Satellite shoot-down: myths and questions
The Pentagon scored a point for missile defense advocates last week, it also left some questions hanging in the air.
Jon Skillings Editorial director
Jon Skillings is an editorial director at CNET, where he's worked since 2000. A born browser of dictionaries, he honed his language skills as a US Army linguist (Polish and German) before diving into editing for tech publications -- including at PC Week and the IDG News Service -- back when the web was just getting under way, and even a little before. For CNET, he's written on topics from GPS, AI and 5G to James Bond, aircraft, astronauts, brass instruments and music streaming services.
Expertise AI, tech, language, grammar, writing, editing Credentials
- 30 years experience at tech and consumer publications, print and online. Five years in the US Army as a translator (German and Polish).
The Pentagon scored a point for missile defense advocates last week when an SM-3 missile launched from the USS Lake Erie whacked a defunct satellite in orbit and shattered it into thousands of tiny (and presumably harmless) pieces. But it did leave some questions hanging in the air: Was the mission really necessary? Was it worth the cost? How much of a threat was the hydrazine fuel, really? Did we escalate a space weapons race? Herewith some thoughts on those matters:
MSNBC: "Five myths about the satellite smash-up"
ArmsControlWonk.com: "4 Questions from Geoff Forden"