
brief snippet of the report that was released.
Something fishy is going on there. Which makes
me take the report with a grain of salt.
> >> . . . By the way, do you ever
> >> get dizzy from all the spinning you do?
>
> >Do you get dizzy from all the hyperventilating _you_ do?
>
> Arne, go out and get a psychology textbook and look up
> the term "projection." It might explain a few things.
I'm going to piss you off and say that I probably have
more background in psychology than you, as well. This
part is fairly easy to show; all you have to do is
search MedLine for "Langsetmo" and you can find some
of my old papers when I was in the Neurosciences
Program at Wisconsin a while back. As an undergraduate,
I took as many psychology courses (and graduate seminars)
as I could, and would have majored in it if they had
allowed such underghraduate majors. My current roommate
is a clinical psychologist just finishing his doctorate,
and he certainly doesn't doubt my background there.
Now what were you saying about "projection"?
> >Hmmm. I just scanned the stuff below, and find that you made
> >absolutely no substantive comments as to what I wrote.
>
> Again, the article was included to refute your claim that
> launch vehicle technology was not the issue. Its mere
> existence proves that launch vehicle technology transfer is
> indeed the issue. I did not write the article, and I need
> not defend it.
Covered above. If you choose to let my critique stand
unrefuted, then we can assume for the purposes of this
discussion, the article is discredited.
> >Rather easy to claim victory and just go home, huh, MemberVRWC?
> >Sure beats actually debating the issues. . .
>
> I'm not going anywhere. . . .
I noticed. . . ;-)
> . . . I'm just getting warmed up.
I should hope so. You've been puttering so far.
> And by the way, you once again have conceded the transfer
> of launch vehicle technology is indeed an issue.
Stuff a sock in it. Discussed above.
> Your disagreement is with the substance of the analysis
> made by the CIA. If you can prove you have expertise in
> aerospace technology, I'd be happy to take your claims
> seriously. Until such time, I can only assume you are
> "inventing facts, and spreading rumors all for hoped-for
> political effect," to borrow your own phrase. (Hmmmm,
> why did the word projection pop into my head again?)
Because you're confused?
I'm posting to "sci.space.policy", where hopefully we
might have some lurkers that can correct me if something
I say is wrong. Nary a peep so far. Maybe we should go for
a few other NGs. . . .
> >So I was tempted to just snip it as adding nothing new, but
> >since you were nice enough to repost it all for me in a response,
>
> Okay, let's snip it.
>
> >I'll take the opportunity to post it in full again, for the
> >edification of anyone that might have missed it, and to see if
> >anyone _else_ might venture an actual comment on what I said.
>
> Speaking of edification Arne, did you ever pass the bar exam?
> I'm just curious.
No. I got sidetracked (and ran out of tuition money) a few
years back. I still have another year to go, if these folks can
ever clean up their act and get some other people here that
can take some of the load off me and let me get back to school.
But this seems to be a fading dream. I've had customers literally
_begging_ that I don't leave. . . . Which is why I was over
in Korea for over two months this last year. But thanks for asking.
Ahn yo hee kah say yo,
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Hey, "lho...@erols.com"!!! Where are you posting your replies?
I never see the originals, and can't find you in DejaNews, so
I have to wait for someone else to repost your replies. Could
you e-mail me a copy of any posts you make in reply to me.
Thanks. BTW, are you using "X-noarchive" or such?
Also, "lho...@erols.com: Where are you from?
In article <356f7259...@news.idt.net>,
Suprem...@ANTISPAMgeocities.com (God Almighty) wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 May 1998 00:35:38 GMT, lho...@erols.com (lhotse) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 22 May 1998 23:15:32 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> >>Hey, tell you what: Can you tell me which is more similar:
> >>U.S. ICBMs vs. Chinese ICBMs or Chinese ICBMs vs. the Long
> >>March commercial launch vehicle? When you have made this
> >>distinction, then explain what relevance this has for you
> >>arguments WRT national security.
> >
> >No prob, Yucch. According to the National Space Development
> >Agency of Japan, the Long March and the CZ2 and CZ3 ICBMs are
> >identical.
Nope. Even the page you posted states that they are derivatives,
not "identical".
But the URL I posted in my article went into much _more_ detail
on the CSS-3 and derivates:
"http://tele-satellit.com/tse/online/lanc_long_march.html"
My point here had to do with the technology in use in the CSS-3
and its derivatives, and what is really useful for modern
missile technology. Did you know that our commercial launch
vehicles are mostly derived from military launchers? Atlas,
Titan, Redstone, Thor/Delta and earlier Delta launchers, are all
derived from early IRBM/ICBM missiles. Guess how much of
improved technology from the commercial launchers was incorporated
into the missile arsenal of the U.S. . . . And then tell me why.
