(no subject)

[novapsyche]

Satellite is destroyed but questions remain -- "What the successful strike in space conclusively proved was something else [...] The mission was conducted from navy warships. So the United States can move this capability at will over three-quarters of the Earth's surface."

Secret Service ordered Dallas police to stop screening for weapons before Obama rally

Comments

[jojomojo.livejournal.com]

Hmm.

A) The US has in fact had an anti-satellite weapon since the mid-80s anyway. They were the first to blow up a satellite in space, so they've nothing to prove here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT

B) blowing something up on re-entry (when it's useless as an actual satellite anyway) is a whole different ballpark from blowing something up in orbit. The US hasn't proved with this act that it can knock down satellites with the SM-3 in space, just that it can blow them up when they're already halfway down to the surface.

If there's any secret motivation, it's simply to keep all that fancy technology out of the hands of whichever country it might have fallen on.

[jojomojo.livejournal.com]

Ah, wait. Apparently I read the bit that goes 'And could this really have been a test for a shadow program to develop a new anti-satellite capability, the same type of weapon that was the target of Washington's criticism when China blew up a weather satellite last year?' and missed the bit further in the same article pointing all of this out. Which makes one wonder why they asked the question in the first place ;p

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

Wow, that second article has conspiracy theory written all over it. Just implausible enough to be true.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that you don't believe the article to have merit?

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

No, it's just one of those things that on the face, sounds completely crazy, but I believe it. I suspect moronic secret service agent making bad call over conspiracy, though.