Thanks, Doug. That's certainly a more interesting (and plausible)
explanation of what happened than what I had read. But I wasn't "blaming the
computer" in citing this example. I was simply pointing out that who
owns/operates a building is rarely detectable/determinable from its physical
characteristics, elint emissions notwithstanding. While some physical
characteristics might be clues from which one can inference purpose or
ownership, doing so remains a probabilistic exercise. Actual ownership is
typically captured and represented on paper or in cyberspace. And the
targeting database was not the authoritative source for this type of
information in this example (it would be a surprise if it were!). The
question then becomes how current and comprehensive (and correct) the
coupling of the targeting data base to the authoritative source was. As one
might suspect, it's more likely to be current and accurate for "high value"
or "high interest" geospatial entities, since it takes significant resources
to maintain such coupling with uncooperative or less accessible
authoritative sources, as I am sure the CIA would attest. Of course, the
world of covert operations further complicates the issue of determining what
the true reality is/was. (01)
Hans (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:45 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures (03)
On Thu, September 27, 2012 21:30, Hans Polzer wrote:
> ...
> The USAF pilot and plane that attacked the Chinese Embassy in
> Belgrade, Serbia during the Bosnian War had no way of sensing that the
> building was the Chinese Embassy. The pilot in fact hit the exact
> building he was aiming at, and it was the correct physical target. (04)
Correct. (05)
> Unfortunately, a Serbian
> government agency had sold the building to the Chinese shortly before
> the war (I don't remember the precise time delta), (06)
It was actually well before the start of the war. I can't quickly find out
the details, but according to the NY TImes, the "CIA turn[ed] up in its
files two maps that accurately placed the embassy: one was a map handed out
by a Belgrade bank that showed a branch office near the embassy; the other
listed the embassy and its grid coordinates in its index"
-- July 23, 1999
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/global/072399china-embassy.html (07)
The turn-around from when the embassy opened until the bank issued its map
is unlikely to be quick. (08)
> and that conceptual reality was not conveyed to and correctly
> represented in the data base of buildings in Belgrade used to support
> targeting of air missions at the time. (09)
The location was not in NATO's data base. However, this was a CIA targeting
decision (the only one it made during the war). (010)
My understanding is that the bombs exploded in the embassy's radio room.
The CIA figured that radio signals from the building were going to Yugoslav
forces. (011)
The US explanations (that the building looked similar to a building a few
hundred meters away, that they were attacking the headquarters of the
Yugoslav arms agency because it selling to "rogue" nations, ...) would not
explain that the room targeted was the radio room. Only by knowing the
interior layout of the building could the US locate the radio room. (012)
"The Observer", published "Nato bombed Chinese deliberately"
on 16 October 1999. Excerpts: "According to senior military and
intelligence sources in Europe and the US the Chinese embassy was removed
from a prohibited targets list after Nato electronic intelligence (Elint)
detected it sending army signals to Milosevic's
forces." "a source in the US National Imagery and Mapping
Agency said that the 'wrong map' story was 'a damned lie'."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/oct/17/balkans (013)
It is always fun to blame "the computer" or "the system" for a "failure",
when one intends something, but wants an excuse. (014)
> ... (015)
> Hans (016)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (017)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (018)
|