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"
Discuss: Satellite shoot-down: myths and questions