NAVSTAR satellites disarmed with axes
sho...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Harriet Tubman - Sarah Conner Brigade For Immediate Release:
Post Office Box 11645 Monday, 15 June 1992
Berkeley, CA 94701-2645
Contacts: Maxina Ventura 415-824-0214 (voice or fax)
Keith Kjoller 805-686-5605
Two Who Disarmed Military Satellites to be Released On
Bail;
Peace Activists Plead Not Guilty In NAVSTAR Case
Santa Cruz peace activists Keith Kjoller and Peter Lumsdaine
have been ordered released on bail pending their trial for the May 10th
disarmament of several NAVSTAR satellites in Seal Beach, CA.
Kjoller and Lumsdaine, who call themselves the "Harriet Tubman -
Sarah Conner Brigade," also pleaded not guilty to felony charges of
"injuring property being manufactured for the U.S. government" at their
arraignment today in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Orange County,
CA.
The two could be imprisoned for up to ten years if convicted on
these charges, which were filed last week as an information from the U.S.
Attorney's office. They are being defended by attorney Leonard
Weinglass. No trial date has been set; call 415-824-0214 for future court
dates.
Federal judges overturned a magistrate's finding that the two
activists posed a "danger to the community" requiring their "preventive
detention" without bail. Supporters say NAVSTAR and other weapons of
mass destruction, not nonviolent disarmament, endanger our community.
Kjoller and Lumsdaine used axes to disable several NAVSTAR
satellites and contaminate assembly and inspection "clean rooms" at the
Rockwell plant. NAVSTAR satellites are designed to give U.S. nuclear
weapons increased accuracy for a pre-emptive first strike. They also
were used in the Gulf War and are used in U.S. "counter-insurgency"
warfare.
Civilian users have only partial access to NAVSTAR data, most of
which is transmitted in a military code. Despite false claims to the
contrary by Rockwell and the military, most of NAVSTAR's navigational
capabilities are reserved strictly for military NAVSTAR users.
Kjoller and Lumsdaine may travel in much of California and are
available to discuss their action, NAVSTAR, and direct disarmament.
Contributions to organizing against NAVSTAR and in support of this
action may be made to "Stop First Strike / LAC" and sent to P.O. Box
11645, Berkeley, CA 94701-2645.
-- END --
Stupendous Man
> Peace Activists Plead Not Guilty In NAVSTAR Case
Luddites, luddites everywhere...
...
> The two could be imprisoned for up to ten years if convicted on
> these charges, which were filed last week as an information from the U.S.
> Attorney's office. They are being defended by attorney Leonard
> Weinglass. No trial date has been set; call 415-824-0214 for future court
> dates.
> Federal judges overturned a magistrate's finding that the two
> activists posed a "danger to the community" requiring their "preventive
> detention" without bail. Supporters say NAVSTAR and other weapons of
> mass destruction, not nonviolent disarmament, endanger our community.
And just how do NAVSTAR satellites kill people? Invisible death rays?
Which weapons were axed off by the luddites?
Shouldn't those activists be celebrating the 67% reduction in nuclear
warheads by the Reagan START treaty and the recent amendment?
> Kjoller and Lumsdaine used axes to disable several NAVSTAR
> satellites and contaminate assembly and inspection "clean rooms" at the
> Rockwell plant. NAVSTAR satellites are designed to give U.S. nuclear
> weapons increased accuracy for a pre-emptive first strike.
Lies. Simply asserting "pre-emptive strike" like the US is evil and
always wanted to do this is unsupportable.
> They also
> were used in the Gulf War and are used in U.S. "counter-insurgency"
> warfare.
Well, then they are not evil first-strike weapons, are they? They are
simply spy sattelites.
> Civilian users have only partial access to NAVSTAR data, most of
> which is transmitted in a military code. Despite false claims to the
> contrary by Rockwell and the military, most of NAVSTAR's navigational
> capabilities are reserved strictly for military NAVSTAR users.
So?
> Kjoller and Lumsdaine may travel in much of California and are
> available to discuss their action, NAVSTAR, and direct disarmament.
Until they get locked up :).
Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster (Pick any two :)
Dillon Pyron
An axe is "nonviolent disarmament" of an unarmed satellite?
