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"
Be respectful, keep it civil and stay on topic. We delete comments that violate our policy, which we encourage you to read. Discussion threads can be closed at any time at our discretion.