Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

From: Stuf4 (tdadamemd-spamblock-_at_excite.com)
Date: 06/19/04 

Date: 18 Jun 2004 22:11:45 -0700

>From Scott Kozel:
> tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) wrote:
> >
> > From Scott Kozel:
> > > Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> > > > > From Ami Silberman:
> > > > > > "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote
> > > > > > > From Steve Hix:
>
> > > > > > > > What offensive weaponry, in particular?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This was addressed early on in this thread. Examples given from that
> > > > > > > June 12th post are ICBMs as offensive space weaponry,
> > > >
> > > > They're just *very* long-range artillery. Not space-based currently,
> > > > either.
> > >
> > > The Soviets also considered ICBMs to be long-range artillery.
> > >
> > > > > > > and GPS as providing offensive weaponry capability.
> > >
> > > Pure baloney, any way you slice it.
> > >
> > > Accurate ICBMs and SLBMs existed by the thousands, on both sides of the
> > > Iron Curtain, long before GPS ever existed.
> >
> > I don't see how those facts refute anything I've stated.
>
> GPS is not "offensive space-based weaponry", and for you to assert that
> it is, shows you have an agenda to post disinformation about the topic.

If you're concerned with disinformation, you might want to be more
careful about the words you choose to put quotes around, because that
isn't what I said.

And if you don't see how GPS was funded for its offensive capability,
I suggest that you review the plethora of information in the links
provided in this thread alone.

A grand total of -ZERO- of those words came from me.

The words I did use were "offensive weaponry capability".

So what are we disagreeing on here? Perhaps you have a problem with
the adjective "offensive".

Do you think that the military developed GPS for *defense*? They are
in the business of killing people. They use technology to kill people
more efficiently. The justification for funding multiples of billions
of dollars for GPS fits right in with that.

Perhaps you have a problem with the term "weaponry capability". What
examples would you like to examine? Nuclear bomber capability? SLBM
capability? GPS bomb capability?!

I'll go back to my original point:

GPS was not funded so that you can have a moving map in your car for
your daily commute to work.

I do agree with a particular point you made. I do have an agenda. My
goal has been stated clearly several times on this forum:

I strive for accurate space history.

Consider the masses who make experience a daily scene like driving
their car on the interstate using a GPS moving map, go to their office
and use the internet to check the weather radar... Totally oblivious
that all of these systems:

- Interstate highways,
- GPS,
- Internet,
- Weather sats

All were derived from nuclear motivations of the Cold War. That's the
story that accurate space history tells. If you don't see how GPS
fits into that. If you don't see how it came about as a system for
increasing offensive weaponry capability, then I am glad to consider
any perspectives that you have to offer.

I am here to learn from others. And to share what I know. By all
means, please take what you like and discard the rest. I appreciate
all constructive feedback because that helps me achieve my "agenda".

~ CT

Relevant Pages

  • Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
    ... shows you have an agenda to post disinformation about the topic. ... Do you think that the military developed GPS for *defense*? ... Perhaps you have a problem with the term "weaponry capability". ... I do have an agenda. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
    ... shows you have an agenda to post disinformation about the topic. ... Do you think that the military developed GPS for *defense*? ... Perhaps you have a problem with the term "weaponry capability". ... I do have an agenda. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Re-using old non-GPS phones verboten
    ... (not just new handsets, ALL handsets) ... A requirement is already in effect that 100% of new handsets have the capability. ... The requirement is because the FCC wants the capability there to be able to locate people when they call 911 fom their cell phones. ... If you absolutely do not want a phone with GPS capability, then you can go to T-Mobile or Cingular, which do not require you to have a GPS enabled phone. ...
    (alt.cellular.verizon)
  • Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
    ... > I recently posted one example of a new capability provided by GPS: ... > offensive strategic forces. ... Consider, for example, the planning of ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
    ... > I recently posted one example of a new capability provided by GPS: ... > offensive strategic forces. ... Consider, for example, the planning of ...
    (sci.space.policy)