US: Satellite Shoot-Down Not Offensive

[unhappycamper]

US: Satellite Shoot-Down Not Offensive
Associated Press | February 15, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is trying to convince foreign countries that the Pentagon's plan to shoot down a dying spy satellite is not a test of a program to kill their orbiting communications and intelligence capabilities.

The State Department has instructed U.S. diplomats around the world to inform their host governments that the operation, which could be conducted as early as next week, is aimed solely at protecting people that could be affected by about 1,000 pounds of toxic fuel on the bus-sized satellite now hurtling toward earth.

"Our role is to reassure nations around the world as to the nature of what we are tying to do," spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday. "It's an attempt to try to protect populations on the ground."

In a cable sent to all U.S. embassies abroad, diplomats were told to draw a clear distinction between the upcoming attempt and last year's test by China of a missile specifically designed to take out satellites, which was criticized by the United States and other countries.

"This particular action is different than any actions that, for example, the Chinese may have taken in testing an anti-satellite weapon," McCormack told reporters. "The missions are quite different and the technical aspects of the missions are quite different."


Rest of article at: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,162169,00.html?wh=wh



uhc comment: Like I said yesterday, these guys must have a woodie just thinking about firing off a few ASAT missiles.

[lligrd]

1. What Would Happen If The Chinese Decided To Shoot

it down first?

[frogcycle]

3. bush would stomp his feet and shake his fists

and whine

mommmmmeeeee! I wanted to do it!

[frogcycle]

2. uh huh

nothing to see here

move along





the threat is that an area the size of two football fields could be contaminated with toxic gas.
the probability of that area being land is very small
the probability of its being populated is minuscule

we don't want to spend 60 million dollars to help people who are dying in Darfur, or to fight AIDS, or... or... because it is too expensive


but THIS boondoggle is all about altruism...


riiiiiight