Shot fired and a hit on the satellite according to

intial reports

http://www.cnn.com/

More

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331591,00.html

Reagan's SDI (Star Wars) finally realized...24 years gone by.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/road.pdf

Thats pretty cool Gdog thanks.

Great, we can shoot down satellites. I wonder how long before other, less than friendly, countries can do it also? Think comm sats, those neat ones that make our GPS's work, etc...

Those Satellites make their GPS's work too.

China did it last year. BTW thats why I carry a compass.

LOL.

Fairly recently the Chinese shot one of their satellites. And a mighty gasp was heard within the US about how the Chinese were going to stage a 'Pearl Harbor on the Hight Frontier'. What got missed was the many developments and tests the US had been doing along the same lines.

The unwritten logic was: US developments are 'good' and in the service of peace' but the Chinese efforts are a 'threat to world peace and US security'. Silly.

Now this administration has, at considerable cost (one estimate was $1 Billion), deigned to shoot at one of our satellites. The experts on such things pointed out that the whole 'hydrazine risk' story was canard. The odds of a hydrazine tank surviving reentry are slim to none. Assuming it made it down at least partly intact the risk was minimal, contamination of an estimated two football fields.

Which means that for purely symbolic reasons, demonstrating we can, we have spent most of a Billion dollars for no practical effect.

Maybe it is just me but this smacks of the psychology of insecure adolescent boys. A need to 'prove themselves' and an immature inability to restrain themselves that drives them to do outlandish inappropriate acts simply because 'they can'. Regardless of the consequences.

Again, maybe it is just me but I keep getting the feeling this administration needs adult supervision.

Yup, that pretty much describes me

GPS Sats are out 24,000 miles (I think) and would be a lot harder to hit then one that’s only 100-miles away.


I would guess we shot it down for a few reasons. Yes it may have been a danger, but I would also guess we were sending a message to China and other countries (China said they want to go to the Moon) that if they pick up any of our moon junk we can keep you from bringing it back.

I'd say the adolescence in these statements is glaring. Isn't it alarming to anyone how, if we're honest, we know so little yet pretend to know so much?

A billion dollars (a wild guess by ANY standards) for technology advancement that goes so much farther than just military use, and "we" whine (like adolescents), yet we'll vote for 10's if not 100's of billions of dollars for PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. causes?

I have a hard time thinking outside the box when I know so little about what's inside the box already. I know it's "free" outside the box, and nirvana abounds, but I just can;t bring myself to such self-imposed blissful ignorance. But........Maybe it's just me.

I happen to like this country and any administration that attempts to keep us on track with what historical and empirical evidence (all found where? Inside the box!) tells us brought us to some argueable level of greatness. I won;t be disliking my country enough yet to be voting for "hope" this November....but....maybe that's just me.

One more thing: the damage to an "estimated" area the sioze of two football fields wouldn;t be nice if those football fields were populated.....

We did a good thing. We shot down a satellite that was earthbound. Who did it first is irrelevant. Because China did it last year, doesn;t mean we couldn;t have, just that we didn;t.

IF it were me, that thing would've had an explosive device in it before it went up in the first place. Now....did we shoot it down or does this "adolescent" administration have a trick or two up its sleeve? Who knows. We do know that there will be no damage to any football fields.

I see nothing wrong with sending a message to others. I see nothing wrong with sending a message to others. You argue its 1 Billion dollars, but if the message was received it would not only save money, it could save lives.


Just like a shotgun shell cost money, but if someone were to try to open your door in the middle of the night and you turn the outside lights on and fire a shell off in the front yard to let the thief know you have a gun and to move on.


You are arguing about the cost of electricity for the light and the cost of a shotgun shell. Let go the hate for Bush and look at the bigger picture.


I could care less what party is in office, and what President orders it, when we show the world we are strong it’s good.

"The odds of a hydrazine tank surviving reentry are slim to none. Assuming it made it down at least partly intact the risk was minimal, contamination of an estimated two football fields."

I guess the risk associated with it's surviving depends on whether it lands in your backyard or somebody else's. Now nobody has to worry about it!

To me the amazing thing about the shot was that it actually hit the tank. I assumed they would use an explosive warhead that would detonate when it came near the target. Good job Navy!

Now the US can talk to the Chinese about the PRC's ASAT system from a better negotiating position.

Actually, the odds of the fuel making back down was pretty good. Hydrazine is incredibly dangerous and carcinogenic. Not to mention that fuel is hypergolic.