> Kjoller and Lumsdaine used axes to disable several NAVSTAR
>satellites and contaminate assembly and inspection "clean rooms" at the
>Rockwell plant. NAVSTAR satellites are designed to give U.S. nuclear
>weapons increased accuracy for a pre-emptive first strike. They also
>were used in the Gulf War and are used in U.S. "counter-insurgency"
>warfare.
> Civilian users have only partial access to NAVSTAR data, most of
>which is transmitted in a military code. Despite false claims to the
>contrary by Rockwell and the military, most of NAVSTAR's navigational
>capabilities are reserved strictly for military NAVSTAR users.
Maybe, but most of the users are civilian.
> Kjoller and Lumsdaine may travel in much of California and are
>available to discuss their action, NAVSTAR, and direct disarmament.
>Contributions to organizing against NAVSTAR and in support of this
>action may be made to "Stop First Strike / LAC" and sent to P.O. Box
>11645, Berkeley, CA 94701-2645.
>
>-- END --
>
What a crock! Two assholes with reality discrimination problems violently
destroy a navigation satellite in the name of "world peace". I guess they
don't realize that:
1) Most ICBM and IRBM systems use INAV, as GPS can not be depended on to still
exist once unfriendliness breaks out.
2) One of the largest users of GPS is the shipping industry. Of particular
interest is that fact that most (all?) large tankers carry two receivers, one
on the bow and one at the stern.
3) DoD is currently considering making full GPS service available, given the
political changes in the last few years.
4) Internet is itself a derivative of DoD ARPAnet and there is still quite a
bit of defense related traffic (non-classified, I hope) on it.
Enough spleen venting, I need to get back to my nuclear (can they pronounce it
correctly?) armed Catalina 27 (with Magellan GPS). no :-) today
--
Dillon Pyron | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here) |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home) | Anyone who says that air is free is not
py...@skndiv.dseg.ti.com | a diver.
J.M. Ivler ivler@mdcbbs.com
> Post Office Box 11645 Monday, 15 June 1992
> Berkeley, CA 94701-2645
>
> Contacts: Maxina Ventura 415-824-0214 (voice or fax)
> Keith Kjoller 805-686-5605
>
>
> Two Who Disarmed Military Satellites to be Released On
> Bail;
>
> Peace Activists Plead Not Guilty In NAVSTAR Case
>
>
> satellites and contaminate assembly and inspection "clean rooms" at the
> Rockwell plant. NAVSTAR satellites are designed to give U.S. nuclear
> weapons increased accuracy for a pre-emptive first strike. They also
> were used in the Gulf War and are used in U.S. "counter-insurgency"
> warfare.
> Civilian users have only partial access to NAVSTAR data, most of
> which is transmitted in a military code. Despite false claims to the
> contrary by Rockwell and the military, most of NAVSTAR's navigational
> capabilities are reserved strictly for military NAVSTAR users.
THIS IS A TON OF CRAP. The first job I had as a programmer was working on
NAVSTAR. The company I worked for built the equipment that decoded the signals
sent from the satellites. We build three different types of boxs (under a
military contract). These were for 1) ships at sea, 2) aircraft and 3) land
based.
NAVSTAR is a global positioning system that is used to provide accurate data on
the location of the reciever. It uses triangulation from three satellites that
provide their location in space and time data. There are two sets of data in
the satellites. The first set is *VERY* accurate. It is designed to allow for
presision triangulation to within 1 meter of the antenna. The second set of
data is fudged. This fudging is done by rounding off the distance/location of
the satellite and by also not using 32 bit timestamps (it uses a 16 bit TS).
This allows a fudge to be made in non-military systems of 3-20 meters based on
the satellites in the constilation that were picked up.
Kjoller and Lumsdaine are full of crap and have broken the law. In addition,
they have set back the Glasnot/Navstar system that was to use both the old
Soviet Unions GPS as well as the US's GPS system to allow for better navigation
and control of the airlanes by commercial transports.
sho...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
>
> What a crock! Two assholes with reality discrimination problems violently
> destroy a navigation satellite in the name of "world peace". I guess they
> don't realize that:
>
> 1) Most ICBM and IRBM systems use INAV, as GPS can not be depended on to still
> exist once unfriendliness breaks out.
