Here We Go Again

Here we go again. The U.S. says one thing and does the opposite. And of course it finds a perfectly (to them) reasonable explanation and justification.

The U.S. has announced it will shoot down a spy satellite of which it lost control. Only last year the U.S. administration strongly criticized China for conducting a similar operation aimed at testing an anti-satellite system.

It is hardly surprising that the Pentagon and the White House claim that the operation is done in the name of world safety as the satellite will go out of control and plunge into the atmosphere by the end of March. Hardly the first satellite to fall on Earth...

According to James Jeffrey, a national security adviser, Mr. Bush has ordered to destroy the satellite because there is a greater chance of injuries to human beings beyond those usually associated with the re-entry of satellites into the atmosphere.

The satellite contains about 450 kilograms of hydrazine rocket fuel used in booster rockets. Hydrazine is a highly toxic chemical and can produce grave damages to humans. Hence the need to destroy it. True, but most of it would burn during re-entry.

The U.S. also claims that the difference between what the Chinese did and what the U.S. will do is that the satellite the U.S. plans to shoot down is on a lower orbit and will be hit when it is about to re-enter the atmosphere and all pieces of debris will be completely destroyed upon entering the atmosphere. After the Chinese experiment, several hundreds pieces of debris were tracked orbiting around the Earth posing a danger to other satellite.

Still, there is no assurance that there will be no big chunks of space trash left after the impact.

I am no satellite or space technology expert, so I take their word for good (sort of...). Still, I see no reason why the satellite could not be left to its fate and let burn on re-entry like all other satellites at the end of their life-cycle do.

I (and I am not alone here) believe there are further motives behind the move.

One is that as it is a spy satellite it is likely to contain sensitive data, software and/or hardware that the U.S. would not be happy to see fall in anyone's hands, least China or Russia. The Pentagon, in the incarnation of Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that any sensitive technology would be destroyed on re-entry. So, once again, where is the need to destroy the satellite while still in orbit?

Still, the administration refuses to give any information about the satellite...

The answer may lie in the fact that the U.S. has not conducted a similar test since 1985. With China successfully shooting down a satellite last year, the U.S. may feel compelled to prove that they are not second to anyone.

And what about other countries that have satellites up in the sky and say they want to shoot it down when it comes to end of the run? Isn't this reminiscent of Cold War practices when the Soviet Union and the U.S. engaged in an arms race, each legitimizing the other's actions by "testing" a new defensive weapon?

The only difference between China and the U.S. is that the U.S. is telling the world what they are about to do -- maybe because they know they couldn't hide it anyway -- and the Chinese just did and then told everyone.