Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!agate!ucbvax!GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV!PJS
From: PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Pigs will be pigs...
Message-ID: <890206110316.000000B6091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 6 Feb 89 18:03:16 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 63

Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

>Because NOBODY
>is going to attack us if we mind our own business. PERIOD.

Almost all of the examples from history of countries being invaded that
I am aware of were countries that were "minding their own business":
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan... if you consider the Roman Empire the
examples are legion (sorry, couldn't resist that one).

>I know there are lots of Europeans out there on Space Digest, and some
>of you may be involved in your nation's space efforts, or even better,
>involved in a real company. Use whatever influence you have to get a
>high resolution (maybe 1M) satellite with real time imaging capability
>and with a high slant range. 
>[...]
>PS: And while you are at it, why not push for kicking ALL of our troops
>off of European soil and waters and airspace? The $50,000,000,000 or
>so saved per year would wipe out the US national debt, stabilize the
>dollar and make Europe less of a trip wire to WWIII.

Unlikely that the Europeans would be launching non-essential payloads if
they are paying the full cost of their own defence.

>Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2
>
>	MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING,
>	Washington, DC: Faces opposition from
>	DoD. A satellite which could provide im-
>	mediate photos of military activities to the
>	media "poses a greater threat to national
>	security" than current foreign-owned tech-
>	nology, the AAAS was told recently.
>
>
>Editorial comment:
>
>The above is to be expected. The military does not foster a mentality
>that is compatible with a truely free society. The more power that
>mentality is given over society, the farther said society will be driven
>from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy.

Actually I would be more worried by the likely misuse of cheap high-quality
aerial pictures by the media.  The possibilities range from the Miami Herald
("Gary Hart Takes Cruise on Monkey Business II: Pictures of Decktop Party")
to the National Enquirer ("Supermodel and her Secret Love Nest in the Poconos")
to _Geraldo_ ("Did the survivors of Air Peru flight 999 really resort to
cannibalism in the Andes?  We have the answers.")  I don't think that organs
of the media such as the Morton Downey Jr. Show have really demonstrated
that they are responsible enough to use this information wisely.  I'm not
saying that the military are, either, but at least they don't broadcast it.

I know that this assumes *really* cheap and *really* high-resolution
photography, but not outlandishly so.  Obviously the media would say that
they would use such a satellite for pictures of things like the Chernobyl
incident, but given the emphasis that the networks are placing on so-called
`trash tv' these days, how long would it be before they found some way to
pervert it for those purposes?  Enquiring minds want to know...

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

Disclaimer: I'm not picking on the particular newspapers and shows I just
mentioned, there are plenty of equally qualified others.