Good point! Why build an ICBM that depends on a
targeting system that won't be available for a retaliatory strike? The
answer, of course, is that ICBMS like the Trident II/D5 are offensive,
not defensive/deterrent weapons. It's one example of the paradox of Star
Wars: one side's space weapons are extremely vulnerable to the other
side's, so it's irrational to build them UNLESS your side plans to start
the war first!
> 2) One of the largest users of GPS is the shipping industry. Of particular
> interest is that fact that most (all?) large tankers carry two receivers, one
> on the bow and one at the stern.
The issue is not who makes the most use of NAVSTAR, but whether having it
available for targeting ICBMS is hideously dangerous.
> 3) DoD is currently considering making full GPS service available, given the
> political changes in the last few years.
Dream on.
> 4) Internet is itself a derivative of DoD ARPAnet and there is still quite a
> bit of defense related traffic (non-classified, I hope) on it.
Yes, we call using military hardware for useful purposes "conversion."
--
_________________________________
Steve Homer sho...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Dillon Pyron
>>
>> What a crock! Two assholes with reality discrimination problems violently
>> destroy a navigation satellite in the name of "world peace". I guess they
>> don't realize that:
>>
>> 1) Most ICBM and IRBM systems use INAV, as GPS can not be depended on to still
>> exist once unfriendliness breaks out.
>
>Good point! Why build an ICBM that depends on a
>targeting system that won't be available for a retaliatory strike? The
>answer, of course, is that ICBMS like the Trident II/D5 are offensive,
>not defensive/deterrent weapons. It's one example of the paradox of Star
>Wars: one side's space weapons are extremely vulnerable to the other
>side's, so it's irrational to build them UNLESS your side plans to start
>the war first!
Assuming first strike and the constellation is still up, the ICBMs will still
be using INAV. Seems that they move too fast for reliable updates. So, what's
your point?
>
>> 2) One of the largest users of GPS is the shipping industry. Of particular
>> interest is that fact that most (all?) large tankers carry two receivers, one
>> on the bow and one at the stern.
>
>The issue is not who makes the most use of NAVSTAR, but whether having it
>available for targeting ICBMS is hideously dangerous.
So, you would rather spill more oil or splash an airplane into a hill to avoid
a hypothetical war fought with massive weapons that DON'T USE GPS!! So, what's
your point?
>
>> 3) DoD is currently considering making full GPS service available, given the
>> political changes in the last few years.
>
>Dream on.
Oh, I plan to.
>
>> 4) Internet is itself a derivative of DoD ARPAnet and there is still quite a
>> bit of defense related traffic (non-classified, I hope) on it.
>
>Yes, we call using military hardware for useful purposes "conversion."
And what is the peaceful use of GPS? Are you just a little too caught up in
your self righteousness to understand that almost everything in this world is
dual-use? Will you stop flying on 747's if I told you that most of the US
airlines' B747's can be converted to cargo usage in 6 hours, for military
usage? Will you stop traveling the interstates if I told you the real name is
the National Defense Highway System?
And when you speak of "conversion", you automatically (IMHO) grant validity to
the original existence of the "item". Penecillan is good, but it was a tool of
war. Radar is good (when it paints weather pictures, but not in a cop car),
but it too was a tool of war.
I'm very down on fission nuclear energy, not because of it's military past, but
because of it's dirty future. Before you praise or condem a technology, think
of it's users and it's uses. Maybe I just have a brighter view of the future.
Maybe I just see us getting out of this cesspool, and you don't.
>--
>_________________________________
>Steve Homer sho...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
>
Stupendous Man
> In article <38...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, sho...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>>In article <1992Jun18.1...@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, py...@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes:
>>>
>>> What a crock! Two assholes with reality discrimination problems violently
>>> destroy a navigation satellite in the name of "world peace". I guess they
>>> don't realize that:
>>>
>>> 1) Most ICBM and IRBM systems use INAV, as GPS can not be depended on to still
>>> exist once unfriendliness breaks out.
