Re: "US could shoot down EU satellites..."

From: Pablo (jnaut_nospam_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 10/28/04 

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:41:15 -0700

"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns9590D394B7693juergennieveler@nieveler.org...
> Attacks on satelites wouldn't be errors, however, they'd be deliberate
> (and clearly recognisable as such)... how would the US goverment react
> if China started messing with GPS, for example?
>

Of course we'd react, but now we're ratcheting down the claims. My initial
response to this whole thing would be that it would end up having
bureaucratic fallout. Maybe I should better state: diplomatic fallout.
Now, if two nations were already at war, then it's simply another tactic
used in battle.

And let me paste my initial response to the main thread (which you may have
missed-- I haven't read everyone's sub-conversations within this thread
either):

"OPerative 'watch' words a lot of people in this thread are missing:
'could', 'if', etc. If one is a military strategist, everything is on the
table when putting together game theories. The EU should be doing the same
thing- it should consider any technology floating around as 'fair game' if
it gets used against them and their interests. [...]"

The suggestion that the U.S. 'interfering' with European GPS satellites in
response to a foreign (likely un-European) enemy using it against us hardly
constitutes an 'an act of War(tm) against NATO'. This whole thing is based
on game theory. There's a very interesting book (called Unrestricted
Warfare) written by two Chinese military men about using cyberspace computer
tactics as an arm of military action. It doesn't mean that China is
'preparing an attack'. These are normal functions of Military strategists.
They sit around tables, drinking coffee and try to imagine war in the
future- and try to ferret out all possible angles.

However, moving the subject slightly back to the original thread's purely
intellectual intent, I strongly suggest you read this article as you may
find it interesting in that it pertains very much to this type of thing this
thread discusses. The article is really about how media 'misunderstand' the
military, but there's a section about this book (unrestricted warfare).

http://reason.com/0202/fe.cb.the.shtml

Paul

Relevant Pages

  • RE: China Experience ?
    ... People get far more attacks from US than China, ... Subject: China Experience? ... In my experience the majority of network probes I see originate from the USA ... > This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service. ...
    (Incidents)
  • Re: China Takes Aim at U.S. GPS System
    ... China will deploy large numbers of these vans to jam GPS signals over ... Pentagon officials are concerned that U.S. bombs and missiles may not ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: China Takes Aim at U.S. GPS System
    ... China will deploy large numbers of these vans to jam GPS signals over ... Iraq deployed similar technology during the Gulf war but was unable to ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Dont understand perfect aspect
    ... terrorism in China: ... Report: China thwarts terrorist attacks ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: The origin of breakin attempts
    ... attacks, based on the IP address that they are coming from, the attacks ... always come, so far without exception, from one of three countries: ... China, Taiwan and Korea. ... That's the number of network assignments from the five RIRs. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
Loading