BREAKING: Navy Shoots Down Satellite
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
That's odd. Every news service on the WWW says that the attempt to destroy the de-orbiting satellite will occur tomorrow.
Testing and flaunting STI (Star Wars). Trying to antagonizing every country. The strategy of tension at its fullest!
That's odd. Every news service on the WWW says that the attempt to destroy the de-orbiting satellite will occur tomorrow.
CNN's Anderson Cooper reports the shootdown has occurred and that it was successful (but no other details).
QueEx
Satellite my ass.....
Yeah, I heard they won't no until tommorow if the fuel cell was destroyed or not.
60 million worth of fireworks. But we cant find enough money for health care, taking care of homelessness etc etc. What a shame. 
Satellite my ass.....
On the Jim Lehrer News hour, earlier today . . .
Ambassador Henry Cooper, former director of the Strategic Defense Initiative during the first Bush administration, and the top U.S. space arms negotiator during the Reagan administration. He's now chairman of High Frontier, a non-profit group that promotes missile defense.
" The point of the test -- not test, but the operation that's currently in place is to shoot down this satellite when it's about to re-enter. And so we're not going to be leaving for an extended period of time debris in space. "
DUMBASS!Here's the link to transcript . . .
U.S. Military Plan to Shoot Down Old Spy Satellite Delayed by Weather
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june08/satelliteshoot_02-20.html
Damn if you weren't right. You were up on that shit before the AP was reporting it. I'm going to have to keep my eye on your ass, nyuggah!
60 million worth of fireworks. But we cant find enough money for health care, taking care of homelessness etc etc. What a shame.
$60,000,000.00 to send a message to China...
[WM]http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY&rel=1[/WM]
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/suINzE-qYSE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/suINzE-qYSE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<font size="3">Funny, I did'nt see your "similar" comment in this thread:</font size>
China Fires Secret Laser - to Disable U.S. Satellites
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=126357
QueEx
`
Last edited:
That link is dead. Standard party line comeback. China doesn't have a history of aggression. The US is backing the Taiwanese, a Chinese province. Could you imagine if China was backing Hawaii? The US is paranoid for what? No country spends so much of their resources on war and preparing for war. Militarizing space should not be allowed.
I condemn this.
Man, LOL, you're good! You should seek employment with the Chinese government; you would make a great spokesman. They would parade your ass on every channel -- to make the case that they are not prejudiced against Black people
and they're not really fucking over African countries. 
QueEx
Man, LOL, you're good! You should seek employment with the Chinese government; you would make a great spokesman. They would parade your ass on every channel -- to make the case that they are not prejudiced against Black people
QueEx
China is a communist country with 1.3 billion people, the US has major economic treaties with them. Cuba is a communist country with 10 million people. Why are you accusing me of praising China? A lot of the dollars that are subsidizing those missiles you are so enamored with are being backed by the Chinese economy.
Hey, maybe the U.S. will start sharing missile technology with the Chinese. would that make you feel better ???
QueEx
<font size="5"><center>Turning Point for Missile Defense</font size></center>
RealClearPolitics
By Rich Lowry
February 22, 2008
Somewhere 130 miles above the Pacific Ocean, tumbling around the Earth at 17,000 mph, a disabled spy satellite met a fiery end late Wednesday night -- destroyed by a U.S. missile-defense interceptor.
The spectacular hit marks a definitive turn in the debate concerning missile defense, from whether it's technically possible to whether it's ethically desirable. Many of the same people who had argued for years that missile defense couldn't be done now will complain that it constitutes a nefarious "weaponizing of space."
The U.S. normally isn't in the business of shooting down satellites. It took out the dead National Reconnaissance Office satellite because it had a full, 1,000-pound tank of toxic rocket fuel that there was some slim chance could fall on a populated area when it re-entered the atmosphere in a few weeks. Now, the hydrazine fuel appears to have burned up in an explosion in space, and small pieces of the 5,000-pound satellite -- about the size of a school bus -- will fall harmlessly to Earth.
The satellite wasn't a missile launched with just minutes warning, but hitting it is still a major success for our missile-defense system. The window for a successful strike was about 30 seconds, the speeds involved were mind-boggling, and all the same technologies that would be deployed against a missile -- a Standard Missile 3 rocket launched from an Aegis-class cruiser and a battery of radar and sensors -- were in play.
The Chinese immediately lashed out. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said that they will continue to monitor "the possible harm caused by the U.S. action to outer space security and relevant countries." The Chinese commitment to "outer space security" was recently exemplified by their shooting down an aging weather satellite with no warning, then denying that they had done it for two weeks, and doing it at an orbit so high that 1,600 pieces of space debris will clutter Earth's orbit for years.
The Chinese test -- of a system that is explicitly designed to target satellites -- didn't produce much outrage from arms controllers. It's long been an axiom of arms control that whatever the U.S. does is dangerous and a provocation to other countries, while our adversaries are merely forced into hostile or irresponsible acts by our recklessness. But the U.S. position on space -- like our position on the high seas -- is that everyone should have full and free access to it for peaceful purposes.
What we have resisted is getting pushed into an unenforceable treaty against weapons in space that could hamper our ability to address threats in the future. So many weapons can be transformed instantly into "space weapons" if they are used against targets above the Earth's atmosphere -- as we've seen with the SM-3 missile -- that banning them is impossible. The real agenda of the Russians and the Chinese is to keep us from ever putting missile-defense interceptors in space. That would enhance our capability against their intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) arsenals.