>>
>>Good point! Why build an ICBM that depends on a
>>targeting system that won't be available for a retaliatory strike? The
>>answer, of course, is that ICBMS like the Trident II/D5 are offensive,
>>not defensive/deterrent weapons. It's one example of the paradox of Star
>>Wars: one side's space weapons are extremely vulnerable to the other
>>side's, so it's irrational to build them UNLESS your side plans to start
>>the war first!
> But you missed the point! GPS will not provide the targeting information.
> Assuming first strike and the constellation is still up, the ICBMs will still
> be using INAV. Seems that they move too fast for reliable updates. So, what's
> your point?
What the point of anti-technologists always is: it's that way because I
say it is. Never mind that the US never used it's nuclear monopoly to enslave
the world, never mind that the US never launched a first strike, and always had
a policy of launching after (impact, launch, warning), and never mind that it
was RWR and the US that brought about START to reduce nukes by 67%. They want
the US to be BAAAAAAD. So anything the US does is BAAAAAAD.
Hey, galvanized steel? Obviously a first-strike usage of metal.
Vulcanized rubber? First strike use of rubber. Never launched yet? Hey, more
proof that that is what we are really planning to do!
>...
> I'm very down on fission nuclear energy, not because of it's military past, but
> because of it's dirty future. Before you praise or condem a technology, think
> of it's users and it's uses. Maybe I just have a brighter view of the future.
> Maybe I just see us getting out of this cesspool, and you don't.
I agree. It seems that pessemists are always going to be around for
the rest of us to contend with.
How do you convince someone with a martyr complex that death is not
imminent?
Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer: NOT!
Clinton Keith
> >
>
> > 3) DoD is currently considering making full GPS service available, given the
> > political changes in the last few years.
>
> Dream on.
>
> Steve Homer sho...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Actually, the DoD has always been under the direction to offer GPS as a
commercial service 10 years after the full constellation is launched. They
are currently looking into doing this sooner. Also, there is a drive to
unite the ex-soviet system GLONASS and GPS signals in receivers that would
provide a high accuracy solution.
With advances such as differential GPS, the need for the DoD to offer unencrypted
epsilon and dither signals becomes less important. An airliner with D-GPS
can have less accuracy in the air than near it's airport and still be safe.
--
Clinton N. Keith ... Speaking for himself.
Applied Remote Tecnology
crash!hp-sdd!artech!clint
artech!cl...@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com
John C Sager
> Actually, the DoD has always been under the direction to offer GPS as a
> commercial service 10 years after the full constellation is launched. They
> are currently looking into doing this sooner. Also, there is a drive to
> unite the ex-soviet system GLONASS and GPS signals in receivers that would
> provide a high accuracy solution.
Apparently the transmitters on the GLONASS satellites are pretty dirty & the
signal spreads all over some important astronomical observation frequencies.
Perhaps we should persuade the Russians to switch GLONASS off, or sell them
some better RF hardware :-)
John C Sager Mail: B67 G18, BT Labs
Email: j...@zoo.bt.co.uk Martlesham Heath
Tel: +44 473 642623 IPSWICH IP5 7RE
Fax: +44 473 637614 England
Stupendous Man
>>
>> Actually, the DoD has always been under the direction to offer GPS as a
>> commercial service 10 years after the full constellation is launched. They
>> are currently looking into doing this sooner. Also, there is a drive to
>> unite the ex-soviet system GLONASS and GPS signals in receivers that would
>> provide a high accuracy solution.
>>
>> With advances such as differential GPS, the need for the DoD to offer unencrypted
>> epsilon and dither signals becomes less important. An airliner with D-GPS
>> can have less accuracy in the air than near it's airport and still be safe.
>
> are anti-technology comes from. I would have no objections to a GPS system
> that made passenger planes and supertankers safer to operate, provided
> it wasn't also accurate enough to be used for offensive ICBM guidance
> against "hard" targets.
So you'd rather have an inaccurate system, lest it be used for (gasp!)
military purposes?
Check out what an error of a few seconds will do in a trip from Hawaii
to the west coast.
> A couple of net.folks (no reference to Clinton intended)
> are either lying or misinformed
> and think the Trident II/D5 missile doesn't depend on NAVSTAR. Without
> NAVSTAR, a successful offensive nuclear strike is impossible, because you
> can't count on hitting Russian, Commonwealth, and Chinese missiles in
> their silos. With NAVSTAR, an offensive first strike becomes technically
> feasible. I don't think the government should be allowed to have that
> capability.
