🚀 go-pugleaf

In <C0Js9I.87@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Define "adequate".  Microsat levels of resolution should be adequate
>for many military requirements.  Tactical commanders don't care about
>the license-plate numbers on the tanks...

If you're planning air strikes with smart weapons, 10-meter resolution
isn't going to cut it.  You need *which* one of those buildings is the
command bunker.

Microsats can supplement our current recon satellites, but can't
replace them.


>Careful here...  I don't know exactly what legal maneuvers took place
>when the US formally joined the UN, but if the UN Charter has the status
>of a Senate-ratified treaty, that means it has the force of law in the
>US... and one of the clauses in there is a renunciation of war as an
>instrument of national policy.

Well, not really.  The "supreme law of the land" is the US Constitution,
not international treaties -- no matter what the State Department might
tell you.  It pretty specifically spells out warmaking powers in terms
that can't be ammended by a simple act of Congress.

All of which is irrelevent because, as I said, George Bush de facto
surrendered US sovereignty in 1992.