View Full Version : Satellite Destruction - Political consequence? Please...

Michigan Muskie
02-20-2008, 06:18 PM
I don't know why this pisses me off so much, but it really got under my skin when I read this. There is another AP story about the scheduled shootdown of the wayward spy satellite. I pulled the offending paragraph from the article for your reading pleasure:

Some people are skeptical.

"The potential political cost of shooting down this satellite is high," said Laura Grego, an astrophysicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Whatever the motivation for it, demonstrating an anti-satellite weapon is counterproductive to U.S. long-term interests, given that the United States has the most to gain from an international space weapons ban. Instead, it should be taking the lead in negotiating a treaty."

First of all, doesn't the "Union of Concerned Scientists" sound like something George Carlin would say in a stand-up routine?

Secondly, what do Laura Grego and her fellow UCS members propose we do? Seemingly, to them negotiating a treaty sounds like an advisable solution.

I sent an email to the UCS a minute ago:

In regard to an AP news article in which Laura Grego was quoted expressing her concern about the politcal fallout from the destruction of the spy satellite, my question to Laura is:

What alternatives do you propose? Should we just let it re-enter the atmosphere and cross oour fingers that the surviving 2500 pounds of metal doesn’t come crashing into our living room and that the toxic (perhaps deadly) hydrazine doesn’t shower our kids outside on recess?

Curious in Michigan

People annoy me.

02-20-2008, 06:35 PM
Ha! No kidding. Please post any response you may get.

Michigan Muskie
02-20-2008, 06:50 PM
Ha! No kidding. Please post any response you may get.

If I am lucky enough to get a response, I will post it here. I expect to receieve something like this:

Mr. Nulsen,

As former Chief of Forbid Unnecessary Carbon Excess Release (FUC ‘ER) I must express my concern about your demonstration of a carbon producing activity that is counterproductive to no one’s long-term interests. I don't quite understand your motivation for breathing but you may be setting youself up to be a political beacon. Perhaps you should consider negotiating some arbitrary treaty that has nothing to do with breathing.

Thank you for your inquiry,
Ms. Laura Grego
Director - Anti Random Things

Raoul Duke
02-21-2008, 09:18 AM
"...given that the United States has the most to gain from an international space weapons ban."

Keep working on your jump to conclusions mat, Tom Smykowski. In fact, I would say the opposite is true.

02-21-2008, 09:22 AM
Didn't Tom Smykowski get downsized?

You know what i say to shooting down satellites? Take that Ruskies!

02-21-2008, 09:23 AM
I don't think that America can do anything at this point without being wrong in some people's eyes.

02-21-2008, 09:42 AM
They should have just redirected the falling Satellite so that if fell on Vladimir Putin's stupid Ruskie head. He is the member of the international community that is making the big deal about this. Arrogant a-hole that he is.

I friggin hate that guy.

Michigan Muskie
02-21-2008, 10:17 AM
Typical activist group: Vocalize your unwarranted displeasure, then cowardly ignore any question of logic. Particularly now that the mission was successful, I don't expect a response from the Union of Concerned Scientists. They will need to find something else to concern themselves with such as the high level of methane detected in my home office after a night of chili, dollar drafts and a pot of coffee. Mothers hide your children. Ms. Grego you are welcome to step into my office...