Why not? It makes an effective deterrent. It reduces nuclear war to a
lose-lose proposition.
Jon J Thaler
> sho...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>> With NAVSTAR, an offensive first strike becomes technically
>> feasible. I don't think the government should be allowed to have that
>> capability.
> Why not? It makes an effective deterrent. It reduces nuclear war to
> a lose-lose proposition.
I don't understand this. Please explain in a little more detail how a
first strike capability makes an effective deterrent.
Stupendous Man
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
If you don't understand the allusion there, then I'll explain it. You
have phrased your question "...how a first strike capability", wanting everyone
to accept a priori, that enhanced targeting is the result of a desire for a
first strike strategy.
Increased accuracy means you need less nukes to effectively destroy a
site. This only helps you in first strike in the sense that you have a greater
chance of knocking out the enemies weapons. However, boomers aren't static,
and you can't rely on their being destroyed. Nor can you kill airborne bombers
(effectively) with ICBM's.
It makes war a lose-lose proposition because you can't guarantee that
the enemy can't destroy you with their remaining nukes.
One of the things that might tempt a leader into pushing the button is
the notion that the enemies weapons are so bad that they won't be effective.
The US aresenal is so good that those notions are dispelled.
The Russians (xSoviets) weapons are not as good, but still good enough
to kill anyone who tried a first strike.
Now if the missiles were unreliable....
Francis Vaughan
that I usually don't do, that is enter into a religious
argument.
However:
I find it utterly amazing that people can support the
idiots who wrecked the Navsats. They seem to be very
seriously ignorant of the history, use and logitics of
the GPS system.
I guess I can sort of understand what was going on in their
little heads. The big blashemy of a first strike capability
stirs in their minds. Coupled with this is some half baked
notion that GPS is vital, nay entierly intended to produce
such a possibility. The lack of enemies to target doesn't
seem to phase them one jot. The self appointed ability to
tell right from wrong, and a desire to do SOMETHING, make a
mark drives them on. That it is stupid, pointless and counter
productive to their more laudable goals is irrelavent. The
peace movement, and other groups such as the environmentalists
have to cope with such fools within their ranks everywhere.
'Nuff said.
Here I am sitting on the other side of the world, next to me
is a cute little device called a Sony PYXIS. For the princely
sum of $1000 US it gives me in my hand a device capable of
telling me where I am anywhere on the globe to a very useful
accuracy. When I go boating, bush walking, or driving in the
great outdoors (something we have rather a lot of down here in
OZ) it can make a huge difference.
At the moment some 60 companies in Japan and over 40 in the US
are engaged in the design of civilian applications of GPS.
Commercial applications are legion, from trucking companies
that want to keep track of trucks, container shipping
companies that want to do the same with containers. Every big
car maker is looking at producing in car navigation systems.
Less commercial applications include search and rescue and
shipping. Imagine the improvment in the rescue of stricken
craft and people if a locator can report its position to the
nearest 25 metres.
The overseers of Prince Willian Sound, of EXXON Valdez fame
now require that any ship entering is equipped with GPS,
enhanced with a differential GPS system. With such navigation
aids they are confident that future disasters can be reduced.
Essentially if these fools were to somehow succeed with their
quest to disable the entire GPS system there would be a lot of
very annoyed people right around the world. Almost every one
of them civilian.
This is not to say that the users of GPS are totally happy
with the DOD over the current GPS system. The encryption of
the P channel of high accuracy data and the use of selective
availability of the unencrypted data is a sore point.
But whilst these self apointed guardians of truth are hacking
at space hardware in a religious furvor, others are carfully
attempting to lobby for the removal of the encryptions
permanently, enabling very useful new uses of GPS.
Basicly they got it wrong. There is much to critisize about
the US policies, you should talk to some of the people over
here in a country that belives itself to be a US ally to see
how your government sometimes treats it friends let alone its
enemies, BUT the GPS system is simply the wrong beast to
attack. After weather satelites and remote imaging, GPS will
probably be the most used and gratefully received single
product of the space program as seem by citizens of the world.
