Defense Source: Satellite Shoot-Down Doesn't Pass The Smell Test

crn.com ^ | February 21, 2008 | Damon Poeter

[The_Media_never_lie]

Obama would put an end to this capability, if elected.

[arthurus]

Hydrazine was the “humanitarian” excuse for the shootdown. The purpose was to show that we could do it and that we could do it after advertising the shoot ahead of time to show that we were confident that we could do it with the first shot. That is telling interested other parties that we have an effective ABM capability. It might just introduce a bit of caution in certain other nations’ actions. Iran needs to know that even if Nutjob is willing to sacrifice himself and his people in order to destroy Israel it might well be that Iran gets laid waste and Israel is still a going concern.

[montag813]

I agree that the “threat” cover story was bogus—and smart. You don’t get many opportunities to violate the ABM treaty without seeming to violate it. It was a great test of our missile defense technology.

[arthurus]

This looks like the same indignation that NYT trumpeted when it discovered that the Star Wars stuff that the USSR bankrupted itself trying to counter was mostly disinformation, or at least was a lot of years in the future and not next Wednesday. NYT cried and wailed that Reagan didn’t play fair.

[DarrellZero]

Tempest meet teapot.

It was our satellite, it had reached the end of its functional life. If we want to blow it up real good, who cares?

If we had nefarious reasons for blowing it up, I’m sure we could have done so in secret.

[PhilDragoo]

US Withdraws from ABM Treaty ~ White House pushes harder for missile defense

A one-two achievement for the Bush Administration.

Now how about testing the new Massive Ordnance Penetrators on the additional 6,000 centrifuges Mahmoud Ahmadinijad is drooling over in the subterranean Baby Milk Factory at Natanz.

[KarlInOhio]

I agree that the “threat” cover story was bogus—and smart. You don’t get many opportunities to violate the ABM treaty without seeming to violate it. It was a great test of our missile defense technology.

We left the ABM treaty as allowed by the terms of the treaty in 2002.

I think the reasons were:

1. To keep the interesting spy parts out of the wrong hands if they land relatively intact.

2. To test and publicly show our anti-satellite capability.

2a. and because blowing up stuff is pretty cool.

3. (maybe) to destroy the fuel tanks for safety of people on the ground.

[devolve]

.

A little warmup with the pads on

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Wake up call for the chicoms.Nothing more.

[Paladin2]

"2a. and because blowing up stuff is pretty cool"

I'm sure the MythBusters would like to get their hands on the technology.

[garbanzo]

I don’t see why they couldn’t have had several reasons for shooting it down rather than just one, including all those mentioned here.

This is modern America. You can have only one stated reason for doing something. More than one reason and you have too much complexity and people's brains shut down.

[LS]

Nope. Read Reagan’s 1983 SDI message. He never mentioned “space,” “space-based weapons,” “laser,” or anything of the sort. He said we would use our scientific and engineering talent to find a way to defend against ICBMs. That was a pretty open door.

[The Great RJ]

The hydrazine was just a cover story, the military wanted the satellite destroyed for fear that highly classified technology could have fallen into the wrong hands. The key thing is that a US warship at sea was able to take out the satellite and could do the same for key enemy satellites in time of war. That the test took place in the Pacific with the help of the Japanese was also deigned to impress the Chi-coms.