US spy satellite plan 'a cover'

[IndianaGreen]

Source: BBC News

US spy satellite plan 'a cover'

Last Updated: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 00:43 GMT

Russia has accused the US of using a plan to shoot down a broken spy satellite as a cover for testing an anti-satellite weapon.

The US said last week that it would use a missile to destroy the satellite, to stop it from crash landing.

Officials say the satellite contains hazardous fuel which could kill humans.

But Russia's defence ministry said the US planned to test its "anti-missile defence system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites".

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248995.stm

[Redstone]

1. Oh, horseshit. Of COURSE the Russians are going to say that. Some "news" that is.

Redstone

[MikeDuffy]

22. Oh, horseshit. Of COURCE Redstone is going to say that. Some "news" that is.

Not Redstone...

[aquart]

25. Of COURSE, Bush is telling the truth for the first time in 8 years.

Redstone. Seriously.

[alfredo]

46. If the three missiles miss, it will be an embarrassment.

The satellite is low, slow, big and is not using stealth technology.

[Mik T]

47. They will miss-check out the thread about the Russian bombers

It's no coincidence. I am pretty sure the russians have radar-jamming technology that will mess up The ABM guidance systems. Those bombers are probably retrofitted with it- after all, You need to be able to carry a heavy payload and the bombers are just the thing. They are buzzing the American carrier to let them know that they are there, and the test will fail.

China's test didn't fail because they gave little warning and shot it down from their own soil, not the middle of the ocean.

The only thing I can think of is that we are not going to shoot it down from the middle of the pacific but will change the origin of our fire at the last minute.

That could cause a whole host of other problems.

There is a serious potential for an international incident here.

[alfredo]

49. This is a high risk operation.

[aquart]

56. George likes to take risks with our lives.

Gives him a thrill.

[alfredo]

57. He's never had to pay for his misconduct. He's still a child of wealth and

privilege. He plays with our lives to amuse himself, knowing he will never have to answer for his crimes.

[Demeter]

58. Nowadays, The Russians Are More Likely To Tell the Truth Than Any BushCo Flunkie

The only news with facts that we get comes from overseas.

[Occulus]

34. Well, considering it's a perfectly logical conclusion,

I see nothing particularly incorrect about their comments on the matter.

After all, if you had a satellite-strike weapon, and needed to test it, what better way than on a dying satellite?

Now, if you want to argue that the satellite was disabled on purpose, I'll need my :tinfoilhat:, but using the falling satellite as an excuse to test a weapon designed to take out satellites?

Perfectly reasonable.

[CoffeeCat]

2. The first thing I thought of when I heard about this...

...was "Ok, what are they REALLY doing, and why are they REALLY doing this?"

My guess is that it's a public-relations ploy to demonstrate that our anti-missile defense system
is accurate and worth pouring tons of additional dollars into.

I guessed that this is part of their long-term marketing plan to sell "Star Wars" and other
defense systems.

Funny. I thought about this for ten seconds, and then went about my day. It's no big
whoop anymore, to assume that our government is lying and leveraging some kind of
weapon that will enrich the same old elite echelon--and bamboozling the American people
to get it done.

[defendandprotect]

18. Right -- !! And, of course, the whole Star Wars thing is militarization of the skies . . .

'cause totally fucking up the earth with war just isn't enough for these idiots ---

[IndianaGreen]

38. If our anti-missile defense system is so accurate, why are they using 3 missiles...

If our anti-missile defense system is so accurate, why are they using 3 missiles to shoot it down, one primary with two back ups?

I am of the notion that there is something really nasty aboard the satellite, such as plutonium used to power batteries, than the bullshit story about the fuel.

[snappyturtle]

44. Your first thought=my first thought!....exactly. n/t

[tularetom]

3. Maybe the satellite isn't "broken" at all

and maybe it is just a test to see if we can shoot down other countries spy satellites. A backdoor way of testing a star wars defense system.

There is always the very real possibility that they will fail to shoot the thing down. This IS the bush administration ya know. They haven't done anything right yet.

If they do miss we will be told they destroyed it. Have they contracted with George Lucas to create film of the event?

[Robbien]

4. Well, Duh

Other older satellites have crashed down with these lethal chemicals aboard. No big outcry from the Feds about those.

Of course this is a test of our anti-missile system.

[ManiacJoe]

11. Care to site some examples of others?

Normally these things crash back to Earth with empty fuel tanks, which allows them burn up easily during reentry. This one has a huge tank that is full of now frozen fuel.

Technically it is a test of the missile system, since there are no practice shots. However, according to press reports, the modifications to the system for this to be successful are so specific to this task that they are not useful to the generic anti-missile system fleet-wide.

[yourout]

5. If the US was truly worried about it hurting people they would not try to blow it into a thousand...

pieces of hazardous material that could land accross a large area.

It would be alot easier to clean up one moderate problem rather than a thousand little ones.

[ManiacJoe]

12. They are not going to blow up the satelite.

They are going to ram it with the missile and break it into several large pieces so that it will burn up during reentry.

[barb162]

13. It it lands on your house, it's not a moderate problem.

And if it lands on mine or my neighborhood, it's not a moderate problem either. I'd rather they try shooting it down before it lands on some school or who knows where else.

[aquart]

24. See, that's what I was thinking. Contain the poison, don't spread it.

[dysfunctional press]

32. the little pieces will burn up in the atmosphere...

not land across a large area.

[mysteryman2]

6. It's true

It's true we are going to do it. And if they don't act right they can can see it a few more times. They are just jealous we beat the Tali-ban. Osama probably gets hook ups from Russia out of embarrassment we did what they couldn't.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. You make some interesting points.

"It's true we are going to do it." - well that is a good start. I don't think anyone is disputing that we are going to attempt to blow this thing up.

"And if they don't act right they can can see it a few more times." - who is they? The Russians? How are they not acting right? And what exactly do you mean by "they can can see it a few more times"?

"They are just jealous we beat the Tali-ban." by an odd coincidence a huge suicide bomb attack in Afghanistan killed around 80 people today. I'm not so sure we have exactly beaten the 'Tali-ban'.

"Osama probably gets hook ups from Russia out of embarrassment we did what they couldn't." You seem to be saying (although the sentence structure is so awkward it is hard to tell) that Russia is backing al qaida. What an odd assertion. Do you have any evidence for this?

[RainDog]

36. where'd you get that right-wing spin?

or maybe you just aren't up on recent history. we armed the taliban to fight the russians, yes, and the taliban were our chosen enforcers. and we didn't give a shit when they were shooting women in soccer stadiums for adultery, as long as we let them fight a proxy war -- and the taliban let OBL train in their country. so, our allies were allies with obl. the world isn't as black and white as you'd like to present it.

and then, after we created the mess of the taliban, we go in and "beat" them. (actually, have you read about the recent resurgence of the taliban? maybe if you go to war for political bullshit with another country... maybe you don't actually fix the problem you created.

In the 1970s, when Wolfie, et al were screaming about the soviet danger, Emmanuel Todd was writing about the way the USSR was going to implode from its own inconsistencies...and that's exactly what happened. Gorby was trying to make the transition as painless as possible, but the USSR got shock doctrine eco. policy from the ultra right and then all sorts of dangerous weapons tech. was for sale, because people will do that if they're afraid they can't survive.

I can only assume that you are either 1. very young or 2. not aware of actual history, or 3. a...you know...under bridges, all that... Hope it's no. 1.

[grytpype]

7. Of course they're lying. China shot a satelite down and now we need to do it.

[ladywnch]

8. nah, you guys got it all wrong.

this is a test for a future Deep Impact/Armageddon meteor shoot down. this is to save the planet from that meteor that is going to pass 'dangerously close' to the Earth they've been talking about recently. Billy Bob Thorton and Bruce Willis are in on it too.

It is for the good of the WORRRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLLDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!


:puke: :sarcasm:

[Sam Ervin jret]

9. Yes there is a spy sat. and it is falling, yes it has haz. mat. on board, and of course George wants

to try out his dandy "star wars" technology. China did. And you know how kids are. If China jumped off a bridge....,

well anyway, yes it could fall and the threat would be marginally equal (depending on who you ask), blowing it up or letting it fall naturally, there seems to still be some debate on it in the science community.

But come on. you know! How many chances is George gonna get to play with this before he leaves office?

I can hear the White house internal debate now........
"Can I? Uncle Dick,? Can I,? Can I,? PLEASE, PILEEEASE BLOW it up?" debated the Pres.

