The great thing about science and scientific predictions: in the end, whether it's right or wrong doesn't depend upon your political biases.
You will be remembered for your contributions on this issue, I'm sure. What I'm not sure about is whether you'll like how you're remembered.
Yep. it's exhausting keeping up with these young whippersnappers.
I think you need to re-read the post above yours.
And you're probably right. On the other hand, history is littered with the dust of skeptics whose names have been forgotten, while the names of many of those they attacked are remembered. Which is as it should be: while skeptics are often right, knee-jerk skepticism is also a particularly risk-free approach to things, isn't it? These researchers will have a chance to prove their results further, and others will attempt to replicate. We'll see what happens.
Exactly. It's like saying a telescope sucks power out of whatever it looks at. Electromagnetic radiation doesn't work that way.
I don't think so. This isn't like siphoning energy from the E-field around a power line (which actually does result in loss of power): electromagnetic signals are radiated away and go to heating the environment if they're not received.
While true, many satellite earth stations require dishes that track satellites in order to provide an uplink (depends upon the band and the satellite system used). Within reason, a system can maintain a lock under a variety of circumstances. A hit from a missile and the resultant, immediate aircraft disintegration probably presents a situation that would make such a lock exceedingly difficult to maintain.
I work in this field (aeronautical communications, including satellite systems), and specifically with FAA personnel who are tasked with knowing and regulating such systems (spectrum managers). What I'm saying comes directly as an answer from them in response to a query about why we don't do exactly as you suggest. It's not merely a question of the total satellite bandwidth available. Satellite bandwidth is used for a lot of things, remember -- and only a small subset is used for protected aeronautical satellite (AMS(R)S) assignments. It's not as simple as you suggest.
I won't even rate this one as "nice try".
I'd think there would be an additional consideration, though: BUK and similar systems are "transponder aware", and thus will avoid hitting civilian aircraft by default. Whoever fired this would have had to know the system well enough to disable transponder sensing.
It's not a matter of technology. It's a matter of satellite bandwidth, given the number of flights in the air. One possible solution has been developed that predicts imminent disaster and rapidly commences data upload. I'm not sure whether that would work in the case of a missile attack, though.
Stupidity, bigotry, and grammar violations all in a two-line post. I suppose that's par for the course. Kids these days.
I'll trade you Wikipedia links!
You might also need to eliminate caste effects--as far as we know, a uniquely human thing that may affect the expression of base intelligence.