Xref: utzoo sci.space:4953 sci.space.shuttle:614
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!adrian
From: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST
Message-ID: <1755@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Mar 88 11:12:47 GMT
References: <1988Mar18.042452.5673@utzoo.uucp> <993@thumper.bellcore.com> <505@siemens.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Science, Heriot-Watt U., Scotland
Lines: 25
Summary: Spy planes

In article <505@siemens.UUCP>, steve@siemens.UUCP (Steve Clark) writes:
> In article <5856@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> kevin@cit-adel.UUCP (Kevin Van Horn) writes:
> >[...]  The Soviets shot down something that merely
> >looked like it might be a spy plane (flight KAL 007) [...]

007? It must have been a spy plane, then! :-)
 
> You touched a nerve here.  The Soviets never NEVER said the 747 looked like
> a spy plane.  They said it was on a spying mission.

Well now, what about the genuine spy planes, on spying missions? The SR-71's,
for example? And what about the "Bears", those huge prop-driven Russian planes
we often see photos of, being escorted out of your airspace by your fighters?
Even if the 747 was on a spying mission, does that entitle the Russians to
shoot it down? If so, why doesn't the USAF (or RAF, for that matter - we get
them too) shoot down these intruders - with much less loss of civilian life.

I imagine there would be much more of an outcry if a USAF Phantom shot down an
airliner, even if there were clear evidence it was up to no good.

-- 
 "Keyboard? Tis quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk