They LIED - the satelllite shoot down was a test, Gates now bragging about it

[Hugabear]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7257865.stm

<snip>
The US defence secretary has said that the shooting down of a disabled spy satellite with a missile shows the country's missile defence system works.

Robert Gates said the operation "speaks for itself", adding the US was prepared to share some technology with China.
<snip>

If there were any doubt that this was actually a test, this should dispel those doubts.

Fucking liars. Every one of them.

[elehhhhna]

1. Does "prepared to share some technology with China" mean

lobbing a few missiles their way?

[bluedawg12]

6. What ever they can sell$$$ n/t

[poverlay]

14. Lol... My thoughts exactly...nt

[jasmine621]

37. Had they missed, missile defense would not have been mentioned. nt

[peacetalksforall]

20. No, it means selling taxpayer boy toys and projects at a profit to Cheney and friends.

By the way, is Cheney bunkered down?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

22. I wondered about that earlier. Didn't a few guys get arrested for doing that,...

,...one who was with the DOD? How does that work? Are the profiteering traitors chosen in advance then approved to share the technology?

:shrug:

Very strange shit, ya' know?

[onethatcares]

28. doesn't the rightwing bring up the premise that Clinton sold

technology to the Chinese every chance it gets? Well, where the fark does this put the defense department now?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

31. I want to know whether profiteers are chosen in advance of state-sanctioned arms proliferation.

I do not give a DAMN whether it's under a D or an R or an I.

Did Clinton approve the sale of arms technology to China? If so, I want him on the long list of prosecutions that MUST TAKE PLACE to reign in the military/corporate destruction.

[Johonny]

35. I'm pretty sure

under current law sharing this technology with China is VERY against the law!

[bluedawg12]

2. what other choice was there? n/t

[antigop]

3. yep... it works.... if you know ahead of time where it will be n/t

[tekisui]

13. And the weather's right, and the waves aren't choppy.

[JorgeTheGood]

15. and if it's above the atmosphere :D n/t

[Indy Lurker]

4. not trying to argue

but did someone say it wasn't a test?

I know the story was to destroy the hydrazine fuel before it came back to earth, but I assumed it was also a test, as they have never tried this before.

In general, anytime you do something you've never done before it's a trial or test.

[Hugabear]

5. They were trying to make it sound like it wasn't a missile defense test

I don't have a specific link, but I'd heard several times where they denied this was an actual test of the missile defense system.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Gates is lying but not for the reasons you state

shooting down this satellite was a mater of simple physics. They knew where the satellite was,,, and where it was going to be. Hitting it was not difficult since they have been tracking this sucker for a while.

He is bragging, for the same reasons the chinese did after they shot down one of their own. Again, a very simple exercise in theory, and has been reality for a while.

Now shooting down a missile lobbed your way is a whole different matter. You will have TOPS thirty minutes to track, decide where it is going, launch and intercept... not as easy and has not been achieved since Redstone... and technologically they have not been able to do it from ground based dummy targets either.

But the bragging is not shocking

[fascisthunter]

9. I'll Buy That.... (nt)

[bluedawg12]

11. Yup, he's bragging-and the results have dual purpose, so?

what is the dem position on ABM research?

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. The same everybody else has

We will continue to do it... I don't necessarily agree with it. But in the current environment you will not get any
dem candidate that is pro empire to pull back from it.

The first testing happened under Ike (Redstone).... who was a republican though. The second SERIOUS effort was under Ronald Reagan. again didn't go anywhere and he was a Republican... and the third has been under Junior

Actions speak louder than, if you get me drift.

[KoKo]

26. "Our Shot Was Accurate!...."Our Balls are Big as Yours!"