Back in the olds days, drag racers tried adding it to their fuel, and in a 1% solution, it would boost horsepower something like 100%. Many engines didn't make it 100 ft. before coming apart at the seams. It was quickly banned by the NHRA (and rightfully so).

Missiles were my specialty in the Army. All I can say, is nice shot, very impressive! Wish I could have been in on it!

If hypocricy is the enemy of credibility I may be missing the logic here. And I'm pretty sure it goes without saying, but your creditor always has the superior negotiating position.

+1 to you Sodak that was my point to begin with. Thanks.

Blitz

I've doubted the story from day one from what I've heard. The "spy satellite" was apparently one of the newer breed that was sent up and then stopped working shortly after achieving orbit. I know - call me paranoid but I think the chances of hydrazine container not burning up is just an excuse. Some have suggested that it was really the secret capabilities of the satellite that the government wanted to protect.

However, I will go one better and say that this whole farce was probably planned from the start. What proof we have that it really was a top-secret satellite instead of a lump of junk? I think this was purposely put up in space to act as a target under the guise of "we have to protect earth from the hydrazine container". This gave the government and the military the perfect target to practise their space age technology in shooting down the satellite. 'Know what - for once I think the Chinese have hit it on the head in their claim about the American governmemt.

Left intact, large parts of the satellite probably would have made it to the ground. A lot of other countries would love to get their hands on a US spy satellite optics so it makes strategic sense to destroy the satellite. Don't we destroy downed US helicopters in Iraq for the same reason? The fact that we get to show off our capablities is just icing on the cake. What I'm wondering is what capabilities is the US government still hiding from the bad guys.



I doubt it. There's a paper/person trail involved in making such a satellite. You'd have to make everyone involved kept silent and as all the CIA leaks to the New York Times show, they are blabbing secrets left and right. I think they saw a valid oppertunity and took it.

-Blast

Nice to see some Americans don't believe they should have one law for themselves and one for the rest of the world. Condemning China for shooting down a satellite, then doing it yourself, just weakens your credibility. Inventing evidence to invade Iraq and then after you have been caught lying, expecting anyone to believe your evidence against Iran was just silly.
Dubya justifies invading Iraq and attacking Iran because they won't abide by UN resolutions, but he refuses to obey UN resolutions himself. Though in fact Iraq was doing so. The inspectors were in there, proving he was lying about WMDs, so he ordered them out 'because the danger from these non-existent weapons was so great' he couldn't wait.
If the US was invaded and occupied by a hostile power, I like to think the people on this web site would be the first to fight back. What made you think the Iraquis wouldn't do so as well?
The Sock

And before anyone accuses me of being a PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. or anti-american: I'm the first to admit that shamefully; the bulk of the democrats went along with the Iraq disaster. As did the British government and opposition.
The big countries act like gangsters and the small ones like prostitutes.
The Sock

Tell that to millions of Iraqis who are getting their lives back together. I remember many brave people (in my family also) who gave up their lives to defend someone else's country, let's see, oh yeah, YOUR'S. Next time you have another Hitler to deal with, then why don't you take care of him yourself?

"...A lot of other countries would love to get their hands on a US spy satellite optics so it makes strategic sense to destroy the satellite..."

I don't dispute what you are saying, but I wonder how many goodies would be left after the sat went thru the heat of reentry? I have to think that this was just a good way to test a starwars type missile. Target 100 miles up today, thousands of miles later...

*sigh*
They say arguing on the internet is like winning the gold medal in the special olympics......yes, you won. You are still a retard. I will now attempt to win the gold medal......
First off, I'm an American. Damn proud of it. No apologies. Yes we as a nation have done things in the past I am embarassed of, but still I feel it is the best country going. MY OPINION!
For all the Bush haters, really let it go. President Bush made a decision (good or bad-its irrelevant, the dye is cast) based on information he received. Who elected the information collectors, doesn't matter. Was the information flawed, doesn't matter. Was the decision made, in the interest of the people, at the time, with the best of intentions.....yes. And that is what matters as far as this assinine, juvinile "Bush lied, people died" rehetoric.
As far as us having one rule we follow and another for other countries, its really quite simple.......
I would like to think that nobody here would have a problem with a police officer having a firearm, nor a member of the military. Same (should) go for a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. Having said that I don't think anyone here would like to see a career criminal, drug dealer, gang-banger having one. And that is the point that is missed by the so called intellectuals. Yes we can have nuclear arms, yes we can shoot down satalites why? All in all, for all the faults and limitations of the U.S. W we are a benevolent government. Can the same be said of China? Do we want unstable third world countries to have nuclear capabilities? No. Its just not smart.
As to the "unjustified" invasion, when Saddam invaded Kuwait and lost, signing an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, the moment he refused to let an U.N. inspector to see whatever, whenever he nullified said treaty. So technically he declared war again in my eyes and got what he deserved.
I agree with Blast, a billion dollars to flex our muscles, to intimidate our foes, or "non-allies" if you perfer, is a small price to pay. I believe in the maxim "pray for peace, but prepare for war" kinda like "be prepared" and "its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it"

-Bill Liptak
With sincre apologies to the mods.