Well, the debate raged with the president showing his usual intellectual dexterity. And apparently the stalwart VP with his usual alacrity decided,

"Will it Shut you up?"

and of course the boys in Russia want one too.

[Alexander]

10. Neither story would surprise me.

On the flip side, I'm skeptical of both stories.

[mac2]

15. Me too

Yes...I love Wellstone too. I miss him.

[aquart]

26. Believing George is always foolish.

OTOH, he really wants to blow something up and since we didn't let him nuke Iran, he may be thinking of this as his George Saves The World legacy fireworks.

[Purveyor]

14. My 'old fat ass' will do cartwheels in my frontyard if we fail to 'hit the target'.... eom

[defendandprotect]

19. Thre's a lot of evidence that this stuff doesn't work --- so this may be their opportunity to

suggest/show otherwise . . . $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in weapons -- not much new there!!

[Lint Head]

16. What if the satellite has a weapon on board and the US wants

to cover that up. Just speculation. If the CIA can secretly give experimental LSD to US citizens anything, as has been admitted under FOIA, is possible. :dem:

[Adsos Letter]

17. ...this protest...

...from a country which just engaged in an exceptionally provocative act by overflying the Nimitz carrier group with a couple of Bear bombers...

Methinks they doth protest too much.

[Peace Patriot]

39. And you don't think that was prompted by the U.S./Bush's exceptionally provocative

act of placing U.S. missiles all around Russia's border?

Tit for tat, it seems to me.

Could also be related to U.S./Bush's exceptional hostility to Iran, Russia/Iran oil trade, the Iranian oil bourse opening, Russia/Iran nuclear energy development, and Russian intel about, or worries about, hostile U.S./Bush action against Iran.

But Putin was so vocal about the "missile shield" that I'm pretty convinced that was the reason for the overfly.

Also, I think it's quite reasonable to presume that this is a Bush Junta test of warfare systems against other countries' satellites. The Bush Junta has taken an exceptionally aggressive and hostile attitude in foreign policy, including, of course, slaughtering 1.2 million Iraqis to get their oil. Everything, to them, is a "war." And they have utilized every resource of our country--the U.S. military itself, the National Guard, the Reserves, our federal and state treasuries, emergency services, private telecommunications companies, all government contracting, all peaceful programs--the USAID-NED, the Peace Corps, humanitarian aid budgets--the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, the Dept. of Justice, rigged voting machines, the corrupt campaign contribution system, and the shredding of the Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and our treaty with UN--to increase the belligerency of the U.S. on behalf of their global corporate predator pals.

They militarize EVERYTHING. They make everything a tool for warfare in the interest of the rich. It would be stupid to presume that they would do otherwise on ANY program or project. And it is not only reasonable--but also well-informed and intelligent--to presume their ill intention in anything they do. NOTHING they do is to "keep the American people safe." NOTHING they do enhances or promotes "democracy and freedom." NOTHING they do has peaceful or beneficial intent. Based on considerable experience (eight long years of it), those should be the presumptions on any Bush Junta action, until proven otherwise.

And making those presumptions helps you figure out what they are up to--in the face of relentless 24/7, fascist propaganda, warmongering, lies and disinformation in our corporate media, COVERING UP Bush Junta bad intentions and mind-boggling crimes. If anything, Putin is guilty of a non sequitur. Does the Bush Junta have ill intention in shooting a satellite? OF COURSE THEY DO!

[Mik T]

48. It's probably directly related

The Russians are showing the USA that if they go forward with this it is going to fail. Thats why they are shadowing the carriers with their old bombers. You don't need a lot of speed to carry jamming technology which will interfere with missle guidance systems. The stuff is bulky, so you just need to be able to carry a big payload. They buzzed the Nimitz to say "Hi"

[Adsos Letter]

50. delete

[TheLastMohican]

70. Nimitz was in the international waters

closer to Russia than US.
It is allowed by international conventions to fly in international waters. So stop smoking that militaristic pipe of yours. The whole world with its seas doesn't belong to US.

[ConcernedCanuk]

20. Hmmm, the USA put that satellite up AFTER the Chinese shot down their satellite.

.
.
.

The USA would'nae put a wee homing device in it, now would they?

Then they'd be SURE to hit it . . .

Something to ponder . . .

[hack89]

27. Check your dates

The satellite was launched in December 2006 - the Chinese shot down their satellite a month later.

[Peace Patriot]

35. Thanks for the date. Why is a U.S. satellite falling out of the sky only a year

or so after they launched it?

[hack89]

45. It failed immediatley after launch

and never reached it's intended orbit. A rare occurrence but not unlikely considering the complexity of satellites.

[Peace Patriot]

55. Well, employing my rule of thumb on anything Bushites have control over--

the presumption that they intend looting, destruction and death, whatever the agency, program or project--we need to ask, why did this unusual thing occur--a satellite failing immediately after launch?

It is very unwise to employ "likeliness" thinking on matters Bushite--except for the likeliness of their bad intentions. Is it likely that the U.S. would ever install a vote counting system all over the country, run on 'trade secret,' proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls? Is it likely that a President of the U.S. would advocate and practice torture? The unlikely becomes "mission accomplished" very quickly under the Bush Junta.

So, this is "rare occurrence," eh? Interesting. I see two possibilities: 1) The Bush Junta fosters stupidity and incompetence throughout the government, because of their hatred of the progressive, enlightened, scientifically adept, well-educated American people and the government those people created for themselves--except in instances where the Bushites need things to work right (for spying, for killing people), and so, they put stupid, incompetent Bushbots in charge of the normally competent folks who design and launch satellites, and cut their funding as well--result: failed satellite immediately after launch; or 2) it was designed to fail for some ill Bushite purpose.

Because of the pervasive flak and bullshit psyops that provide cover for Bushite crime, you need to cast that cloud off and see them for what they are--gangsters, writ large--in order to figure out what they're up to. If you presume otherwise--that they mean well on a given item, or that some event in which they had a hand is simply a neutral event, unconnected to their goals of grand theft and death-dealing--you will more than likely be suckered. And you can't go far wrong making the presumption of ill intent. It hasn't failed yet, as a predictor of Bushite motives and actions. You can always revise it, if it turns out that something they did--or something they had their fingers in--was actually intended for a good purpose.

Just sayin.

Why did they launch a satellite that failed? Did it really fail, or did something else happen? And what is their purpose in shooting it down, rather than letting it fall to earth as others have? I vote for Putin's explanation--they are practicing a system for shooting down others' satellites, in which case it may be that the satellite was designed to fail.

There are other possibilities. Perhaps the whole thing is a lie, from start to finish--a charade and cover for testing of an unknown weapon, or a plot to have a missile go astray for some nefarious purpose (civil disruption--test of systems for shutting down a region with martial law?)

We should never forget who we're dealing with--fascists and war criminals. And we should never, ever trust what they say they're doing, or why.

[hack89]

60. I was wrong - turns out it is fairly common

It does not take a lot of effort to build a list of governmental and corporate mistakes and incompetence stretching back for decades. You may want to believe that there is something unique about the bush administration but you will not be able to prove it. Some simple research shows that satellite failures are pretty common.

Here is an extensive list of satellite failures - it is more common than you apparently want to believe.

http://www.sat-nd.com/failures/

http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/failures/

We estimate that during 2001-2003, an average of about a dozen satellites failed or malfunctioned each year. Two-thirds of those satellites experienced a problem within two years of being launched.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:1EFixqUDh0kJ:www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/insightsjanuary04.pdf+satellite+failures&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I don' t think it was design to fail - it also makes sense that they would use this opportunity to test our ability to shoot it down.

[Blue State Bandit]

21. Didn't China just destroy a sat last year?

[SpikeTss]

23. The official explanation for this is NOT propaganda NOR is it a cover

for bad intentions of our military!

Why I am so sure about this? Easy! The track record of the Bush administration.

Bush and his crew proved time and time again, that virtually nothing is more important to them than our safety.
Just think about their brave actions regarding radioactive matter: Whenever the Bush administration finds dangerous radioactive stuff, they immediately put it into airplanes and drop it onto the people of Iraq as depleted uranium munition, just to make sure that we, the US citizens, are not endangered by it. And whenever they find dangerous and highly inflammatory materials like phosphorous they do the same and send it as napalm/MK-77 and phosphorous bombs to Iraq, just to make sure that these things don't explode in our own country.

So, YES, I do believe the official explanation for shooting down this satellite. This decision is based on conservative compassion!

:sarcasm:

[postulater]

28. They will certainly be able to plan the debris trail to fall

on some very specific Baghdad neighborhoods, NIMBY!

[EFerrari]

29. That was my first thought, too. When did they ever care about

dangerous chemicals?!

[Summer93]

30. *Bush's* toy

Yes it was launched in December of 2006, during the administration of King *Bush*. He has planned this from day one.

From another article - "The broken satellite had been predicted to reach the top of the Earth's atmosphere towards the end of February or early March and officials could not predict where it would land."

Stupid statement.

I also like thre idea that if they launched it with a homing device it would be a cinch to shoot it down. A sure thing! Along the lines of voting machines put the fix in first and then let people think they getting a vote but all the while the control is in your hands.

[slackmaster]

31. "Taking out broken satellite" and "Testing anti-satellite system" are not mutually exclusive

Has anyone considered that?

[tuckessee]

37. Some expert on NPR said the fuel was no threat because it evaporated rapidly

He said there was no reason to shoot it down because of the fuel concerns.

[IndianaGreen]

40. By Killing Satellite, US Would Send Ominous Message (related article)

Published on Sunday, February 17, 2008 by The Cleveland Plain Dealer
By Killing Satellite, US Would Send Ominous Message
by Elizabeth Sullivan

The debris fallout may be less wor risome than the diplomatic fall out. U.S. space and defense planners say they’re putting safety first in trying to shoot apart a falling spy satellite and its tank full of toxic fuel before either come to ground next month and hit a town.But countries around the world instead see another notch on the belt of America’s aggressive space-weapons research. A multibillion-dollar anti-missile program that has yet to prove itself in a full, real-world test - and that many physicists say can never be an impermeable shield against cheap decoys - is either openly supported or not clearly rejected by the leading presidential candidates.

John McCain strongly favors the missile defense system. Hillary Clinton doesn’t directly address the issue on her Web site. It was her husband’s administration that made the decision to move forward more aggressively with the underlying research.

Barack Obama opposes weapons in outer space, but, according to the Polish press, his chief foreign policy adviser, Anthony Lake, told Polish Americans in Cleveland last month that the shield project should not be abandoned in light of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Yet to many overseas, nothing says American hegemony as clearly as this single-minded pursuit of technological dominance over outer space.

The United States has sunk nearly $100 billion since 1980 into missile defenses and proposes to spend $49 billion more over the next five years. Yet so many missile intercept tests have failed that the Missile Defense Agency now classifies some technical failures as “no-tests” so they don’t count.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/15/7107/

[Atomiktruth]

41. Bush wants to play with a big gun before he leaves office

Just a thought

[lovuian]

42. You Americans can believe Bush's pentagon

but the Russians and the world Don't

China and Russia were talking about a treaty which was against Weapons in Space

Notice America isn't being part of that treaty

Now we are shooting down satellites of which we gave China grief about and now we are doing it

I still think the Peruvian mystery crater which got many people sick was a satellite that crashed

At this point Bush's pentagon has no credibility in the world
its sad but true

[Mik T]

43. Check out the tread about The Russian bombers

If we are right, and I am pretty sure we are- Those Russian bombers are there because we are going to shoot down the satellite from one of those carriers. The Russians are probably not so subtly letting us know that their radar jamming tech is on the case and-If we in fact are using a carrier in the Pacific to shoot it down- it will fail because they will intercept the ABS missile designated to shoot down the satellite.

This could cause a major international incident.

[SpikeTss]

51. I think this is not convincing

It will fail because they will intercept the ABS missile designated to shoot down the satellite

Why would the Russians want to do this?

If we decide to shoot down the satellite, we lose:

- If we succeed, it proves that our administration follows their own interests, no matter what and it furthermore proves that we completely disrespect existing treaties and the interests of other nations.
- If we fail, we prove on top of that, that our fabulous army toys don't function the way they're supposed to do.

In other words: We're screwed and the Russians won't have to do anything.

It's the miracle of Bush's political leadership.

[Mik T]

52. If the test suceeds then congress will give the go ahead to put the systems in Poland

Russia doesn't want that. If the test fails congress will oppose the waste of spending money on installing a system in Poland that doesn't work.

That's what Russia wants.

Thats probably why their bombers are circling our aircraft carriers in the Pacific. Thay are planning to use their jamming systems to prevent it from working.