:shrug: or...maybe "our aim is as good as yours" with our "member." ..if one wants to be gross about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. There is an element of that

watch chimpanzees after a fight... and you will see what I mean

[Breeze54]

8. Of course it was a test and MIT Professor POSTOL thinks it's stupid!

Originally Aired: February 20, 2008

Analysis


U.S. Plan to Shoot Down Satellite Delayed by Weather

The U.S. military's plan to shoot down a defunct spy satellite rather than let it fall out of the sky
was delayed by rough seas and and strong winds in the Pacific Ocean. Experts debate the effort and how
it might fit into the Pentagon's larger space strategy.

Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june08/satelliteshoot_02-20.html

--------

THEODORE POSTOL: Well, I wouldn't say it's absolutely impossible, nor would I say it's a risk worth taking. I'm saying that it's extremely improbable that this stuff will reach the ground.

And if you want to argue that you're shooting at this satellite, the argument for shooting at the satellite is not justified based on the argument that the hydrazine presents a threat to people on the ground.
You don't know where the big pieces from this satellite are going to fall in either case. And although there's a low chance of there being damage on the ground or individuals being injured or killed, the piece of it that's associated with this solid hydrazine container is a near-zero probability to play a significant role. It's just...

Political considerations a factor?

MARGARET WARNER: Let me just play devil's advocate with you here. What is the risk of doing this? Why not do it?

THEODORE POSTOL: Well, I think the risk is really -- if you want to call it a risk -- I think the international repercussions are quite serious.

I think people who look at this from a political point of view will see this, as I believe it probably is, an attempt by the United States government to show the world that it's got a large-scale, operating, low-altitude, anti-satellite capability.

More....

[Flarney]

10. This all goes back to PNAC - Full Spectrum Dominance - Weaponization of Space, etc.. n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

24. Absolutely correct. And those PNACers will do ANYTHING to profit off such shit!

That's why not only war but weapons proliferation profiteering should be severely restricted and ALWAYS open to microscopic oversight. ALWAYS!!!

[cornermouse]

12. What actual proof do we have that the "test" was a success?

This is a little too convenient for George.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Would you like some Hydrazine on your front yard?

Seroous... the satellite broke into small pieces that will burn upon reentry. That will be a hell of a meteor shower though

[bluedawg12]

19. Beats watching it come down in big chunks. n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

25. I thought there was general scientific agreement it would blast/burn long before hitting earth.

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. No, that is why they said they needed to blow it up

due to the risk of hydazine actually making land fall

Now for the reality of it, they needed to hit it to protect state secrets.. that is the other reason for it

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

38. Haven't lots of them fallen w/o consequence? Aren't they obliterated into zillions of pieces?

Maybe, I should do some more reading. I thought the fact these things have fuel and shit like hydazine caused them to be obliterated to the point of less than ash.

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Depends on size. Most are small enough that they do burn

on re-entry.

Skylab didn't

The ruskies had one that also didn't and parts landed in a very lowly populated area of Canada

Aparently (why they felt they had to do it... apart of the not for public consumption reasons, aka prying eyes), this sucker was large enough that they didn't expect it to burn on reenry.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

45. This thing ain't that big (geez, sorting back to merely January articles was a task and a half).

I still can't find the article I read a couple months ago (a 'scientific' one rather than the one I'm going to cite, here) which essentially did a, ",...we may get another mini shower-like show,..." like assessment of this thing going down.

I'm sorry I don't have the energy to search through all the propaganda to find a REAL science piece on this matter but here's what I found as near to a more balanced, albeit still fore-stilling propaganda plant. UGH!

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/disabled-spy-satellite-threatens-earth/n20080126215509990021

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Many years ago I took a course that went into this

one thing is that if you find a SCIENTIFIC article that actually goes into SIZE, I will be shocked. The size of these things is considered a national secret.

What we were told back then is that they tend to be LARGER than communications satellites. Not as big as Skylab, or as they used to be, but they are larger and potentially they will not completely burn on-reentry. Hell the ruskie satellite that fell down some years back had small pieces fall in Canada. You think those ended up in a museum or were returned to the Russians? I doubt it..

Their concern, realistically, is not the hydrazine. They don't give a shit about that. The hydrazine is the excuse.

Their concern is that any piece that can be of intelligence value falls in the wrong hands.

Now that is not propaganda, that is reality.

Is it a realistic threat to our national security? I don't know, but I was not shocked they decided to try to do what they did. Is it a test to anti satellite systems? Yep, but after the CHINESE shot one of their own over a year ago, I expected us to test this at the earliest.

[bluedawg12]

51. It's 5,000 lbs and had a 3:100 chance of killing someone

and there was the concern about hydrazine fuel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7257865.stm

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Thanks, the same risk the Russian Satellite that fell a couple years ago

which fell somewhere in the wastes of Canada.

Granted, I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning, I believe.

I think they did it to show the Chinese, see we can do it too...

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

54. I'm still swimming through the literal flood of propaganda to find the data,...

,...which I SWEAR I recall forecast less danger than the USUAL asteroid or other debris that hits earth ESPECIALLY because it had the fuel which would BLAST the sucker into less than ashes upon entry.

Give me some more time. The propaganda takes all oxygen out of science, as usual.

[paparush]

60. YES - Skylab, MIR, and tons of other Sats Decay and Burn..all the time

Sat watchers know this.

Sat watchers have schedules about what Sats are about to decay.

BTW - The shuttle comes home every time (well, almost every time) carrying Hydrazine which is used in its maneuvering thrusters.

[cornermouse]

29. Forgive me for my doubt and distrust, O Lord....

The ocean is big. They say they were successful in shooting it down but since it's the Bush Admin. supplying the info, you'll have to forgive me if I refuse to believe they actually shot something without seeing it for myself.

In the meantime we can congratulate ourselves that our money is being spent wisely in Star Wars after all, that China and Russia are now suitably cowering in a corner somewhere in fear of our military advancement, and we continue our streak as Numero Uno. Umm.... Whatever. :eyes:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

32. C'mon, now. No need for that.

Don't read more into comments than what they are. IOW, don't take anything too seriously.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Once again hitting a satellite we have been tracking for

MONTHS is a very simple exercise in orbital mechanics. Hell, as easy (in theory) as launching Apollo 11... from the point of view of HOW you get a firing solution in this case, it goes back to Kepler's Stellar Mechanics.

Hell, if you know speed and direction, you could do it with a calculator... hell even paper and pencil...

They shut it down for public reasons (Protect you from Hydrazine, a real concern) and they also shot it down to protect it from the careful eyes of insert power here that would love to get paws on one of our satellites

And no I cannot blame you for mistrusting the Bush Administration. Nor can I blame the Chinese for being POed, but they also did the same thing a year ago with one of their own, at a higher altitude. (which was also a simple exercise in stellar mechanics) But repeating this with a target that has a launch to target of thirty minutes or less... forget it. Theoretically it can be done. Realistically... we have been trying and failing since the Redstone Program

[hack89]

55. The satellite was visible to the naked eye

I watched it from my backyard two days ago. It wasn't there tonight.

More details here.

http://heavens-above.com/usa193.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET

[hack89]

63. All we really know is that the satellite was destroyed.

that is very easy to determine as it was visible to the naked eye.

http://heavens-above.com/usa193.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET

[Iggo]

18. And how does hitting something in stately orbit...

...mean that we can hit a missile traveling at, well I dunno, really frikkin fast missile speed?

Huh?

EDIT: See post #7 above.

[sgsmith]

21. Orbital speed

Is faster than what an ICMB travels at.

[Orsino]

61. And yet the satellite was a known object on a known trajectory.

Could a ship really get on station with a half-hour's notice, and perform as well?

This may actually be proof of concept, but it certainly isn't a test of our missile defense.

[KoKo]

23. Most folks who've been around here on DU...Knew it was a lie...

so...it's confirmed. Great...what else do we have to not believe about the "thing/Govt." that takes our Tax Money and lies to us about.

