Sphere: Related Content
Today heralded a stunning success at shooting down one of our own satellites to ensure it re-entered the atmosphere safely. General James Cartwright, USMC, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff put it this way "Our objective was to intercept the satellite, reduce the mass that might survive reentry, vector that mass as best we could into unpopulated areas, ideally the ocean, breach the hydrazine tank, so that we could vent the hydrazine off, the toxic fuel, and then have all of that done prior to impact."
General Cartwright went on to explain the key players in this mission: "The United States Strategic Command out in Omaha, Nebraska, ran the intercept, commanded the forces. We had a great team from Space and Missile Defense Command out at Colorado Springs that worked the terrestrial sensors, from the Joint Space Operation Center in Vandenberg, California, that worked that the space sensors, and the Missile Defense Agency that worked all the telemetry, worked the test cards that we used to prepare for this, did all the modifications of the system."
The key take-away is the maturity of the in-place missile defense system brought about by decades of research and testing starting back during the Reagan administration and continuing through today. "The elements of missile defense that were used here were the sensors, and the netting together of the sensors. That was the key piece that we would take from the missile defense system. But the assistance that the Missile Defense Agency brought, their technical expertise in this area, was invaluable in helping us put together all of the pieces that were necessary to make this intercept," explained General Cartwright.
So, years of research led to the ability to "net" together multiple sensors yielding a capability to safely destroy this satellite, ensuring it re-entered earth's atmosphere safely.
An additional bonus will be an assurance to foreign powers, who might doubt the capability of our missile defense system, that our missile defense system is effective. Moreover, it is clear, in a time of need, the US Air Force's Space Command can meet its mission "to deliver space and missile capabilities to America and its warfighting commands." In other words, ensure the United States maintains space superiority. If that means eliminating enemy space capability, than the United States clearly can do so with as little as 30 days preparation across the entire national security apparatus.
The likely Democratic nominee for President of the United States, Senator Barack H. Obama (D-IL) makes the following policy stance on his web site:
"Defend Against Nuclear Attack, the Smart Way: In a world with nuclear weapons, America must continue efforts to defend against the mass destruction of its citizens and our allies. But past efforts were both wasteful and ineffective, pursued with neither honesty nor realism about their costs and shortfalls. We must seek a nuclear missile defense and demand that those efforts use resources wisely to build systems that would actually be effective. Missile defense requires far more rigorous testing to ensure that it is cost-effective and, most importantly, will work. Barack Obama has been a leader to ensure that we are investing in sound defenses not merely against missiles, but also against the more likely scenarios of attack, via ‘loose nukes’ and the terrorist delivering a weapons of mass destruction to the United States. Finally, our deployment of missile defense systems should be done in a way that reinforces, rather than undercuts, our alliances, involving partnership and burdensharing with organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." (Source: http://obama.3cdn.net/303d3f8f5e85133bae_9ypmvyari.pdf)
Seems harmless. But if you parse it carefully, you will understand we would not have the capability to do what was done today. "But past efforts were both wasteful and ineffective, pursued with neither honesty nor realism about their costs and shortfalls. We must seek a nuclear missile defense and demand that those efforts use resources wisely to build systems that would actually be effective. Missile defense requires far more rigorous testing to ensure that it is cost-effective and, most importantly, will work." He seems to be saying "past efforts" from President Ronald Reagan through the present, have been for naught. Clearly, Senator Obama lacks vision, experience and ideals to understand what it takes to ensure our nation's security. The investment made in missile defense has been tremendous, but the benefits in one single day, today, paid off handsomely.
We now have a satellite broken into pieces no larger than a football, according to General Cartwright's initial assessment, and we've proven to the world that Anti-Satellite capability isn't a theory, it's a reality - our reality. China, according to the New York Times, "successfully carried out its first test of an antisatellite weapon last week, signaling its resolve to play a major role in military space activities and bringing expressions of concern from Washington and other capitals." (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/asia/19china.html)
Another statement by Obama is worth looking at: "Finally, our deployment of missile defense systems should be done in a way that reinforces, rather than undercuts, our alliances, involving partnership and burdensharing with organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." Senator Obama has a history of wanting to work with others, which seems like a great idea, but does he plan on putting the defense of our nation into the hands of others? The European Community has had significant difficulty in launching the largest airplane ever, the Airbus A-380. Yes, it is going into production and promises to be a great aircraft, but if they struggle to meet the technical challenges of producing a commercial airliner, should we trust them with technology that must work to ensure the defense of our nation?
Clearly, coalitions can be great at achieving strength, but at some point astute leaders understand where to act unilaterally in order to get the mission done and preserve our sovereignty.
A potential President Obama appears to be a president who would question technological progress and potentially entrust it to those outside our borders. Today's success would not have likely occurred under an Obama Administration. Can we afford to put our trust in a politician who's experience is based on being a community organizer, state senator, and freshman US Senator? I'm not willing to make that bet.
Please comment on this piece! Where am I right? Where am I wrong?
