XPost: sci.military.moderated   
   From: am.swallow@eatspam.btinternet.com.retro.com   
      
   "Derek Lyons"  wrote in message   
   news:40b5543a.4501306@supernews.seanet.com...   
   > Ian Stirling  wrote:   
   > >In sci.space.tech Derek Lyons  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >    
   > >   
   > >> However, there is no evidence of intent behind the jamming, leaving   
   > >> unanswered the question as to 'intentional or accidental'.  Also,   
   > >> there is no apparent advantage to intentional jamming during a raid,   
   > >> which lessens the likelihood that it was intentional.  Given that the   
   > >> phone communicated with other equipment, which then communicated with   
   > >> the satellite, there are two legs vulnerable to interference.   
   > >   
   > >It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that iridium would provide   
   > >an improvised C&C system.   
   >   
   > That's certainly true.  But it's still a long leap from the facts (the   
   > phone stopped working during a raid) to the conclusion reached by the   
   > original poster (the military deliberately jammed the phone).  Given   
   > that the air raids went in behind an ECM/EW 'wall', it's impossible to   
   > discern whether the jamming was intended, or a side effect.   
   >   
   Irrelevant.   
      
   If the ECM/EW was targeted or just hit every frequency.  The   
   satellite channel was still jammed.   
      
   Andrew Swallow   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)