Video of the mission shows an interceptor missile ascending atop a bright trail of burning fuel, and then a flash, a fireball, a plume of vapor.
The operation Thursday left a cloud of debris and little doubt that the missile had squarely hit its mark, a dying spy satellite in its final, declining orbits more than 130 miles, or 200 kilometers, above the Pacific Ocean.
A different kind of doubt still lingers, though, expressed by policy analysts, some scientists and not a few foreign powers, especially China and Russia.
Did the risk to people of a half-ton of frozen rocket fuel landing who knows where warrant such an extraordinary military operation? Or was it really designed to showcase America's technical prowess? And could this really have been a test for a shadow program to develop a new anti-satellite capability, the same type of weapon that was the target of Washington's criticism when China blew up a weather satellite last year?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said at a press conference in Hawaii that he was prepared to share some details of the operation with China to alleviate that country's concerns that the debris still may prove dangerous. Even as football-sized rubble began to re-enter the atmosphere, the military remained poised to respond to any problems that might emerge.
Related Articles
China criticizes U.S. missile strike
Today in Americas
Debate takes on contentious air for U.S. Democrats
Spending by Clinton campaign worries supporters
McCain denies aides' statements about lobbyist
Senior military officials dismissed concerns among Chinese and Russian officials and some arms control analysts that the episode was really a test of missile defenses.
They pointed out that while the U.S. Navy's SM-3 interceptor is an integral part of the military's effort to defend against a limited ballistic missile attack, the three rockets picked for this task - only one was used - had to be completely reprogrammed in order to seek and strike a big, cold satellite in space, instead of a small, red-hot enemy warhead on a ballistic path from an adversary toward America.
And while the mission was, on its face, an anti-satellite operation, the United States did not have to demonstrate this capacity again, having knocked out a satellite back in 1985, with an interceptor launched from beneath the wing of an air force fighter.
What the successful strike in space conclusively proved was something else, a robust and flexible military capability that almost stands above the particulars of this unique case, and can be cited by either side in what no doubt will be the ensuing debate.
The mission was conducted from navy warships. So the United States can move this capability at will over three-quarters of the Earth's surface.
The missile-defense interceptors were converted to an anti-satellite capability in little more than a month. No expensive research and development program. No starting from scratch on white boards in some lab. This agility has to cause pause to any adversary.
"This was uncharted territory," said General James Cartwright of the Marines, who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "The technical degree of difficulty was significant here." He noted that important elements of the U.S. missile-defense system were used: the sensors, and the netting together of the sensors.
"The missile itself is a standard missile in the navy inventory; the ship is a standard ship in the navy inventory," Gates said. "We added a lot of instrumentation. We made some modifications to the software to be able to go after a satellite." But he added that "it's not something that we would be entering into the service in some standard way."
In somewhat dramatic language, the mission was hailed by Riki Ellison, president of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, one of the more energetic groups promoting developing of ballistic-missile defenses. "The factual reality of using deployed missile defenses to destroy a falling satellite or a ballistic missile or even a meteor from space that would risk human life is an achievement for mankind," a statement from the organization said.
Yet, even the successful mission in no way proves the United States is safe from nuclear attack, nor that it can do what it wants in space.
Gates, at the start of a weeklong series of meetings in Asia, said the debate over whether America's missile defense system works "is behind us," but that issues still remain about exactly what types of missile threats the system could be used against.
"The question of whether this capability works has been settled," said Gates. "The question is against what kind of threat, how large a threat, how sophisticated a threat."
The operation Thursday left a cloud of debris and little doubt that the missile had squarely hit its mark, a dying spy satellite in its final, declining orbits more than 130 miles, or 200 kilometers, above the Pacific Ocean.
A different kind of doubt still lingers, though, expressed by policy analysts, some scientists and not a few foreign powers, especially China and Russia.
Did the risk to people of a half-ton of frozen rocket fuel landing who knows where warrant such an extraordinary military operation? Or was it really designed to showcase America's technical prowess? And could this really have been a test for a shadow program to develop a new anti-satellite capability, the same type of weapon that was the target of Washington's criticism when China blew up a weather satellite last year?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said at a press conference in Hawaii that he was prepared to share some details of the operation with China to alleviate that country's concerns that the debris still may prove dangerous. Even as football-sized rubble began to re-enter the atmosphere, the military remained poised to respond to any problems that might emerge.
Related Articles
China criticizes U.S. missile strike
Today in Americas
Debate takes on contentious air for U.S. Democrats
Spending by Clinton campaign worries supporters
McCain denies aides' statements about lobbyist
Senior military officials dismissed concerns among Chinese and Russian officials and some arms control analysts that the episode was really a test of missile defenses.
They pointed out that while the U.S. Navy's SM-3 interceptor is an integral part of the military's effort to defend against a limited ballistic missile attack, the three rockets picked for this task - only one was used - had to be completely reprogrammed in order to seek and strike a big, cold satellite in space, instead of a small, red-hot enemy warhead on a ballistic path from an adversary toward America.
And while the mission was, on its face, an anti-satellite operation, the United States did not have to demonstrate this capacity again, having knocked out a satellite back in 1985, with an interceptor launched from beneath the wing of an air force fighter.
What the successful strike in space conclusively proved was something else, a robust and flexible military capability that almost stands above the particulars of this unique case, and can be cited by either side in what no doubt will be the ensuing debate.
The mission was conducted from navy warships. So the United States can move this capability at will over three-quarters of the Earth's surface.
The missile-defense interceptors were converted to an anti-satellite capability in little more than a month. No expensive research and development program. No starting from scratch on white boards in some lab. This agility has to cause pause to any adversary.
"This was uncharted territory," said General James Cartwright of the Marines, who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "The technical degree of difficulty was significant here." He noted that important elements of the U.S. missile-defense system were used: the sensors, and the netting together of the sensors.
"The missile itself is a standard missile in the navy inventory; the ship is a standard ship in the navy inventory," Gates said. "We added a lot of instrumentation. We made some modifications to the software to be able to go after a satellite." But he added that "it's not something that we would be entering into the service in some standard way."
In somewhat dramatic language, the mission was hailed by Riki Ellison, president of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, one of the more energetic groups promoting developing of ballistic-missile defenses. "The factual reality of using deployed missile defenses to destroy a falling satellite or a ballistic missile or even a meteor from space that would risk human life is an achievement for mankind," a statement from the organization said.
Yet, even the successful mission in no way proves the United States is safe from nuclear attack, nor that it can do what it wants in space.
Gates, at the start of a weeklong series of meetings in Asia, said the debate over whether America's missile defense system works "is behind us," but that issues still remain about exactly what types of missile threats the system could be used against.
"The question of whether this capability works has been settled," said Gates. "The question is against what kind of threat, how large a threat, how sophisticated a threat."
from yahoo
