Butters 0 #1 November 8, 2007 What do you think about Dwight D. Eisenhower and the CORONA satellite reconnaissance program?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,599 #2 November 8, 2007 QuoteWhat do you think about Dwight D. Eisenhower and the CORONA satellite reconnaissance program? Depends, where did he stand on the slice of lime issue?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 November 8, 2007 QuoteWhat do you think about Dwight D. Eisenhower and the CORONA satellite reconnaissance program? I'm unclear as to what you might think is controversial about it. Ultimately the concept has saved lives many, many times over.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #4 November 8, 2007 I did not say whether it was controversial (although I do believe it was). I found it interesting that the public had a negative perception while the president had a positive perception in regards to being the second nation to successfully launch a satellite into orbit because of the information available to each. Is it not possible that there are issues today in which the public has a negative perception while the president has a positive perception based on the information available to each? If it is possible, think of the implications ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,599 #5 November 8, 2007 Aren't you conflating two different things there? Whether Corona was an effective system, and whether people were happy at being trumped by Sputnik? Was Eisenhower happy that Russia got their satellites up first?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #6 November 8, 2007 So what are you saying? Father knows best? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #7 November 8, 2007 QuoteAren't you conflating two different things there? Whether Corona was an effective system, and whether people were happy at being trumped by Sputnik? Was Eisenhower happy that Russia got their satellites up first? Yes, Eisenhower was happy that Russia got their satellites up first."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 November 8, 2007 MMMMMMMM Corona MMMMMMMMMM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #9 November 8, 2007 QuoteI did not say whether it was controversial (although I do believe it was). I found it interesting that the public had a negative perception while the president had a positive perception in regards to being the second nation to successfully launch a satellite into orbit because of the information available to each. Is it not possible that there are issues today in which the public has a negative perception while the president has a positive perception based on the information available to each? If it is possible, think of the implications ... You're slightly mistaken as to history re: US public perception & Eisenhower's attitude. The negative public perception in the US in after Sputnik 1 was mainly disappointment that the Soviets "beat" the US in the race to launch the 1st satellite: the home team lost the game. The US probably could have used its Redstone missile technology to launch a satellite a year before Sputnik 1. But Ike didn't think the "space race" was important, so the Redstone team was held back. What he really was enthused about was the idea of using orbital satellites as surveillance platforms that were far superior to aircraft; but that wasn't discussed openly back then because it was top secret. That was a political miscalculation on Ike's part. So, after Sputnik 1 was launched, it's not that Ike had a "positive attitude" about the US coming in second; it's just that he felt it was no big deal, and that's what he initially told the US public. But he couldn't tell them why he felt that way: because he had an active hand in the US secretly developing spy satellite technology that would provide great benefits. The result was that people began to discount him as disengaged and out of touch That was another political miscalculation on his part: the public was pissed, there was fear that the Soviets were ahead in a "missile gap", and eventually Ike's White House was forced, politically, to buy into the "space race" with the Soviets, which every Administration thereafter maintained until Apollo 11 landed on the moon in 1969. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #10 November 8, 2007 A General in the United States Army who became President of the United States and decided to decrease relations and increase espionage instead of increasing relations because of paranoia. Thinking about these decisions and the affect they have had (and do have) politically, scientifically, socially, ... it amazes me."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #11 November 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteAren't you conflating two different things there? Whether Corona was an effective system, and whether people were happy at being trumped by Sputnik? Was Eisenhower happy that Russia got their satellites up first? Yes, Eisenhower was happy that Russia got their satellites up first. Well, yes and no. Ike didn't like the political fallout of the US being "beaten" into space by the USSR. But Ike advocated an "open skies" policy which the Soviets opposed. Ike planned to force the issue by launching a satellite which, of course, would over-fly the entire globe, including the USSR - and he expected that the Soviets would howl in protest once that happened. But when the Soviets did it first, they took care of that little problem for him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #12 November 8, 2007 QuoteThat was a political miscalculation on Ike's part. So, after Sputnik 1 was launched, it's not that Ike had a "positive attitude" about the US coming in second; it's just that he felt it was no big deal, and that's what he initially told the US public. But he couldn't tell them why he felt that way: because he had an active hand in the US secretly developing spy satellite technology that would provide great benefits. The result was that people began to discount him as disengaged and out of touch But Ike did have a positive perception about the United States coming in second because it meant that Russia instead of the United States set the precedence in regards to ownership of space which was a looming problem for the CORONA satellite reconnaissance program."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #13 November 8, 2007 QuoteA General in the United States Army who became President of the United States and decided to decrease relations and increase espionage instead of increasing relations because of paranoia. Thinking about these decisions and the affect they have had (and do have) politically, scientifically, socially, ... it amazes me. With all due respect to you, you're being naive about the world in the 1950's. Yes, the paranoia you described existed. But there's an old saying that "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." The Soviets were mean, dangerous sons of bitches who most definitely did threaten the US and its allies, and really did intend to dominate as much of the world as they could manage. Make no mistake about it: the Soviets especially in the 1950's, were dangerous fucking enemies, and they were serious about wanting to fry our asses if they could get away with it. Espionage and aerial surveillance of the USSR and elsewhere, first by aircraft (like the U-2) and later by satellite, was absolutely crucial to the US keeping the Soviets more or less in check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #14 November 8, 2007 QuoteBut Ike did have a positive perception about the United States coming in second because it meant that Russia instead of the United States set the precedence in regards to ownership of space which was a looming problem for the CORONA satellite reconnaissance program. You and I just made this point at the same time. See my post #11. