Re: N Korea needs us!

From: Graham (fostex@optushome.com.au)
Date: Tue Aug 10 2004 - 10:11:06 EDT

  • Next message: Laura Grego: "Re: reasons for tracking"

    Quick hide the tanks quote:
    
    "And an international band of amateur astronomers has determined to find,
    track and webcast the location of all the members of this orbital fleet for
    anyone who cares to look--including such less than friendly sorts as Saddam
    Hussein and Kim Jong-il."
    
    Ted said
     "The reality is that Al Qaeda has little or nothing to gain from knowing
    the
     precise orbits of spy satellites."
    
    Maybe you could go to Afghanistan, start a training  camp and wave at all
    the Keyhole
    sats?.Then duck when the smart bomb hits you.
    
    Graham
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Original Message -----
    From: "Ted Molczan" <molczan@rogers.com>
    To: "SeeSat-L" <SeeSat-L@satobs.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:51 PM
    Subject: RE: N Korea needs us!
    
    
    > Graham wrote:
    >
    > > What has this N Korea nonsense got to do with this dissussion?,
    > > as it this data would be used by North Korea!,this
    > > is wildly throwing reality out the window.Arm chair
    > > sluths get real!.The only people using this data
    > > for destructive purposes  would be Al Qaeda
    > > sympathizers.Stick to the facts and reality
    >
    > The reality is that Al Qaeda has little or nothing to gain from knowing
    the
    > precise orbits of spy satellites.
    >
    > Soon after the shock of the 9-11 attacks, came the further shock that the
    > perpetrators had lived and trained to fly aircraft in such lovely
    communities as
    > Boca Raton, Deerfield Beach and Delray Beach, all located in South
    Florida,
    > U.S.A. They had hidden in plain sight, coincidentally, in places which one
    can
    > be certain were not tasked for U.S. spysat imaging.
    >
    > Even if they had been training in countries routinely tasked for imaging,
    > terrorists operate on such a small scale that they are nearly impossible
    to
    > distinguish from the communities in which they reside.
    >
    > Imaging reconnaissance satellites are products of the cold war, designed
    to
    > image missiles, aircraft, naval vessels, tanks, and their supporting
    military
    > bases and industrial infrastructure (e.g. factories, railways, sea ports).
    Most
    > of these facilities are large and fixed in location, often taking years to
    > construct - all of which make them ideal imaging targets. Despite Russia's
    > robust capability to track the imagers, which informed their deception and
    > denial programs, it could not hide everything it did, all of the time.
    >
    > In contrast, terrorists hide out in rural caves and urban safe houses,
    drive
    > around in cars and SUVs, and the closest thing they have to military bases
    are
    > little more than boot camps. They do not remain in one place very long.
    All of
    > this makes them poor targets for imaging.
    >
    > Consider the 9-11 perpetrators. As far as is known, their principle
    activities
    > consisted of surveilling their targets (by visiting them, much as a
    tourist
    > would), taking flying lessons, personal combat training, and meeting in
    hotel
    > rooms in the U.S. and abroad. None of this would have stood out
    meaningfully in
    > a satellite image.
    >
    > Much more useful against terrorists are the SIGINT (signals intelligence)
    > satellites, which can intercept communications transmitted via radio. The
    > satellites in question operate in very high orbits, of the geosynchronous
    and
    > Molniya class. Knowing the precise orbits of SIGINT sats is of zero use to
    > terrorists because there is virtually no place on Earth that is not under
    the
    > constant surveillance of one or more such satellites. The only certain way
    for
    > the terrorists to evade detection by such satellites is to avoid modes of
    > communication which involve radio transmissions, which they did not learn
    from
    > SeeSat-L.
    >
    >
    > > Do as others have done and tighten access
    > > to data.Turning security into a joke isn't only idiotic,
    > > it's dangerous.
    >
    > The roughly dozen or so folks who contribute most of the spy sat
    observations
    > are mostly mature, well-educated, thoughtful people, from around the
    world,
    > including the U.S.A. Our professions include law, science, applied
    sciences, and
    > business. We range in age from 51 to 78 years (median 63 years). I cannot
    recall
    > the last time any of us joked about security on SeeSat-L. Nor do we joke
    about
    > it in private.
    >
    > I do not pretend to speak for the others, but as I see it, what would be
    truly
    > idiotic, and dangerous to democracy, would be to engage in meaningless
    > self-censorship, either in the mistaken belief that it would do any good,
    or out
    > of concern for our image.
    >
    > Ted Molczan
    >
    >
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Frequently Asked Questions, SeeSat-L archive:
    > http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
    >
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Frequently Asked Questions, SeeSat-L archive:  
    http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 10 2004 - 10:32:29 EDT