Spy Satellite's Downing Shows a New U.S. Weapon Capability
- From: Robin T Cox <nomail@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:03:47 GMT
Spy Satellite's Downing Shows a New U.S. Weapon Capability
By Marc Kaufman and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 22, 2008; A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/
AR2008022100641.html
http://tinyurl.com/3ay8kt
The unprecedented downing of an errant spy satellite by a Navy missile
makes it clear that the Pentagon has a new weapon in its arsenal -- an
anti-satellite missile adapted from the nation's missile defense program.
While the dramatic intercept took place well below the altitude where
most satellites orbit, defense and space experts said Wednesday night's
first-shot success strongly suggests that the military has the technology
and know-how to knock out satellites at much higher orbits.
The Pentagon officials said they were 90 percent certain the missile had
struck its primary target, a tank containing toxic fuel, but they
stressed that the shoot-down did not indicate that the United States is
developing an anti-satellite program. Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice
chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the effort was not a test of the
nation's missile defense system or a show of force to put other countries
on notice that the United States can take down a satellite.
"This was uncharted territory," he said. "We see this as a one-time
event."
Nonetheless, many space experts and arms-control advocates in the United
States and abroad said the shot had opened the door to more anti-
satellite tests by more nations.
"Demonstrably, we do have an [anti-satellite] capability now," said David
Mosher, a Rand Corp. defense and space expert. "Anyone who followed
national missile defense issues knew we've had that inherent ability for
some time. But now it's real, and we can expect there will be
consequences."
Clay Moltz, a professor of nuclear and space policy at the Naval
Postgraduate School in California, said destruction of the satellite may
have sent a signal to other countries that could set a bad precedent.
"It solved a short-term problem, but it may cause us long-term headaches
in terms of emerging test programs in other countries," Moltz said.
Riki Ellison, president and founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy
Alliance, said it is "remarkable" -- and good news -- that the missile
defense system is so easily adaptable.
"We now have something that has the capability, anywhere around the
world, to handle a falling satellite," Ellison said. "The world wasn't
really watching it before. This is much more now known throughout the
world that we have this capability."
The Chinese Communist Party newspaper condemned what it called
Washington's callous attitude toward the weaponizing of space. The
Chinese government -- which conducted a full-scale anti-satellite test in
January 2001 -- asked the United States to release data on the shoot-down
and where the satellite's debris would fall. In Honolulu, Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates said some information would be shared to assure
the Chinese and others that any pieces that reach the surface will not be
hazardous.
Many governments accepted the Bush administration's explanation that the
satellite had to be knocked apart because it was carrying a 1,000-pound
tank of potentially hazardous hydrazine rocket fuel. "Obviously, we
regret the circumstances, but we understand that these were exceptional
circumstances, and we support the decision," said Emmanuel Lenain, a
French Embassy spokesman.
Geoffrey Forden, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology who worked with colleagues to estimate the probability of the
hydrazine harming anyone on Earth, said that if the fuel tank made it
through the atmosphere, there was a 3-in-100 chance that it would land
within 100 yards of someone.
He and his colleagues also calculated, however, that the tank would be
subject to a force of 50 times gravity (at the surface) as it fell
through the atmosphere, and there was virtually no chance that it would
have remained intact.
"It certainly would seem that protecting people against a hazardous fuel
was not what this was really about," he said.
The congressional response was also mixed, although several members said
the shoot-down must be a one-time event.
After praising the military for the feat of shooting down the satellite,
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said in a
statement: "This was an exceptional case, and I reiterate that this
action should not be construed as standard U.S. policy for dealing with
problem satellites."
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the House Homeland
Security Committee, was more critical, saying "the geopolitical fallout
of this intercept could be far greater than any chemical fallout that
would have resulted from a wayward satellite."
At 150 miles altitude, the shot was the highest successful intercept by
an SM-3 missile, surpassing earlier successes by nearly 50 percent.
Experts said that means it is possible the military could use the
modified missiles to track and destroy satellites that are 200 to 250
miles aloft, although no testing has been done at those heights with
these specific missiles.
The Pentagon had modified three SM-3 missiles to shoot at the out-of-
control satellite at a cost of $30 million to$40 million. Cartwright said
the two unused missiles would be reconfigured to their previous
condition. Left alone, the satellite was expected to fall to Earth on
March 6.
Amateur astronomers on Canada's west coast told the Associated Press that
they had seen about two dozen trails of debris in the sky within minutes
of when the missile hit, about 10:30 p.m. Eastern time.
While officials expect the remaining debris to fall out of orbit within
two weeks, the debate over the implications of the shoot-down will remain.
"I think they were using the threat as cover to do something they have
been wanting to do for a long time," said Victoria Samson, a research
analyst at the Center for Defense Information who specializes in missile
defense. "It shows that our missile defense programs are not just missile
defense programs, they're also anti-satellite programs."
Supporters of missile defense technologies, however, said the U.S.
intercept was far different from China's high altitude anti-satellite
test because the Pentagon was transparent about its actions and because
it was necessary for safety reasons.
"In my judgment, the China test was a message to the U.S. that they are
pursuing an asymmetric space policy," said Baker Spring, a missile
defense expert at the Heritage Foundation. "That's a fundamentally
different moral proposition than the U.S. shooting down a decaying
satellite that could hurt life on the ground."
.
- Prev by Date: Re: NO REFUND SOCIETY
- Next by Date: Re: Scotland Yard bugged Tooting MP Sadiq Khan twice
- Previous by thread: Re: £72 for a freakin' passport renewal!!
- Next by thread: Re: Lord Davies say Grantite is no significant problem for N Rock!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
