Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
Message-ID: <12414@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15-Mar-86 20:23:40 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12414
Posted: Sat Mar 15 20:23:40 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Mar-86 03:21:09 EST
References: <364@vger.UUCP> <261@uvacs.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 47

In article <261@uvacs.UUCP> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
>> The French recently orbited the SPOT earth resources satellite with a
>> minimum resolution of 10 meters.  This resolution is good enough to
>> be militarily useful in some cases.  RUMOUR has it that there has been
>> some discussion in the Pentagon about destroying SPOT with an ASAT
>> should SPOT detect 'sensitive' military information not
>> normally available to anyone but the US and Soviet armed forces (both
>> organizations have satellites with far better resolution than SPOT).
>
>If this is a joke, it's not particularly funny.  Otherwise, this is an
>extremely irresponsible posting on a network which is read around the
>free world.  Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no
>reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another
>nation -- particularly an ally.

   This is certainly an oxymoron; if the source is reliable is that not
a "reason to believe"?  (Not that I don't agree that the idea is absurd,
just that your statement is equally so.)
   And what does "irresponsible" mean in this context?  Is even discussing
any topic which might be offensive to any individual "irresponsible"?  Is
it better to bury our heads in the sand?

>How do you think the European sites feel when reading a posting which so
>casually discusses the idea of the US smacking a smaller country on the nose
>for daring to stand toe-to-toe with the ``superpowers''?   I don't know about
>you, but I'd feel pretty pissed off.

   What is casual about the posting?  It practically equates the destruction
with an act of war.  Hardly a casual tone.

>It seems like this newsgroup in particular should be a forum which harbors a
>sense of global community on Spaceship Earth rather than crass parochialism.
>I'm sorry to find that that's not necessarily the case.

   In other words, we should all ignore reality and pretend that the whole
world is one big happy family?  Would it be better to ignore the possibility
and then when it actually happens say, "Well, we knew it was coming but we
thought it would be rude to warn you."?

   After finally getting the censorship discussion out of net.columbia, it
looks like it is going to reappear here.  You seem to be saying (please
correct me if this paraphrase is inaccurate), "Certain topics should not
be discussed, because some might find them offensive."  This is called
censorship when practiced by those with the actual power to control what
is said.

   -- David desJardins