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #15 November 8, 2007 QuoteWith all due respect to you, you're being naive about the world in the ____'s. Yes, the paranoia you described existed. But there's an old saying that "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." The _____ were mean, dangerous sons of bitches who most definitely did threaten the US and its allies, and really did intend to dominate most of the world if they could get away with it. Aerial surveillance of the _____, first by aircraft (like the U-2) and later by satellite, was absolutely crucial to the US keeping the _____ more or less in check. Fill in the blank ... will people say the same thing about the 2000's and Al-Qaeda?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,599 #16 November 8, 2007 Aerial and satellite surveillance of Al Quaida isn't exactly a hot issue. Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #17 November 8, 2007 Quote Fill in the blank ... will people say the same thing about the 2000's and Al-Qaeda? I'm trying to figure out the conclusion that the readers are supposed to arrive at. Are you suggesting that the threat from Al Qa'eda has been over-hyped in some way ... or under-appreciated? Are you suggesting that the CORONA program is paralleled with NSA wiretaps? Or commenting on the cuts in the Appropriations bill to the Air Force's space-based weapons program ... or cuts to funding for missile defense (the Polish radar sites)? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #18 November 8, 2007 No....I think he's trying to compare Joe Stalin's moustache with Osama bin Laden's beard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #19 November 9, 2007 QuoteQuote Fill in the blank ... will people say the same thing about the 2000's and Al-Qaeda? I'm trying to figure out the conclusion that the readers are supposed to arrive at. Are you suggesting that the threat from Al Qa'eda has been over-hyped in some way ... or under-appreciated? Are you suggesting that the CORONA program is paralleled with NSA wiretaps? Or commenting on the cuts in the Appropriations bill to the Air Force's space-based weapons program ... or cuts to funding for missile defense (the Polish radar sites)? VR/Marg None of the above. I was merely suggesting that the argument was to general and should not be used to make decisions that had, have, and will have drastic affects on world politics."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #20 November 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Fill in the blank ... will people say the same thing about the 2000's and Al-Qaeda? I'm trying to figure out the conclusion that the readers are supposed to arrive at. Are you suggesting that the threat from Al Qa'eda has been over-hyped in some way ... or under-appreciated? Are you suggesting that the CORONA program is paralleled with NSA wiretaps? Or commenting on the cuts in the Appropriations bill to the Air Force's space-based weapons program ... or cuts to funding for missile defense (the Polish radar sites)? VR/Marg None of the above. I was merely suggesting that the argument was to general and should not be used to make decisions that had, have, and will have drastic affects on world politics. What argument should be used, then?Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #21 November 9, 2007 Alright, I'll bite. What did you intend for the course of this thread? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #22 November 9, 2007 QuoteAlright, I'll bite. What did you intend for the course of this thread? I intended to get the thoughts of others in regards to Dwight D. Eisenhower and the CORONA satellite reconnaissance program. (What affects others believe it had politically, economically, scientifically, socially, etc... Whether others believe it was a positive or negative thing.)"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #23 November 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Fill in the blank ... will people say the same thing about the 2000's and Al-Qaeda? I'm trying to figure out the conclusion that the readers are supposed to arrive at. Are you suggesting that the threat from Al Qa'eda has been over-hyped in some way ... or under-appreciated? Are you suggesting that the CORONA program is paralleled with NSA wiretaps? Or commenting on the cuts in the Appropriations bill to the Air Force's space-based weapons program ... or cuts to funding for missile defense (the Polish radar sites)? VR/Marg None of the above. I was merely suggesting that the argument was to general and should not be used to make decisions that had, have, and will have drastic affects on world politics. What argument should be used, then? I do not know. I am still debating whether it was better to decrease relations and begin an espionage program or increase relations. The problem is that we know the outcome of choosing to decrease relations and begin an espionage program but we can only guess what the outcome would be if we had chosen to increase relations instead. Choosing to decrease relations and begin an espionage program resulted in a rift between the government and the public in that the public did not fully understand the situation at hand and thus could not understand the governments decisions, it started the space race, it ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #24 November 11, 2007 QuoteI am still debating whether it was better to decrease relations and begin an espionage program or increase relations. The problem is that we know the outcome of choosing to decrease relations and begin an espionage program but we can only guess what the outcome would be if we had chosen to increase relations instead. Choosing to decrease relations and begin an espionage program resulted in a rift between the government and the public in that the public did not fully understand the situation at hand and thus could not understand the governments decisions, it started the space race, it ... If (& that can be a dangerous assumption) I understand correctly, you’re talking about a counterfactual, i.e., trying to analytically ask the question of “if we had done “x” instead of the historical “y,” what would have happened/been the implications?” You’ve potentially got a neat case in part because you’ve indentified some specific causal relations to test. Are there comparable cases in which increased diplomacy was selected over covert action, and what were the outcomes? Frankly, I don't know enough about the specific programs to which you're referring. Nota bene: counterfactual analyses, which traces its roots to Hume, sometimes get confused with revisionist history or alternative history, which they’re not. Counterfactuals can be fascinating, im-ever-ho. A colleague & I are currently working on one related to use of nuclear weapons, which is a topic that has had a number of previous counterfactuals done, along w/the US civil war & reconstruction, WWI, and WWII ... pretty much any major armed conflict and a lot of minor ones too. If you’re really interested in this area, you might explore if someone has done explored the counterfactual that you’re suggesting. Some well known, popular examples include: Bob Cowly’s What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, Niall Furgusson’s Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals, and (a bit more methodolgically-focused, aka how to do better counterfactuals) Belkin & Tetlock’s Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #25 November 11, 2007 I thought, he liked Coors? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