It is worth reiterating that last point, citizens of the
world. Anyone may use it, there is no restriction. The
Russians, Chinese, even those of us in the antipodies.
Breaking into a clean room and flailing around with an axe
does nothing more than piss people off. It has probably done
more harm to the peace movment these people claim to represent
than any other action I have heard of for some time. Who with
any knowledge of the situation at all will give any
credibility these guys or their associates ever again.
It also seems incredible that they choose 1992 do do their
damage. Not only have they picked the wrong target, but they
did it 10 years too late.
We can only hope that it does not harm the efforts to get
unrestricted access to the P channel in the future.
Far more than enough for now,
Francis Vaughan
Dillon Pyron
In article <1992Jun29....@desire.wright.edu>, de...@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <38...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, sho...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>> In article <3...@artech.UUCP>, cl...@artech.UUCP (Clinton Keith) writes:
>>>
>>> Actually, the DoD has always been under the direction to offer GPS as a
>>> commercial service 10 years after the full constellation is launched. They
>>> are currently looking into doing this sooner. Also, there is a drive to
>>> unite the ex-soviet system GLONASS and GPS signals in receivers that would
>>> provide a high accuracy solution.
>>>
>>> With advances such as differential GPS, the need for the DoD to offer unencrypted
>>> epsilon and dither signals becomes less important. An airliner with D-GPS
>>> can have less accuracy in the air than near it's airport and still be safe.
>>
>> I don't know where this notion that I or my friends who axed the satellites
>> are anti-technology comes from. I would have no objections to a GPS system
>> that made passenger planes and supertankers safer to operate, provided
>> it wasn't also accurate enough to be used for offensive ICBM guidance
>> against "hard" targets.
suppose you only have a grandfather clock at home, because the technology for
digital watches (actually, any electronic clock) also allows for precision
bombing.
Actually, you and your friends are just Luddites. You only want so much, never
willing to the full advantage of technology.
>
> So you'd rather have an inaccurate system, lest it be used for (gasp!)
>military purposes?
>
> Check out what an error of a few seconds will do in a trip from Hawaii
>to the west coast.
>
>> A couple of net.folks (no reference to Clinton intended)
>> are either lying or misinformed
>> and think the Trident II/D5 missile doesn't depend on NAVSTAR. Without
>> NAVSTAR, a successful offensive nuclear strike is impossible, because you
>> can't count on hitting Russian, Commonwealth, and Chinese missiles in
>> their silos. With NAVSTAR, an offensive first strike becomes technically
>> feasible. I don't think the government should be allowed to have that
>> capability.
Let's just say that I know what I am talking about. There are several
excellent texts (which I'll be glad to reference tomorrow) which discuss
submarine navigation. Subs can not depend on GPS when submerged, and Tridents
can not depend on GPS at fairly high speeds. INAV is the only alternative, and
a pretty good one.
BTW: Who the fuck is "Stupendous Man"? Your ego shows (or compensation for
lack there of) but I hate arguing with someone I don't at least know by name.
Shari L Brooks
>In article <38...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, sho...@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>>
>> I don't know where this notion that I or my friends who axed the satellites
>> are anti-technology comes from. I would have no objections to a GPS system
>> that made passenger planes and supertankers safer to operate, provided
>> it wasn't also accurate enough to be used for offensive ICBM guidance
>> against "hard" targets.
>
> So you'd rather have an inaccurate system, lest it be used for (gasp!)
>military purposes?
>
data to ballistic submarines. The mistake in this article is in assuming
it is used for ICBM guidance. It isn't; how can it be? The missiles don't
have GPS receivers on them, and the government already has accurate positions
for the silos. Another mistake is by thinking that satellite
navigation is a new concept. The Navy Navigation Satellite System, or
TRANSIT, has been providing all weather navigation to ships at sea for
*years*. The system was first put up in the early 60's. Both military
and civilian users can access the TRANSIT data, and its accuracy is
about 30 meters.
So, even if y'all went up on orbit and axed the NAVSTAR satellites, the
ballistic subs would still be able to gather positional data from TRANSIT.
