4 ms·

This is typical busy work given to agents to make them feel important, to test their loyalty and ability to accomplish tasks provided. For the most part, it's n

by bbbbb5 4y ago

This is typical busy work given to agents to make them feel important, to test their loyalty and ability to accomplish tasks provided. For the most part, it's not actually supposed to result in useful intelligence. Also there's a huge difference between tracking military equipment movements and power infrastructure. Power infrastructure doesn't move and can't really be hidden.

mannerheim 4y ago
Apparently valuable enough to do a prisoner exchange for. I also doubt the quality of the optics in Russian satellites.
- ithkuil 4y ago
  Nepotism can provide an alternative explanation for prisoner exchange even if the actual task was literally busywork
  - bbbbb5 4y ago
    If it was about nepotism, we'd presumably be talking about an officer and not an agent.
- bbbbb5 4y ago
  >Apparently valuable enough to do a prisoner exchange for. You don't do prisoner exchanges because of the valuable contributions of that agent, you do prisoner exchanges to ensure future contributions by other agents. >I also doubt the quality of the optics in Russian satellites. They're just fine. What kind of quality do you think they need to hit a power plant with a missile? Most of their missiles aren't that precise anyway. There's only an extremely limited set of circumstances where drone footage of power infrastructure could be useful.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    In any event, Russia does send spies to do precisely what you insisted they don't.
    - bbbbb5 4y ago
      Your article says nothing about the nature of the surveillance. It does not in any way dispute my previous comments.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > I also doubt the quality of the optics in Russian satellites. Doesn't Leica have a reputation for world-beating optics?
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  > I also doubt the quality of the optics in Russian satellites. Uh, why? I can understand doubting the electronics in their satellites, but the mirrors? Why do you think Russia can't polish mirrors?
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    The US is so tight-lipped about its spy satellites, even the resolution of their images are classified, and it forces US commercial satellite operators to degrade image resolution as well. Maybe I'm wrong, but if it were trivial to do, then someone should launch a satellite imaging startup outside of US jurisdiction.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      > even the resolution of their images are classified Yeah, but physics isn't. Good resolution requires large mirrors. Large mirrors require large satellites. These aren't cubesats we're talking about; optical American spy satellites have 2.4 meter wide mirrors and are more than 10 meters long. The only non-US/Chinese/Russian rocket that can launch such a satellite in principle is the Ariane 5, but AFAIK they don't fly that to polar orbits. In any case, not many people have the equipment laying around to make such large mirrors, or the expertise, or a stockpile of such mirrors. Russia likely has all three, or certainly once did.

by bbbbb5 4y ago

mannerheim 4y ago

Apparently valuable enough to do a prisoner exchange for. I also doubt the quality of the optics in Russian satellites.

ithkuil 4y ago
Nepotism can provide an alternative explanation for prisoner exchange even if the actual task was literally busywork
- bbbbb5 4y ago
  If it was about nepotism, we'd presumably be talking about an officer and not an agent.
bbbbb5 4y ago
>Apparently valuable enough to do a prisoner exchange for. You don't do prisoner exchanges because of the valuable contributions of that agent, you do prisoner exchanges to ensure future contributions by other agents. >I also doubt the quality of the optics in Russian satellites. They're just fine. What kind of quality do you think they need to hit a power plant with a missile? Most of their missiles aren't that precise anyway. There's only an extremely limited set of circumstances where drone footage of power infrastructure could be useful.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  In any event, Russia does send spies to do precisely what you insisted they don't.
  - bbbbb5 4y ago
    Your article says nothing about the nature of the surveillance. It does not in any way dispute my previous comments.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> I also doubt the quality of the optics in Russian satellites. Doesn't Leica have a reputation for world-beating optics?
LarryMullins 4y ago
> I also doubt the quality of the optics in Russian satellites. Uh, why? I can understand doubting the electronics in their satellites, but the mirrors? Why do you think Russia can't polish mirrors?
- mannerheim 4y ago
  The US is so tight-lipped about its spy satellites, even the resolution of their images are classified, and it forces US commercial satellite operators to degrade image resolution as well. Maybe I'm wrong, but if it were trivial to do, then someone should launch a satellite imaging startup outside of US jurisdiction.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    > even the resolution of their images are classified Yeah, but physics isn't. Good resolution requires large mirrors. Large mirrors require large satellites. These aren't cubesats we're talking about; optical American spy satellites have 2.4 meter wide mirrors and are more than 10 meters long. The only non-US/Chinese/Russian rocket that can launch such a satellite in principle is the Ariane 5, but AFAIK they don't fly that to polar orbits. In any case, not many people have the equipment laying around to make such large mirrors, or the expertise, or a stockpile of such mirrors. Russia likely has all three, or certainly once did.