U.S. gets ready to shoot down satellite!

[onfire]

This was the latest, greatest U.S. spy satellite. ONE reason they shot it down was to keep any parts that MAY have survived re-entry from falling into our enemies hands. What is so hard to understand about that. You don't think "pieces" of space crafts can survive re-entry? One word...Columbia. 'Nuff said.

Late................Mitch

 

[Coyote Jack]

I agree Mitch. There is no way that the U.S. wanted any part of that satellite to land anywhere no matter how remote the chances of anything surviving re-entry.
In my original post I was just putting forward a thought that maybe they were testing something else at the same time.

Jack

 

[FABMAN]

Now it seems to me that the big reason for having to shoot it down was the risk of a cloud of deadly fumes from the fuel still on board if it re-entered on it's own.
Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but if it was fuel and it burned on re-entry, by the time any fumes got to the ground, they would be well dispersed. Do they not worry about this with other satellite's and maybe even the shuttle's? And no, they don't use all fuel aboard before they re-enter. They always have a safety margin.
Uncle Sam's military is never going to show us their best stuff unless it is a time of all out war which none of us ever want to see.
I couldn't care less how they shot it down, just so long as it doesn't or didn't land on me. LOL

Jack

This satellite never function from the start so they had no control of it. Other satellite's that function when there service is done they can control re-entry so they will land in open water and most if not all fuel is used up.

 

[.]

I didn't know the Chineese could. If they can, fine. I just find it a little funny that they only hit about half the scud's they aim at. Also, I don't think they are ever going to show us the best they have. Just getting a little controversy going. LOL

Jack

The Chinese already did about 1 year ago. That's why I said what I did. If the Chinese could do it (with technology Clinton probably sold them) then we sure as hell can do it.

 

[.]

(with technology Clinton probably sold them).

Any proof?

 

[Eddie]

Any proof?

No, unfortunately Sandy Berger stole and shredded it.

 

[willy]

Man..it sure does denigrate doesn't it?

(and yes Brent..I'll read it even knowing that someone always pees in the Cheerios)

I like Larry's post.

 

[.]

Any proof?

There's plenty of proof he sold the Chinese technology. Use Google.

 

[TJ]

Never knew Clinton owned a company that made defense equipment for sell?

Most every offense/defense builder is open to sell whatever they want and unless they are under a U.S. military contract they can do as they wish.
Look @ Boeing, they lost the last jet fighter contract to Lockheed/Martin and are selling those planes to Pakistan.

Nothing new in that arena of life...

 

[club]

Never knew Clinton owned a company that made defense equipment for sell?

Most every offense/defense builder is open to sell whatever they want and unless they are under a U.S. military contract they can do as they wish.
Look @ Boeing, they lost the last jet fighter contract to Lockheed/Martin and are selling those planes to Pakistan.

Nothing new in that arena of life...

Not quite accurate, most weapons and technology require some form of government approval to be exported. Anything from a simple export license to congressional approval. A lot will also depend on the trading status of a particular country and I believe during the Clinton administration China did not have most favored nation status which would definitely required approvals. I remember back in the 80's I tried to get an export license to send a copy of Ashton-Tate's dBase software to Indonesia for Chevron and it not only required customs approval it also required State Department approval.

Most common items you can export with no problem but even the simplest things you can't send to "the seven" Iran, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba, without an export license.

 

[TJ]

An appendaged division of a company registered in another country does not need U.S. government approval...
Boeing...Lockheed and many others are not just listed/registered here in the U.S.
Look @ what Halliburton did recently..they are no longer a U.S. based company..

 

[Nitrohaulic]

Now it seems to me that the big reason for having to shoot it down was the risk of a cloud of deadly fumes from the fuel still on board if it re-entered on it's own.
Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but if it was fuel and it burned on re-entry, by the time any fumes got to the ground, they would be well dispersed. Do they not worry about this with other satellite's and maybe even the shuttle's? And no, they don't use all fuel aboard before they re-enter. They always have a safety margin.
Uncle Sam's military is never going to show us their best stuff unless it is a time of all out war which none of us ever want to see.
I couldn't care less how they shot it down, just so long as it doesn't or didn't land on me. LOL

Jack

It would likely survive re-entry

I think the keyword is "survive." Sounds like the fuel wouldn't have dispersed until after impact. Shooting it down probably cost a lot less than the lawsuits if it landed in the wrong place.

Now, if it would have cost MORE to shoot it down than the lawsuits?