>
>> A couple of net.folks (no reference to Clinton intended)
>> are either lying or misinformed
>> and think the Trident II/D5 missile doesn't depend on NAVSTAR. Without
>> NAVSTAR, a successful offensive nuclear strike is impossible, because you
>> can't count on hitting Russian, Commonwealth, and Chinese missiles in
>> their silos. With NAVSTAR, an offensive first strike becomes technically
>> feasible. I don't think the government should be allowed to have that
>> capability.
>
> Why not? It makes an effective deterrent. It reduces nuclear war to a
>lose-lose proposition.
It does make an effective deterrent, but again, this is *wrong*; Trident is
*not* guided by the satellites. For that matter, Trident isn't an ICBM, either.
Ballistic subs *do* get their navigational positions from them, but then again,
that position can be supplied by TRANSIT. Granted, NAVSTAR is considerably
more accurate than TRANSIT, but what's 30 meters when we're talking about a
nuclear bomb? If you hit within that radius of a silo, then you will *not*
have to worry about anything coming out for a while, I would think.
Basically, nuclear war *is* considered a lose-lose proposition...
The accuracy of NAVSTAR is nothing short of incredible, and this is true
for the civilian side of it also. NAVSTAR achieves many good things. My
friend works for the GPS Earthquake Surveying Center at UCLA. By setting
up a GPS receiver and leaving it in place for 2 or 3 days, they acheive
accuracies to within a millimeter, and results that detail local plate
movements. This data is invaluable for earthquake research. I have also heard
of using GPS for attitude control for LEO satellites, that by putting a
receiver at each extremity, one can point the satellite far more accurately
than by using earth sensors.
I think it is a cryin shame that the satellites got *axed*.
<sorry, Brett, for using your article to reply to this; I didn't receive the
one you replied to on this system>
--
Shari L Brooks | slb%suned1.nsws...@nosc.mil
NAVSOC code NSOC323D | sh...@caspar.nosc.mil
NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013 |
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.
Jim Mann
> I think it is a cryin shame that the satellites got *axed*.
>
I at least hope that they take the clowns who did it and throw them
in jail for 10 years or so. I noticed they pleaded not guilty,
though. Rather cowardly. Thoreau stated that those who commit
acts of civil disobedience should be willing to admit to it and
go to jail for there cause. But these folks want the best of
both worlds: they want to take what they consider the high moral
ground but aren't willing to pay the price for doing so.
--
Jim Mann jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com Stratus Computer
Stupendous Man
>
> BTW: Who the fuck is "Stupendous Man"? Your ego shows (or compensation for
> lack there of) but I hate arguing with someone I don't at least know by name.
I'm Stupendous Man, who the hell are you? :)
Stupendous Man is a character in Calvin and Hobbes. It is a persona
that Calvin takes on when he becomes a 'super hero' to fight his arch-villan
The Evil MOM LADY. Really, you have to read the strip (or some of the
collections) to understand the reference.
Ego? My name is right here
|
v
Michael Wallis
> Basically, nuclear war *is* considered a lose-lose proposition...
I think in all the ballyhoo about NAVSTAR nad accuraccy and missles we
seem to have lost the import part of the equation.
We have not had a 'Third World War' or nuclear first stike precisely
BECAUSE the accuracy of our missle is so good. Regardless of the truth of
the underlying assumption (and I too agree that it's a very wrong
assumption) the destroying of accuracy my any means would INCREASE the
chances of someone pushing the button, not decrease them.
If some madman asks his (or her) Generals how many casulties they'll
suffer if they push the button, you want the answer to be "I don't know."
As soon as there's an answer, some moron will find a way to justify it.
Increased accuracy means if you launch, we'll pound you. Decreased
accuracy means if you launch, you may get away with it.
People what to decrease the chances of war? SUPPORT the full decoding of
GPS signals. Accuracy is good. Accuracy is your friend. And your childrens.
Michael
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis -> (mwa...@clubzen.fidonet.org)
Nothing left to do but 8-) 8-) 8-)
Kenneth Ng
: military purposes?
: Check out what an error of a few seconds will do in a trip from Hawaii
: to the west coast.
More significant would be a trip from the west coast to Hawaii :-).
--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn...@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG