A Lame Excuse to Rattle the Sabres
February 15, 2008 on 1:33 am | In ethics, politics, science |Bush administration officials announced yesterday that they are going to shoot down a disabled military spy satellite, and that the sole reason for this is “to avoid a spread of toxic fuel in an inhabited area.” Bullshit alert! The odds of this satellite crashing down near anywhere inhabited by people are so low, it’s not worth sweating over. The odds are far better that you’ll be struck by lightning. And besides, the “toxic fuel” they’re referring to is hydrazine, which isn’t all that dangerous. If a populated area were contaminated with hydrazine gas, at worst you’d have some people with symptoms similar to chlorine gas poisoning. This satellite shoot-down attempt is just a way for the U.S. military to test their high tech anti-satellite defenses; the toxicity risk is a lame excuse. The political implications of this action are ugly, especially considering that America got on China’s case for doing the same thing last year. And for pete’s sake, this plan poses a risk to other orbiting objects, such as the International Space Station! Granted, it’s not a very big risk, but it’s still higher than the odds that any of us would be wiped out by a single school bus-sized gas tank dropping out of orbit.
For the record, I am adamantly opposed to any combat occurring in space. If you can shoot at a satellite, it won’t be long before the satellites can shoot back.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
No weapons in space, like tree hugging, is a nice gesture. The real deal is that such use of technology is inevitable. The atomic bomb is the ultimate result of such science. In a perfect world, I agree with the opinion in this article. However, if a nation has the notion, it IS going to happen. Why not our side first. As in any ultimate battle for tech superiority, the tree hugger, however sweet, will perish. Period.
Comment by Dustin — February 15, 2008 #
Thanks for your comment, Dustin. Why do you present the statement “it IS going to happen” as an unquestionable fact? I think you’re being more cynical than necessary. I never know what to make of people saying “In a perfect world, I agree…” I think that our actions should reflect a desire to attain a “perfect world,” even while we know that absolute perfection is unobtainable. Are you suggesting that we should give up on anti-nuclear proliferation initiatives?
I don’t really see how this has anything to do with tree-hugging, by the way. Environmental issues are important too, but they are not the basis for my (or anyone’s, as far as I know) opposition to weaponizing space. Then again, to right-wing ideologues, environmentalism and anti-militarism are one in the same. You’re not one of those, are you?
Comment by simian — February 15, 2008 #
Actually, you’ve missed what is probably the real reason. It’s a spy satellite, and has roughly a 1/4 chance of coming down over land. Russia, China, and the Middle East are big places. I suspect the US don’t want to risk sensitive technology being seen by those governments. Which is reasonable enough to me.
The humanitarian risk of hitting a populated area is also not that low. It’s not huge, but the fraction of the earth’s surface that is inhabited is considerable. Sure the odds of you or me in particular getting hit are smaller than lightning, but the odds of *someone* getting hit are much higher. The hydrazine isn’t too dangerous, but a bus-sized satellite falling on some town is.
The debris risk is low as well, unlike the China case which happened at 865km. The debris will decay in a few orbits, as even the article you linked mostly agrees.
And finally, space is already weaponized. Spy, communications, and positioning satellites are already an indispensable part of modern war for every modern nation (not just the US). ICBMs also spend most of their flight in space, for that matter.
So in summary, this is a test with real and legitimate reasons, and very tiny risks. Of course concern is legitimate, but in this case the benefits seem to far outweigh the dangers.
Comment by Matt — February 15, 2008 #
Thanks for your comment, Matt. I doubt that any sensitive technology is likely to survive re-entry. The only thing with a decent chance of hitting the ground is the heavy hydrazine fuel tank. I agree with you that the debris risk is quite low; my point was just that it’s higher than the risk of a school-bus sized object hitting a person when it could land anywhere on the surface of the planet. Think about the odds of what you’re suggesting. You really believe that a school-bus sized object, which could land ANYWHERE on the surface of the planet, has a considerable chance of falling on a person or persons? I agree we’re overpopulated, but it’s not quite THAT bad yet!
I know there are already satellites in space that are part of weapons systems, but they are just for surveillance and communication - they do not deliver the actual “killing force.” That’s what I want to keep out of space: satellite-based laser weapons, anti-satellite missiles, etc. And by the way, ICBMS do not orbit.
Comment by simian — February 15, 2008 #
ICBMs dont orbit, but they do reach apex and spend a good deal of their flight time in space…
Comment by tohper12 — February 15, 2008 #
Thanks for your comment, tohper12. That really depends on your definition of space.
Comment by simian — February 15, 2008 #