> >Therefore, the security implication of improving the reliability
> >of the Long March is that one is simultaneously improving the
> >reliability of the CZ2 and CZ3 ICBMs.
There _are_ no CZ2 and CZ3 ICBMs. The closest you get is the
CSS-3 (DF-5), which seems to have been developed independently
from the precursor CSS-3 DF-4 IRBM that was the progenitor of
the CZ-1 launcher.
Go to the web page I supplied above. They give much more detailed
information on the various launchers, including different information
on the derivation (from the DF-4 rather than the DF-5 cited above).
> >>And tell me what practical difference it makes if eleven of
> >>thirteen or all thirteen of thirteen Chinese ICBMs deliver
> >>their payload.
> >
> >I think the practical question is zero payload delivery versus 13
> >payload deliveries. Loral has assisted in the success of the latter.
If you look at the URL, you will see that DF-5 tests have been
carried out. I don't know why you think that none would reach
their destination. But there aren't that many of them.
The "practical question" you mention is not a question, but your
_assumption_. I see no evidence that this is true, nor do I see
any that LORAL has assisted in this outcome.
> >>Yes. And? . . .
> >
> >>> Administration critics say the similarity between satellite
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> >>> launch vehicles and ICBMs increases the chances that Clinton's
> >>> export decisions may have led to the disclosure of valuable
> >> ^^^
> >>> military technology. . . .
> >
> >I guess you know that two of those "administration critics" are the
> >CIA and the Pentagon. And that reporters always use "may" as a
> >half-assed CYA effort.
No. They say it because it's the best that can be said on the
hard evidence. I discussed the CIA "report" and some strangeness
therein below. Just keep in mind that this is the CIA that thought
that Pinochet and the Peacock Throne were good things.
> >>I imagine that this is only a few of the areas of significant
> >>differences in operational requirements.
> >
> >Per the cite above (and again below). I guess you should be consulting
> >to the People's Liberation Army, genius:
Hey, dispute the points I made if you think they were wrong.
> > Name: Chang Zheng/Long March
> > China started to develop a launch vehicle along with medium and long
> >range nuclear missiles like the U.S.A. and Russia (former Soviet
> >Union). The Chang Zheng 2, the prototype of Chang Zheng 3, is an
> >improved version of the 2 stage ICBM, East Wind (DF-5) and the Chang
> >Zheng 3 is a further improved version equipped with a third stage.
Read the URL I posted for more complete information here.
> >>Do you get a feeling yet that this is grasping at straws?
> >>A little bit of hysteria? Why has the story been blown
> >>up so big, so much bigger than seemingly warranted?
> >
> >Not at all, Yucch. I simply get the feeling that you are incredible
> >bullshit artist and a dissembling liar. I'm curious about that.
Well, then point out something I said that was wrong. It would
make your conclusions a bit more supportable. But you _do_
seem to have a tendency to come to conclusions with less than
the requisite amount of factual support. . . .
Tell you what, why don't you get curious as to why the
CIA is dissembling about "re-entry vehicle" similarity
for commercial and military payloads?
> >>Yep. It's on that web page above. They had an electrical failure,
> >>and complete loss of attitutde control. I think the Chinese
> >>just _might_ have figured out that the attitude control
> >>system failed. I don't know if the Hughes and LORAL people
> >>were able to tell them anything more specific here. We'll
> >>see.
> >
> >That's not the point. The point is that Loral, et al, turned
> >over the entire 200 page assessment report. Your "might have
> >figured out" is simply a hallucination.
And what was _in_ this "assessment report"? Anything of military
value? Why don't you post it (as well as your sources for this
claim), and we will see.
> >>I would guess because they had already looked into it, and found
> >>that there wasn't a big deal. Which is probably what the Justice
> >>Department will find as well. . . .
> >
> >Actually, it was underway as of February, 1998, when Der Fuhrer
> >allowed Loral to march ahead with its various technology transfers,
> >thereby neutering both the Justice and Customs *criminal*
> >investigations.
_What_ "technology transfers"? More satellite launches? We
haven't even shown that _any_ of the launches resulted in any
"technology transfer". And why subsequent waivers would neuter
a criminal case is beyond me (although I have read about the
Justice Department memorandom supposedly to this effect).
Despite claims to the contrary, please tell me how a subsequent
event, even if _also_ a crime, would make one's prior acts
not a crime although they were at the time. Just explain _how_,
under our legal system , this _could_ possibly occur, and
I'll concede this point.
> >So, your "guess" is wrong again. You do a lot of "guessing" when
> >you're taking a break from slinging a lot of unverified and
> >unattributed bullshit.
Hey, just point out what in your mind is "unverified and
unattributed bullshit", and I'll either fess up or defend
the veracoty of what I said. But you have to do this, not
just sling general assertions my way. . . .
> DAMN!!!!!!!!!!
You are easily impressed. . .
> Arne, you are hereby officially notified that you just got
> the shit spanked out of you! Proceed directly to the biggest
> Liberal rock you can find and crawl back under it.
Hey, azzwipe, maybe you didn't see the parts of my post that
"lhotze" apparently snipped rather than respond. I wouldn't
say I had the "shit spanked out of [me]." Read my original
and their response, as well as what I said above, and in
response to "MemberVRWC", and get back to me on that.
> Hopefully you are a little better educated than when you
> first opened that shit-hole you call a mouth.
We'll see who gets an education here. BTW, if you mommy
catches you, your mouth may end up tasting quite a bit of
something else.
> Now while under that rock don't forget to do the ELF chant..... "My
> god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My
> god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My
> god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,,My
> god Bill Clinton is innocent,,,, repeat with your fingers stuck in
> your ears. Maybe if Billybob hears your chant he will help you get a
> job, at least until he is "de-throned" or his term ends.
I have _too_ much work as it is. . .
zu...@ix.netcom.com
In article <DhM91.1120$K21.6...@news.internetmci.com>,
Ummmm. Very good. Thanks for your contribution to this
discussion on satellites, Coro. Now, if you're done with
your ungrammatical, rambling rant on irrelevancies to the
subject under discussion, you may sit down. And wait
your turn to be called on again. Thank you.
> lhotse wrote in message <358164f1...@news.erols.com>...
> >On Fri, 22 May 1998 23:15:32 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
[snip stuff from "lhotze" responded to elsewhere]
cattlovrr
Teens, I wish to share an important message with you.
Next week, when you return to school after Memorial Day--please, please
leave your weapons of destruction (guns, knives, uzis) at home.
May I suggest that all teens take a vow to cease your homicidal rages
and murderous outbursts (as witnessed the past few months in Oregon,
Arkansas, etc.).
Teens, please promise to put your guns away, if only out of respect for
the dead rap stars you seem to so admire.
I know it must be hard to be a teen. But remember that you are the most
coddled and pampered generation yet. Perhaps you choose to solve your
minor little problems with guns because you are so "soft" (i.e. you
really have not experienced life as we adults have).
So, teens: Listen up! Put away all your guns and crack open a school
book instead of an ammunition packet.
Countless citizens will be grateful for a lull in your killing sprees.
ale2
In article <35687E...@earthlink.net>
cattlovrr <catt...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Teens, I wish to share an important message with you.
>
> Next week, when you return to school after Memorial Day--please, please
> leave your weapons of destruction (guns, knives, uzis) at home.
And parents, if your child is been having a bad day ask for
their bullets.
At what point do parents become not responsible for actions of
their children?
DeZyN
ale2 wrote in message <6ka84a$i...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>...
According to the liberals, about 9 months before they are born.
DeZyN
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote
rambling rant on irrelevancies to the
>subject under discussion,
It's only irrelevent to the people that support a liar.
Question:
If a person lies to you, how can you believe anything they say?
That can only happen in a childs world.
Watson Aname
On Sun, 24 May 1998 19:49:11 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>> [Snip discussion]
>
> You are easily impressed. . .
No, I'm not. An excellent presentation, Arne. It's a pleasure watching
you work.
Watson, a Weasel
zu...@ix.netcom.com
In article <6kassu$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
If you won't believe anything he says, how can you determine
if the person is a liar?
Why don't you join in some _substantive_ discussion on the
actual topic here instead taking of these cheap pot shots?
pat
lhotse wrote:
>the words "may" above), then why are they making such a
> >big production of it?
>
> Because it is a very big fucking deal. It is intuitively obvious that
> Bill Clinton assented to technology transfers that abetted PLA efforts
> to increase ICBM accuracy. And he did it for money. When they nabbed
> Aldrich Ames and Pollard and the rest, it was called "treason."
actually it was labeled espionage. check the federal court record.
now FWIW, top cabinet officials are entitled to make
"executive policy decisions" and while Congress may have a word in it,
our involvement is at elections or through use of the political process.
when Ronal Reagan sells arms to Iran (Iran-Contra) it's a political
decision
as much as a felony crime. When LBJ and JFK send nuclear technology
to France and Britain, it's a policy decision.
Now personally, I'm not real interested in the sales of obsolete
technologies
to dying communist countries, but I do recall that during the SDI
program,
RR offered to share teh technology with the russians, so perhaps a lot
of stuff is far less sensitive, then one thinks.
pat
Jim Davidson
pat wrote:
> actually it was labeled espionage. check the federal court record.
You don't suppose that espionage is a problem because it contains the
taint of treason?
