Thursday, February 21, 2008

I don't see a difference. Do you see a difference?

Blogging Tory Jonathan Strong is so adorable when he's being scientifically retarded:

Bulls' Eye

The US Navy successfully shot down a spy satellite before it re-entered the Earth's atmosphere today. The decision to shoot down the satellite rather than let it burn up in the atmosphere was made because it was feared that toxic fuel could hit the Earth and it was unpredictable where the impact would actually be.

So far, so good ... and the conclusion we should all draw from that would be?

For those who thought missile defense could never work, this is another successful demonstration that the capability exists to use a exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) to knock out a object in space using purely kinetic energy.

Precisely. Because when it comes to missile defense, there's no obvious difference between blowing up a helpless satellite on a thoroughly predictable trajectory, and locating and destroying a hostile missile that's actively deploying defensive countermeasures.

In unrelated news, Canada's conservatives want you to know that supporting the troops from here is no different from actually being over there in combat. It's the same thing. Really.


Unknown said...

It is not about missile defense, but satellite defense. China tested their own anti-sat tech recently. And since space is now the place to be, when it comes to surveillance and weapon launch platforms, it makes sense that showing you can take out a satellite on the world stage is a power display.

Unknown said...

oh wait, sorry, he said it was missile defense, not you. My bad. :P

E in MD said...

Yeah and nothing makes toxic fuel more easy to predict than BLOWING IT THE FUCK UP.