Antwort: Re: Antwort: [iwar] interesting pointer
From: Markus Spindler
From: Markus.Spindler@ascom.ch
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:30:26 +0100
fc Tue Mar 6 06:33:33 2001
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 06 Mar 2001 06:33:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 9925 invoked by uid 510); 6 Mar 2001 14:28:29 -0000
Received: from ml.egroups.com (208.50.144.77)
by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2001 14:28:29 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1009-983888982-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.54] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Mar 2001 14:29:42 -0000
X-Sender: Markus.Spindler@ascom.ch
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 6 Mar 2001 14:29:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 64732 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2001 14:29:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2001 14:29:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO rubicon.hasler.ascom.ch) (139.79.129.1) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2001 15:30:45 -0000
Received: from srvmailgate1.hasler.ascom.ch (srvmailgate1.hasler.ascom.ch [139.79.135.89]) by rubicon.hasler.ascom.ch (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26ETbo18159 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:29:37 +0100 (MET)
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID:
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on SrvMailGate1/Ascom(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 06.03.2001 15:29:37
X-Filter-Version: 1.2 (rubicon)
From: "Markus Spindler"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:30:26 +0100
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Antwort: Re: Antwort: [iwar] interesting pointer
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Fred, all,
I consider the actual crash rather boring (see below).
What I think is very interesting and worthwhile discussing
is the IWAR aspect of this: We have at hand a realtime example
of perception management, even involving substantial assets
(US presence on naval bases in Japan). So go on,
lets discuss...
Did the involved parties do their homework?
What do (or should) they want to achieve, and do they succeed?
Obviously, right now the Japanese handle the situation much
to their advantage. Has anybody a guess on the next moves
of the Navy? Of the Japanese?
Regards, Markus
ps: why the accident is boring:
every stretch of water has its access rights (national territory,
etc.etc.),
rules who has to get out of the way of whome,
and sometimes even speed limits.
Submarines have additional rules for vertical movement.
So far, everything can be checked easily. He who violates
one of the rules is to blame.
Next level is the tragical/cynical remaining risk
on vertical sub movement:
sub captains can give at most a best guess what will expect
them on surface. So if you are hardly detectable
(eg. stealth, or simply "Harry Muscleman crossing the pacific on
a limp biscuit") then you might get hit by a sub popping up.
If everybody followed the rules, this is simply a (tragical)
accident that cannot be avoided by precaution.
The last question in this case would be whether the sub owner
pays some compensation to the sunken vessel's owner
out of a "general risk acceptance running subs".
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Find software faster. Search more than 20,000
software solutions on KnowledgeStorm. Register
now and get started.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ncHzAA/yMSCAA/7f4EAA/kzAVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
------------------
http://all.net/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/