This is how deep the Chinese and Russian commitment to the peacefulness of space runs: They want to have the option of launching ICBMs out into space where they will travel undisturbed until they reenter Earth's atmosphere on their way to visiting untold devastation on a target. The Chinese could make a genuine gesture toward peace in space by ending their rapid buildup of ICBMs, but their true interest is in preventing us from checking their missile threat to us and our allies.
Space has been weaponized at least since the Germans launched V-2 rockets against Britain. Today, we use satellites not just for commercial purposes, but for intelligence and military command and control. That's the reason the Chinese are so keen to be able to shoot them down. Space isn't a pristine last frontier unsullied by human competitiveness and ferocity, but an extension of our flawed world down here below. It can be dangerous, which is why it's a comfort that we are building defenses against threats more serious than a tank of hydrazine.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/turning_point_for_missile_defe.html
RealClearPolitics
By Rich Lowry
February 22, 2008
Somewhere 130 miles above the Pacific Ocean, tumbling around the Earth at 17,000 mph, a disabled spy satellite met a fiery end late Wednesday night -- destroyed by a U.S. missile-defense interceptor.
The spectacular hit marks a definitive turn in the debate concerning missile defense, from whether it's technically possible to whether it's ethically desirable. Many of the same people who had argued for years that missile defense couldn't be done now will complain that it constitutes a nefarious "weaponizing of space."
The U.S. normally isn't in the business of shooting down satellites. It took out the dead National Reconnaissance Office satellite because it had a full, 1,000-pound tank of toxic rocket fuel that there was some slim chance could fall on a populated area when it re-entered the atmosphere in a few weeks. Now, the hydrazine fuel appears to have burned up in an explosion in space, and small pieces of the 5,000-pound satellite -- about the size of a school bus -- will fall harmlessly to Earth.
The satellite wasn't a missile launched with just minutes warning, but hitting it is still a major success for our missile-defense system. The window for a successful strike was about 30 seconds, the speeds involved were mind-boggling, and all the same technologies that would be deployed against a missile -- a Standard Missile 3 rocket launched from an Aegis-class cruiser and a battery of radar and sensors -- were in play.
The Chinese immediately lashed out. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said that they will continue to monitor "the possible harm caused by the U.S. action to outer space security and relevant countries." The Chinese commitment to "outer space security" was recently exemplified by their shooting down an aging weather satellite with no warning, then denying that they had done it for two weeks, and doing it at an orbit so high that 1,600 pieces of space debris will clutter Earth's orbit for years.
The Chinese test -- of a system that is explicitly designed to target satellites -- didn't produce much outrage from arms controllers. It's long been an axiom of arms control that whatever the U.S. does is dangerous and a provocation to other countries, while our adversaries are merely forced into hostile or irresponsible acts by our recklessness. But the U.S. position on space -- like our position on the high seas -- is that everyone should have full and free access to it for peaceful purposes.
What we have resisted is getting pushed into an unenforceable treaty against weapons in space that could hamper our ability to address threats in the future. So many weapons can be transformed instantly into "space weapons" if they are used against targets above the Earth's atmosphere -- as we've seen with the SM-3 missile -- that banning them is impossible. The real agenda of the Russians and the Chinese is to keep us from ever putting missile-defense interceptors in space. That would enhance our capability against their intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) arsenals.
This is how deep the Chinese and Russian commitment to the peacefulness of space runs: They want to have the option of launching ICBMs out into space where they will travel undisturbed until they reenter Earth's atmosphere on their way to visiting untold devastation on a target. The Chinese could make a genuine gesture toward peace in space by ending their rapid buildup of ICBMs, but their true interest is in preventing us from checking their missile threat to us and our allies.
Space has been weaponized at least since the Germans launched V-2 rockets against Britain. Today, we use satellites not just for commercial purposes, but for intelligence and military command and control. That's the reason the Chinese are so keen to be able to shoot them down. Space isn't a pristine last frontier unsullied by human competitiveness and ferocity, but an extension of our flawed world down here below. It can be dangerous, which is why it's a comfort that we are building defenses against threats more serious than a tank of hydrazine.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/turning_point_for_missile_defe.html
What a source!
source: http://www.ashbrook.org/events/lecture/2000/lowry.html
Richard Lowry, 31, graduated in 1990 from the University of Virginia, where he studied English and history. He went on to work as a research assistant for Charles Krauthammer, then as a reporter for a local paper in Northern Virginia. Richard Lowry joined National Review in 1992, after finishing second in a NR young writers contest. He became NR’s articles editor before moving to Washington in the summer of 1994 to cover Congress. He has written for Reader’s Digest, the Wall Street Journal, and a variety of other publications on topics ranging from presidential campaigns to marriage proposals and radio personality Dr. Laura. He was named editor of National Review in 1997. He lives in New York City.
source: http://www.ashbrook.org/events/lecture/2000/lowry.html
Richard Lowry, 31, graduated in 1990 from the University of Virginia, where he studied English and history. He went on to work as a research assistant for Charles Krauthammer, then as a reporter for a local paper in Northern Virginia. Richard Lowry joined National Review in 1992, after finishing second in a NR young writers contest. He became NR’s articles editor before moving to Washington in the summer of 1994 to cover Congress. He has written for Reader’s Digest, the Wall Street Journal, and a variety of other publications on topics ranging from presidential campaigns to marriage proposals and radio personality Dr. Laura. He was named editor of National Review in 1997. He lives in New York City.
Similar threads