>> Tell that to millions of Iraqis who are getting their lives >> back together. I remember many brave people (in my family >> also) who gave up their lives to defend someone else's country, let's see, oh yeah, YOUR'S. Next time you have another Hitler to deal with, then why don't you take care of him yourself?

You had no choice Germany declared war on you. Unti then you let Britain face Hitler alone for 18 months.
But this is completely irrelevant. Hitler was the aggressor then. You are now. It's absurd to compare Hitler with this wreck of a country with it's half a million children dead through the sanctions, it's rubbish army and no WMDs. Iraq was no threat to anyone. Saddam was safely in his box. He didn't even dare retaliate when the US and UK bombed him
And the Iraquis aren't getting their lives back together; you've killed thousands of them. Made their lives a nightmare and installed a puppet government.

Yes, it was definately a great way to test our missle system. As for burning up on re-entery, space rocks not much larger than a marble can become meteorites. Heck, when the shuttle blew up on re-entry a few years ago peices much larger than this spy satellite were found across Texas. The high-quality glass used in the optics systems have a very high melting point, they probably wouldn't even notice the heat of re-entry.

-Blast

Hydrazine -- maybe
Secret/cutting edge technology -- definitely
Harm in giving it a shot -- only political

I'm sure a bunch of guys were certain they could hit it and while a miss would have been embarrassing it would not have added to the problem. The only fall-out was the issue with China and it appears they only want info. Personally I don't think anybody really cares if a country shoots down one of their own satellites; although I'd rather the Chinese had shot theirs in a lower orbit so it would burn up rather than acting as more space junk.

What they do care about is the demonstration of an ABM capability. The Chinese demonstrated their capability, now we have demonstrated ours, but from an operational/deployed platform. Star Wars anyone? There about 60 Arleigh Burke destroyers currently in service. Now that we have an ABM capability, we can negotiate it away with a new ABM Treaty or not. Maybe it should be deployed world wide. Put a few in the Persian Gulf. . .

Does the shuttle give you an anti-satellite capability? You could simply drive up to any satellite and disable it?
The Sock

One big difference:

The Chinese project littered space with debris that will stay around nearly indefinitely in orbit. This endangers all current and future satellites, AND manned missions US, Chinese, British, EVERYONE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Britain_Concerned_By_Chinese_Satellite_Shoot_Down_999.html

The US project was at very low orbital levels. Nearly everything will deorbit in less than a month.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw021808p2.xml


Even if the explanation to justify THIS project, is a bit contrived (a lie?), the skill is good to have. What if the next satellite to deorbit in a disorganized fashion (“my fault, your fault, nobody’s fault") does truly endanger a populated area, it would be nice to offer this service, wouldn’t it?

Well put BillLiptak. There's a lot to be said for your view. But it isn't the stated view of the US and UK government which claim to be acting to support the UN and does not expected to be treated as a special case.
I'd have to disagree with you on Bush's belief in WMDs. If the French Russian and German governments and 2 million protestors in Europe didn't believe they existd. How could Dubya? An enquiry in the UK said our intelligence services said their knowledge of Iraq was 'sketchy and unreliable'. Blair then went into parliament and said our facts on Iraqs' WMDs are 'wide ranging, detailed and authoritative'.
And the inspectors went to the first 40 sites on the CIA list that America claimed was the most certain to have WMDs. And found nothing. But you didn't re-examine your conclusions.
I'm not bashing America or even as I've made plain Dubya in particular. I'm just trying to make the point that when WE (note I included the UK) decide there should be different rules for us and other ones for everyone else. We can't expect them to listen to us.
Even Mrs Clinton is saying the US should be the ones to guard pakistans nukes and have the right to bomb terrorist bases there. Would you accept a foreign government claiming they should have this right for the US? This is a blessing to Bin Laden. He can say 'look everything I've been telling you is true; the west does intend to attack muslim countries'.
The Sock

By the best evidence possible: He'd USED chemical weapons. Does anyone think he got rid of the knowledge after the first Gulf War? After the inspectors having to provide the Iraqis with forewarning of where the wanted to inspect when and being denied access to sites because they were a "presidential palace"?