[Thothmes]

59. Not going to use a carrier

An Aegis Class cruiser with SM-3 missiles will be used to try and down the satellite.

[hack89]

61. No

the carriers do not shoot down missiles. Details here. You - and the Russian - have no idea where the missiles will be launched from. I seriously doubt they can jam either the radar or the missiles - the modified AEGIS radars used for tracking ballistic missiles is incredibly powerful and sophisticated.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4249458.html

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htspace/articles/20080215.aspx

[Mik T]

62. You could be right

Each carrier travels in a battle group- probably the ship that is tasked for the mission will be part of the battle group of one of the three carriers stationed in the Pacific right now. Unless they are completely BSing about shooting it down from that location.

Radar jamming equipment can work from a distance though.

BSing about location would be the smart thing to do, although that has it's own dangers. I think the Chinese got away with it because they didn't give anyone much warning.

But-then, what do I know about military strategy, I'm just a 38 year old mom who works in the home and happens to have a photographic memory.

[blues90]

53. I personally don't trust a thing our government tells us

Give me or anyone else one good reason why the hell they would .

all we have gotten so far is lie upon lie . I don't even trust what the said purpose of the space station is .

Everything is linked in one way or another to wars , everything . It does not matter if it's a war on another country of on americans themselves .

Anyone can see this anywhere they look if their eyes are open and their minds are open .

I personally don't trust anyone who comes on any forum who claims to be in the know or an expert on anything . It's the web people , anyone can claim to be anything they choose and there is no proof what so ever required .

It is america who puts everyone else on guard because of their insistence to produce wars not Russia of any place else that I can recall in resent history .

Americans are stupid people , the proof is in their being so caught up in yet another fake election as if a sudden change is just around the corner . They say they can muli-task but focus on one thing right now , elections and candidates and polls along with numbers and opinion while the government continues to move on under the wire .

[bdamomma]

65. I do not trust the government either.

do you know who implemented this order, it came from Bush, now, when has he ever done anything right, doesn't sound good to me either.:scared:

[daleo]

54. The U.S. government is going to spend millions to protect civilians

From an infinitesimal danger? The chances of the hydrazine making it to the earth's surface in a populated area are negligible.

The Bush administration is only pretending that it cares about human safety, foreign or American. Remember, this is a government that has killed tens of thousands of foreign civilians and ignored the plight of thousands of U.S. citizens who were stranded and drowning in New Orleans. They could care less about people - their actions show that.

Russia is right - this is just an opportunity for the U.S. military to test their weaponry.

[dipsydoodle]

63. Didn't know they still used hydrazine

Germans used that for their rocket plane. Mix it with hyrogen peroxide and voila ! - rocket fuel. Apparently killed more pilots than allieds :http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=107

Engine was about the size of a briefcase. Trouble was that the fuel components had a nasty habit of combining prematurely due to fule line corrosian and whoof - goodbye pilot.

[Summer93]

64. Launched in 2006

Under the Bush administration.

[ileus]

66. Uh....it is a anti-satellite weapon.

[Pale Blue Dot]

67. Those that are seeing a conspiracy in this are missing the far more likely, and chilling, scenario.

From the beginning, when it was said that we have no idea where this thing will land, I called Bullshit. I'm sure that NASA has computer models that can factor in all of the relevant variables to give them an excellent idea where this is going to crash down.

It seems obvious to me that those models have shown a high likelihood that this is going to come down in a highly populated area, and that shooting it down may be the only way to stop a major catastrophe.

[daleo]

69. I doubt it can be modeled all that accurately

I think there are just too many unknowns regarding drag in the high atmosphere (or low space, if you prefer), then the effects of the satellite tumbling as it falls, becoming super-hot and breaking up in unpredictable ways, turbulence in the lower atmosphere, etc.

It makes a nice target to an anti-missile test though.

[AndyTiedye]

68. Seems Pretty Obvious

How is "shooting down" the satellite going to prevent it from doing damage on re-entry?
All that would do (if they can hit the thing) is break it up into a few somewhat smaller pieces.
They'd still survive re-entry and they would threaten a larger area.

They want to demonstrate their ability to knock out satellites.

Couple this with the string of undersea cable failures a couple of weeks ago and it
starts to look like we are skating very close to the edge of something really nasty.