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?
Sincerely,
Curious in Michigan
People annoy me.
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?
Sincerely,
Curious in Michigan
People annoy me.