IIRC Didn't they find artillery shells for firing chemical weapons?

He certainly had used chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war and on the kurds.
But he was not denying the inspectors access to anywhere and no they did not find chemical artillery shells.
By the way he did have chemical weapons when you liberated Kuwait, but with his army was being massacred on the road to hell he did not dare use them against the US.
Which does make me we wonder why he was suddenly in 2002 supposed to be about to commit suicide for no reason and use them on the US. Quite how he was to get them to the US was never explained. But has anyone ever come up with a motive? And also how with no intelligence in Iraq, you were supposed to know this?
The Sock

N.A.T.O. Policy has always been, and by that I mean France and the United Kingdom, that if ANYONE uses a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon against us WE WILL go NUCLEAR. If Saddam Hussain had used such weapons we would have removed Baghdad from the map. And that policy has been set in stone for at least 40 years. That is because we equate chemical and biological with nuclear.

Note: British policy on the use of nuclear weapons is that the United Kingdom forswears first use of such weapons unless:
1) Such weapons are used against us. Under some circumstances that would include their threatened use.
2) If the safety or survival of the state is threatened.

Arguably any country will the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons has a duty to itself to do so. And ensure that it has the means to deliver them. The same arguement applies to chemical and biological weapons.

The big issue is not the weapons themselves but the intentions of the countries concerned. The most obvious case is that of Iran. Iran considers Israel to be a hostile power. One that it considers to have no right to exist. It is stated Iranian policy that it will destroy Israel if it is able to do so. However Israel is a nuclear power. Israel has always refused to confirm or deny it's nuclear status. Given that the Arab countrys have not made common cause and obliterated Israel, it is overwelming likely that Israel has nuclear weapons and is more than prepared to use them.
However: At present their is no check on Israel deciding to using them as a first strike. Unless other nuclear powers make it clear that they will be attacked. It therefore follows that Iran has to develop weapons as a check.

Now here's the question. Will Iran develop them but foreswear first use or develop them and use them in a genocidal attack?

Logging off for the day. Lets try and keep this debate at this level and not resort to name calling shall we? Maybe for once we can venture into these areas without the moderators having to shut it down?
The Sock

OK,
It really came out a few weeks back what was probably going on in Iraq, and WHY we fell for it..

Two reasons - the first - they WERE doing R&D - more paperwork than anything, so to be ready when the UN bans ended

The second, and more important - Iraq was/is afraid of Iran. They wanted the Irainians to believe that there was a WMD program going on. Sadam believed that it would keep Iran in line, and never believed that the US would invade - no matter what. So Iraq ran a disinformation campaign that they WERE working on WMDs - and we bought it

[quote=TheSock........
You had no choice Germany declared war on you. Unti then you let Britain face Hitler alone for 18 months.
But this is completely irrelevant. Hitler was the aggressor then. You are now. It's absurd to compare Hitler with this wreck of a country with it's half a million children dead through the sanctions, it's rubbish army and no WMDs. Iraq was no threat to anyone. Saddam was safely in his box. He didn't even dare retaliate when the US and UK bombed him
And the Iraquis aren't getting their lives back together; you've killed thousands of them. Made their lives a nightmare and installed a puppet government. [/quote]

Now, who was it that said Brits were well-informed with facts? Look Sock, you ARE anti-American despite your last post. It's ok, I suppose, to dislike us, but don;t come on here and lie about it. Be a man about it.

It's natural to wonder why we really did shoot down that satellite. There could be a thousand different reasons - we can let our minds wander. But when they wander and we open our mouths, then our true character and beliefs slip out for all to hear (or read). Do you not see that? Do you not?

Pardon me? You come in here and repeat a lie that's been perpetuated since 2004 (that "Bush" lied), and slam a country that saved yours (yes saved) not once but twice, then ask others to keep the insults down? There's a joke here - I guess I'm missing it.

KC, it only became public a few weeks ago. Both of those reasons have been written about and columnized to death since about 2002.... maybe before.

O.K. the way this thread has progressed was not the intent of the original post.

We shot down our own satellite because:

1.) It contained valuable, CONFIDENTIAL TOP SECRECT INFORMATION.

2.) If it had crashed it could have been catastrophic. Releasing chemicals that would not be very nice for any of you humans where it might have fallen.

3.) Yes we did prove a point. We all think the cold war is over, it isn't.


So there!!

BTW One Hell of a strike, (at a target going over 18000 miles per hour)

XXXOOOXXX

Blitz