We have decades of lies. I start to worry our whole "Dream of America/Constitution/Bill of Rights...was a LIE just waiting to be outed.

"We are but a blip in time." We forgot that...

[malaise]

27. They speak

They lie. You are surprised...because?

[Jeffro40]

30. So what? At least WE did it, not the Chinese or Iranians

I mean really folks, of course they lied. Would you rather they told other countries about it, revealing secrets, and making us vulnerable?

I'm a proud Democrat, but EVERY ONE OF YOU has a better life because the US is a strong military nation. You do realize that, if we didn't, you would be living like the majority of people in India and Mexico, don't you? You may complain, but do you really want your kids to have thay fate? No, most of us don't.

So lighten up. They didn't attack anyone, they didn't kill anyone. They just showed the world who is (for now) still the boss. That's all.

[endarkenment]

34. Hmmmm.... no actually I didn't realize

"EVERY ONE OF YOU has a better life because the US is a strong military nation. You do realize that, if we didn't, you would be living like the majority of people in India and Mexico"

Thanks for pointing out this important information. Pappadam or tortillas?

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Unos pocos de frijoles con mis tortillas señor

por favor.

:-)

Ironic where I am posting this from and what I had for lunch today.

[endarkenment]

47. You are way harsher than I.

But I agree, I just have zero tolerance for this crap.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. And this crap has gotten worst in the last seven years

:-(

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. You missed the Chinese SHOOTING down one of their own

a year or so ago from higher orbit didn't you?

:eyes:

By the way... the objective of the DLC is for you to live like most folks do in Mexico... poorly paid and in ciudades perdidas... Happy now? Corporatists love that, don't care what party.

Oh and welcome to DU

By the way, I have a very low tolerance for jingoist and racist bullshit.

[Hosnon]

66. If I recall correctly, the Chinese satellite was still under the direct mechanical control of

the Chinese. If that is correct, and the U.S. satellite was not under the same control of the U.S., then there is a significant difference between the two tests.

In any event, I think the science is pretty darn cool if the U.S. military pulled it off.

[Pastiche423]

42. Excuse me?

The US's strong military has done jack shit to better my life.

Go take a drink elsewhere.

[Ikonoklast]

49. Oh. my.

Did we swing our d**k at them, too?

Silly.

[BrotherBuzz]

50. The Chinese shot one of their weather satellite against our wishes a year ago, January

The US believed China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of co-operation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area, while Bush's own space policy was revised October 2006 to state that Washington had the right to freedom of action in space, and the US is known to be researching such "satellite-killing" weapons itself.

Oh, I'm with Nadin on this one; I have a very low tolerance for jingoist and racist bullshit.

[RC]

39. The real reason it was destroyed was because

If it had come down in one piece, The chance was too great someone would see all the "MADE IN CHINA" printed on all the parts. With all the out sourcing and sub-contracting overseas, who else but China would have the technology to build the parts anymore? We sure don't.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

46. "MADE IN CHINA"!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

[ileus]

56. I thought is was well know to be a test...

[4_TN_TITANS]

57. yeah right...

There's a difference between hitting a stationary satellite and a moving missle.

[backscatter712]

58. It was always a shot across the bow of China and Russia.

I wasn't buying the hydrazine story at all.

[Paulie]

59. He lied because NMD was a ground based system, which would only hit targets with homing beacons

This air launched missile was something else. Catapult this propaganda into the circular file.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense

[hack89]

62. What are you talking about ?

what air launched missile?

[Paulie]

64. Ah, my bad. That was the earlier test done in the 80's

with an F15 as the launch platform. This isn't the land based National Missile Defense that never past the tests before being pushed into production.

[DemocratDammit]

65. Ummm.... Not to defend these goons...

...but of course it was a test.

They waited until there was something that NEEDED shooting down (this did) and tested technology they have been sitting on since this missile went into service over a decade ago.

You would not want the USA to *think* it had an ASAT capability when we did not, would you?