Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!newton.Berkeley.EDU!me142-af
From: me142-af@newton.Berkeley.EDU (Richard A. Levin)
Newsgroups: net.aviation,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: KAL 007
Message-ID: <15721@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 19-Sep-86 13:05:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15721
Posted: Fri Sep 19 13:05:42 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Sep-86 00:53:54 EDT
References: <12233831641.27.CMP.WERNER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU> <490@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP> <13052@amdcad.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: me142-af@newton.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Richard A. Levin)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 13
Xref: linus net.aviation:3555 talk.politics.misc:259


The Atlantic has an excellent article on this (its the sept issue
I believe, in any case it is the cover article.) The theory seems
reasonable and combines navigational errors (bad input to the 
inertial unit) and a soviet paranoia about letting the plane get
away. It is an excerpt from a forthcoming (probably out by now
book).  Read it for yourself.
 On another note from what I have heard (admittedly, not authoratative)
and my recollections of the bamford book the Elint planes don't do
penetration missons any more. Satelites (sp?) and better recievers allow
info to be picked up without as much risk. the one thing this method
does not give is info on the radars that are turned on only for short
range tracking (i.e. when a plane violates airspace).