Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
From: Scott M. Kozel (kozelsm_at_attbi.com)
Date: 07/22/04
- Next message: Scott M. Kozel: "Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)"
- Previous message: hpywife927_at_yahoo.com: "Re: "Ignore LaDonna Wyss", please read this."
- In reply to: Stuf4: "Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)"
- Next in thread: Stuf4: "Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)"
- Reply: Stuf4: "Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:08:40 -0400
tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) wrote:
>
> From Scott Kozel:
>
> > Three satellites would have been sufficient to fully test the concept.
> >
> > They started launching in 1978, and by the time they were finished in
> > 1996, the Cold War had been over for five years. That shows that they
> > put hardly any priority on GPS.
>
> I would agree that GPS was not a top priority program in the early
> years. I don't see how that in any way refutes the point that GPS was
> funded because of its military justification. (Again, it was seen as
> a force multiplier, not as some necessary vital element that the
> military could not do without.)
You have failed to post any credible cites that GPS was funded because
of "military justification" or that it was a "force multiplier".
The low priority on implementation that I cited above, strongly argues
against it.
> > > And I find your criticism of "military myths" particularly curious,
> > > especially since you have stated that you have a wealth of background
> > > on the matter. Here are quotes from a speech prepared by Eisenhower
> > > himself:
> > >
> > > ...cited five "penalties" of the nation's obsolete highway network:
> > > the annual death and injury toll, the waste of billions of dollars
> > > in detours and traffic jams, the clogging of the nation's courts
> > > with highway-related suits, the inefficiency in the transportation
> > > of goods, and "the appalling inadequacies to meet the demands of
> > > catastrophe or defense, should an atomic war come."
> >
> > Of the "five penalties" cited in one Eisenhower speech, four were purely
> > civil and only one was for defense; and each of those four "civil
> > penalties" were -huge-.
>
> It seems we can agree that the threat of atomic war was a concern.
> That would make the disagreement a matter of degree.
A 'catastrophe' could include a natural disaster such as a hurricane or
an earthquake or a flood.
When I buy a car, its use for evacuation in case of atomic war would
have a greater than zero weighting among all the other reasons for
buying the car, but that weighting would be less than 1% when weighed
against all the other routine uses for the car, and when considering
that the car would be useless if millions of other cars in the
metropolitan area were trying to do the same thing (nuclear evacuation).
That is a good illustration of the relative importance of new highways
for nuclear evacuation, the relative weighting of importance would be
tiny, and no urban freeway would ever be built for that reason alone.
> You have piped in with an extended commentary to "set the record
> straight with respect to Interstate highways" and then you support
> your points with a webpage that tells us about the threat of atomic
> war and "the significance of the interstate system to national
> defense".
>
> If you and I can agree with the points made in the very reference you
> have provided, then there is nothing else for us to discuss about
> highways here.
The fact that something is mentioned somewhere in a long article,
doesn't mean that it was any more than a tiny justification. The
webpage doesn't rank the various justifications.
Of the "five penalties" cited in one Eisenhower speech, four were purely
civil and only one was for defense; and each of those four "civil
penalties" were -huge-. According to that, maybe it could be argued
that of the total justification, that no more than 1/5 (or 20%) of the
total justification was for military reasons.
Most of the military uses would be for the transportation of freight,
personnel, and fighting vehicles, just like how the railroads would be
used.
> > Of course I read it, Stuffie. You found the word "defense" in there,
> > and think you can make that the main justification for the Interstate
> > system, when in fact it was a minor element.
>
> I don't recall ever communicating that defense was the main
> justification for this legislation.
You have certainly acted like it, and you posted and defended a webpage
that (wrongly) calls it the "National Defense Highway System", which
makes it sound like all or nearly all of the justification was for
national defense.
> > By itself it doesn't do anything, and it wasn't completed until well
> > after the Cold War had ended.
>
> By itself, a nuclear warhead does not "do anything" either. (Except
> rust and decay.)
Oh please. When a nuclear warhead explodes, it does one heck of a lot.
A GPS satellite can't hurt anybody.
-- Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
- Next message: Scott M. Kozel: "Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)"
- Previous message: hpywife927_at_yahoo.com: "Re: "Ignore LaDonna Wyss", please read this."
- In reply to: Stuf4: "Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)"
- Next in thread: Stuf4: "Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)"
- Reply: Stuf4: "Re: National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
