XPost: sci.military.moderated   
   From: root@mauve.demon.co.uk   
      
   In sci.space.tech Andrew Swallow    
   wrote:   
   >   
   > "Ian Stirling"  wrote in message   
   > news:BxMrc.6064$wI4.721546@wards.force9.net...   
   >> In sci.space.tech Derek Lyons  wrote:   
   >> > 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.   
   >>   
   >> There is of course the third possibility, that someone phoned iridium,   
   >> and asked them to turn of Iraq at 3AM Friday for 4 hours.   
   >   
   > In 1991 I suspect that it was not the Iridium network.   
      
   Oops, sorry wrong war.   
   This time they were rather more aggressive than just jamming his   
   phone. :/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)