Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!wjh12!genrad!decvax!decwrl!amd!dual!ames!al From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Space for Peace Message-ID: <579@ames.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 15:13:02 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.579 Posted: Thu Oct 18 15:13:02 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Oct-84 07:56:25 EDT References: <554@ames.UUCP> <211@x.UUCP> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 76 > Well, nice try, but I fear it would not work. First, the power available > to the satellite has nothing to do with the portable cameras (it would be > easy to jam the cameras, in which case the unjammable satellites transmit > noise); the cameras have to be heard by the satellite, and pouring power > into the receiver does not help. You might also lose a few camera operators > to mis-placed "[sic]" shots. I don't claim this would end war, I do claim it could have measurable impact. The cameras can be jammed by sophisticated powers, but it does take effort. Third world countries, which have most of the wars, are not (at least presently) together enough to successfully jam all such broadcast. Even cameramem who must lug their data with them get out with stuff from time to time. Of course we'll lose a few cameramen, we always have. We're not going to get peace without casualties. I just hope I'm not one of them. > > Second, we easily have the current technology to destroy a satellite in > geosynchronous orbit, if the two superpowers were to agree that it were a > really good idea and didn't get in each other's way. We have the technology, but no operational systems. It takes an operational system to actually get the job done. With luck and a good verifiable space weapons ban we might never have an operational system. > > Third, it might not make a difference anyway. In the Communist bloc and the > Third World, people possessing sets which could receive the transmissions > would have them confiscated (those who feel appropriately may read the line: > would be shot (... ) ), You over-rate the efficiency of both systems. A good deal of subversive behavior goes on in the USSR without punishment 'cause they don't get caught. The third world is notoriously inefficient so the argument goes double for them. > standard license is considered obnoxious by many, especially those whose > frequency you have pre-empted in a high-handed manner, and those other whom > you wipe out with sideband splatter). Get a license. Hard perhaps, impossible, no. > > Fourth, consider the results of TV coverage of Vietnam. Did it really have > the impact that is assumed? It is quite conceivable that the people who > were convinced by it that the Vietnam war was a pretty bad idea were people > who were amenable to that idea anyway. There were certainly many people who > saw it and still thought that Vietnam was necessary and good for maintaining > freedom/democracy/their stock portfolios/whatever. > I didn't say we'd convince everyone, just make a dent. Apparently, the majority of Americans were convinced by the coverage and other factors. Other people are a lot like us (2 arms, 2 legs, one head, etc.) and might react similarly. We could use a little re-convincing as well. > For more thoughts on this kind of subject, you ought to research the efforts > by the Third World countries to implement their proposed New Information > Order (or whatever the title is) in the United Nations. But, alas, only to > see how antagonistic almost everyone would be to such a plan... The New Information Order, if I understand it right, is an attempt by governments to control all information within their borders. I don't think that's a good idea at all, especially given the quality of most governments. My plan is subversive to the New Information Order, in the extreme. > > > I wish I had answers. Unfortunately, I am overstocked with questions at the > moment. > -- > John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1114 > ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA I have lots of answers, most, if not all, of them wrong. This kind of debate is exzillerating (spelling!) and helps separate the wheat from the chaff.