> now FWIW, top cabinet officials are entitled to make
> "executive policy decisions" and while Congress may have a word in it,
Yes, they may. One of the words Congress may have is "impeachment."
Another of the words they may have is "treason."
The House of Representatives, according to the Constitution, "...shall
have the sole power of impeachment." Which means that if Newt is serious
about the things he thinks Clinton has done, he should use his position
as Speaker to push through articles of impeachment.
Once the House impeaches Clinton, here's how it works:
"6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When
sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall
preside: and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of
two-thirds of the members present."
If the Senate decides that Clinton is guilty of the crimes charged by
the House, they have the power to remove him from office. (If Newt is
smart, he'll work articles of impeachment on Gore at the same time or
shortly thereafter, too. If Gore and Clinton are both impeached,
succession passes to the Speaker of the House. This also neatly removes
any possibility of a Ford-style pardon.)
Now, having been impeached Clinton still has to face the music:
"7. Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office
of honor, trust, or profit under the United States: but the party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial,
judgement and punishment, according to law."
Which brings us to treason:
"1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony
of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
Which leaves Congress needing to establish that the People's Liberation
Army is an enemy of the United States, and that Clinton adhered to them,
giving them aid and comfort. Articles of impeachment passed by the
House ought to establish whether the People's Liberation Army is an
enemy of the United States, and evidence presented to the Senate should
establish whether Clinton adhered to them, giving them aid and comfort.
Once all that is satisfied, we know that "2. The Congress shall have
power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason
shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of
the person attainted." I'm sure that federal law provides for some
serious punishment of treason. You could look it up.
> our involvement is at elections or through use of the political process.
Yes, it is. The political process includes writing letters to your
Representatives in the House and to your Senators. You may also include
in "the political process" the discussion, in such fora as this
newsgroup, the issue of whether Clinton committed treason.
> when Ronal Reagan sells arms to Iran (Iran-Contra) it's a political
> decision as much as a felony crime.
There is little evidence that Ronald Reagan sold arms to Iran. His
people certainly did, and I'd be amazed if he didn't know about it. It
is doubtful if any orders came directly from him, so he'd be more likely
an accessory to this "crime." I don't believe you've adequately
established that it was a felony crime.
It isn't too late, though. If the sale of arms to Iran by the Reagan
Administration was a felony crime, the Justice Department can trot the
old man into a court and bring criminal prosecution. They don't seem
inclined to do so.
> When LBJ and JFK send nuclear technology
> to France and Britain, it's a policy decision.
There is plenty of evidence that the People's Liberation Army of the
People's Republic of China is an enemy of the United States. After all,
we're aware, according to recent newscasts, that China is pointing
nuclear missiles at the United States. Chinese soldiers have fought
Americans in this century, in the Korean "conflict."
It also would seem that Iran is, at least potentially, an enemy of the
United States. They did occupy US territory (the US Embassy in Teheran)
and they did hold many of our citizens hostage.
The case for France and Britain is much less clear, given the North
Atlantic Treaty to which all three of these nations (France, Britain,
the US) are party, and given the 20th Century history of US, French, and
British soldiers fighting on the same side of every conflict from World
War One to the Persian Gulf War.
> Now personally, I'm not real interested in the sales of obsolete
> technologies to dying communist countries,
Since you don't mind if China gets nuclear missile technology from the
United States, how do you feel about India testing its own nuclear
arsenal? You ought to be pretty understanding.
The missile technology control regime is flawed and stupid and
counterproductive. However, it takes the position that even
technologies which have been made obsolete in the US by more advanced
technologies can still be adequate for sending nuclear-tipped missiles
toward American cities. Personally, I don't see where any of these
treaties or technology control concepts provides for an adequate
safeguard against nuclear war. Thus, I'm a big fan of ballistic missile
defense.
However, this Administration ought to either live by the rule of law, or
change those laws. They should not be permitted to violate the law with
impunity, even if the law is idiotic. It is, after all, Clinton's
choice to be an elected official of the government.
> but I do recall that during the SDI
> program, RR offered to share teh technology with the russians,
> so perhaps a lot of stuff is far less sensitive, then one thinks.
That depends upon who one is and whether one has been offered any
evidence that you think. Reagan offered to share the ballistic missile
defense technology with the Soviets (a broader class than merely the
Russians) with the intention of creating something akin to the
Co-Dominium of Pournelle's fiction. The Soviets and the Americans would
then be able to prevent attacks by nuclear-tipped missiles on both their
soils, not only from each other but from China and from other nuclear
powers. That offer itself doesn't constitute the transfer of
technology, since it would have been implemented only in the form of a
treaty which would have needed ratification by the Senate.
I suspect that the ballistic missile defense technology of this country
includes some of our most sophisticated technology. I'd be very
surprised if it were entirely unclassified and non-sensitive.
Free Yourself,