X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:07:20 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >uhh, I don't think so.  By 'tracking', these units are in fact turning
> >on their radar.  With their radar turned on, it is a simple matter to
> >push a button and launch missles.  You don't launch missles until your
> >radar is on.  These planes are only acting in self-defense.

No, you are not quite correct there. What you are talking about
is having the radar assemblages spinning around, "let's see what
is out there." What (if I heard correctly) happened was the radar
was specifically looking at the planes, the radar held a track,
and a little light and and a little buzzer started saying to the
pilots "someone could fire a missile at you and you'd be dead."

You can track a jet, knowing exactly where it is at all times,
without doing that. It is an agressive act. It is exactly what
UN forces were worrying about when they started raising the stink
about missiles.

> If the US is ever held to account for its numerous war crimes, and the UN
> orders a no-fly zone over a portion of US soil - do you think the US won't
> track inbound UN flights over US soil?

There is a difference between what they did and what you seem to
think they did. There is a difference between an armed man walking
around with a gun and an armed man with a laser scope on his rifle
pointing at you with the red dot on your forehead.

> The Iraqis have every right to track those flights - as they did to move their
> missles around THEIR OWN SOIL.

I hate to agree with brett`, but what they did was an agressive
act. It was not mere "tracking," and as such, any pilot who does
not act accordingly has a death wish.

> >And if you
> >are flying a plane and want to wait until you actually _see_ a missile,
> >that's your death-wish.

> I hope you don't advocate this action _everywhere_; the US regularly orders
> fly-overs of other countries for intelligence purposes...if and when those
> countries activate their radars (again, their right - since the planes would
> be violating international law), would it be OK for the US planes (ie,
> the violaters) to bomb the radar sites?

1) a SR-71, for example, does not have weaponry. Few spy planes do,
   as the cameras are very bulky, carrying all those telephotos and
   all. As such, they cannot bomb the radar sites.

2) The spyplanes normally fly high enough so that few missiles can
   reach them. However, most spying from the air has been replaced
   by spying from orbit, i.e. spy satellites. Your example CANNOT
   happen.

3) Iraq is surely considered an active war zone. Few places are.
   Although it is a war zone under cease-fire rules, those rules
   could break down at any moment. Again, any pilot who did not
   at least consider the actions taken is risking his life and
   that of his wingman.

And, by the way, a good jet can go about Mach3, maybe. Missiles
go up to Mach 4, with *MUCH* better maneuverability. If you can
eyeball a missile, you are dead. Simple as that.

> -T.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU