<p>I’ll let Bullet answer, but I doubt that they would use RTGs for satellites orbiting the Earth due to safety concern. NASA uses them only for distant missions–other planets, the Sun, etc. Necessary as you get too far from the Sun for solar cells to work well.</p>
<p>This one was probably powered by good old solar cells.</p>
<p>RR gave his speech kicking off SDI in 1983–and the work done after it, in the 80’s, did form the basis for the missile shooting down the satellite, but I don’t think anyone in the know really expected a miss.</p>
<p>That satellite was a great big honking thing moving (fast) in one known direction, and some of the missile interceptor technologies we have now (thanks to RR) are able to hit much smaller targets. So, while an impressive display of our technology, a hit was not unexpected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PLease read my entire post, as I do state that there are many reasons for the action we took. I just had to provide some insight, as some of the posts were drifting closely towards the “we faked the moon landings” territory…</p>
<p>As to why we just don’t say outright that we’re shooting down one of our own for the other reasons (keeping technology away from “unfriendly hands”, sending a message by showing we can do it, etc.). Well, sometimes we like to use a little tactic called “subtlety”. We protested against the Chinese shooting down one of their own, especially since their only stated reason was “we want to show you we can do it”. We now had a covenenient excuse to do something similar, without having to play an internationally public game of tit-for-tat. </p>
<p>My apologies if the government isn’t contacting you personally with an explanation for every strategic global decision they make. Just part of the plan to implement the mind control devices into our food supply :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Known for years that we have the technology, yes. Actually tested and thus proven against an object in Earth’s orbit from a sea-based platform (which we had hoped to make an integral part of the new missile defense system), not before this shot. </p>
<p>Man, it must take an awful lot to impress you! I bet you just look at the new cars from Lexus that park themselves and say “Sheesh, it’s still at least 6 inches from the curb!” :)</p>
<p>Major leap in technology, not so much. First-time proof the technology worked, pretty obvious.</p>
<p>^^ Good point, Bullet!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Guilty as charged! That is why I have only three criteria when selecting a movie: 1) explosions, lots of them 2) Aliens, or zombies, or better yet Alien zombies! 3) Alien zombies blowing up! :)</p>
<p>Perhaps even a very thin plot about a government cover-up to hide the fact we are blowing up Alien zombies. :)</p>
<p>“Zoos, there are so many other more important things to occupy my thoughts. How to help the less fortunate, my family, the state of the world in general which is awful and the world my kids will inherit. After so many years of “potential” threats, I consider it all political mumbo jumbo.”</p>
<p>I live in New York and see on a daily basis that the threat isn’t potential. If I’m wrong, then some people will be angry. If you’re wrong, some people will be dead.</p>
<p>Obviously your experience is very personal in a way that many of ours is not.
I can’t possibly have the perspective on these issues that you do, I haven’t been through what you have with the loss of friends and loved ones.</p>
<p>That being said, it doesn’t mean that others of us are wrong for being skeptical of the climate of fear that the Bush administration seems all too willing to exploit whenever it senses the political tide is against them.</p>
<p>Earlier in this thread I made reference to James Carroll’s book House of War.<br>
Granted, Carroll is a pacifist and a liberal but he has a very personal perspective on the Pentagon as the son of Joe Carroll, the first head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. However after reading Carroll’s book I can’t help being more at least a bit hesitant to accept any of the Pentagon’s actions at face value.</p>
<p>“That being said, it doesn’t mean that others of us are wrong for being skeptical of the climate of fear that the Bush administration seems all too willing to exploit whenever it senses the political tide is against them.”</p>
<p>God help us all if we stop being skeptical! I would never, ever want that. But to state so clearly that the possibility of someone shooting something at us never enters one’s mind or that the concept of a threat is “mumbo jumbo” is incomprehensible to me. How can anyone really believe that there is no threat from terrorism? There really is a threat, we have to take that seriously, BUT we have to use common sense and proportion in dealing with that.</p>
<p>“But to state so clearly that the possibility of someone shooting something at us never enters one’s mind or that the concept of a threat is “mumbo jumbo” is incomprehensible to me.”</p>
<p>Truthfully it doesn’t enter my mind. Life’s too short for me to worry about what might happen or what could happen that’s out of my control.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But what you are failing to remember is that we elect our government and pay taxes for our military to do just this, worry about protecting you so you don’t have to worry about it yourselves. </p>
<p>For you to obsess over the threat would be tedious, a little fool-hardy, and not the kind of world I would want to live in. For our government and the Pentagon NOT to worry about this would be even worse…</p>
<p>But we also need to realize that the Pentagon has a very real stake in a maintaining a climate of fear. There are literally billions of dollars in funding at stake and each branch needs to justify its relevance in order to get what it considers to be its fair share of that funding.</p>
<p>As Eisenhower warned, though as Carroll points out not until after he was leaving office, “Beware of the military-industrial complex.”</p>
<p>What Eisenhower was referencing, and rightfully so, was the Defense Industry, who sells the weapons systems to the Government. They’re bottom line is the dollar, and we should always look at what they are doing in that light; as a sales pitch.</p>
<p>The bottom line of the Pentagon is this country’s protection. As someone who served in that building in the years immediately after 9/11, I can tell you with all my heart that what we feared the most in that building was not letting our country down again. We witnessed 3000 ofthe people we swore to defend die that day, to include many in our own building. What kept us awake at night was the fear that we weren’t doing enough to prevent it from happening again…</p>
<p>Bullet, I do not impugn your motivation in the least.</p>
<p>I am, however, concerned about the chummy relationships between some of the people in the upper echelons of our armed services and those in the defense industry. I’m further concerned by the creeping outsourcing of defense activities to private contractors and the implications of the presence of so many retired officers in the private defense sector.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Carroll so eloquently makes his case there is no single Pentagon. There is in fact a very human institution and trust me when I tell you I find your sincerity very believable. But the Pentagon is also something of a monolithic institution. That’s the Pentagon I was making reference to in my earlier post.</p>
<p>mafool, righfully so, and the need for absolute transparent activities between the defense industry and the Pentagon should be paramount. But it is all too easy to look from the outside and think that the motivations at the top echelons aren’t pure. Unfortunately, the actions of a relative minority has only helped to confirm this notion, and tarnished the good intentionsof the majority. From my own personal experience, I can honestly say “If only you knew what I knew”. The men and women leading in the Pentagon are true professionals and do have their countries interests squarely front and center in thier hearts. Again, if only you knew…</p>
<p>But then again, what industry doesn’t have a few bad apples that has spoiled the reputation of the majority?</p>
<p>As to the officers getting out and joining the defense industry. Well, spend your life from 22 to 50 in one industry, and you do tend to stay in a somewhat related field when you get out. Its the comfort zone. Its not like I can get out tomorrow and start practicing law, or become a master plumber.
However, the majority of officers get out and join career fields totally unrelated to the defense industry. They have years of experience actually making leadership decisions on a grand scale. What company wouldn’t want ot hire them?</p>
<p>Me, I’m torn between becoming a bar-tender on a golf-course, or a greeter at Wal-Mart (but I heard Wal-mart pays poorly because they are unfriendly to unions. Oh well, guess I’ll work on my short game 
)</p>
<p>Forgot to mention my thoughts on the outsourcing of defense related activiites to private contractors. I also had the honor to serve in Baghdad at the Coalition HQ, so i got to see their “operation” in action. Now, this is just my personal opinion, but their “cowboy” mentality has done more to hurt this country’s reputation than almost anything else we did over there. That was a mistake I will never forgive our leadership for. Again, just my opinion. </p>
<p>I’ll have to wait until I retire to write the book on THAT one. It will take a few years, as the notes will have grass stains and smudges from cocktails on them (from my day job as a bar-tender at a golf-course).</p>
<p>Bullet, I do understand the utility and allure of remaining in the defense industry after a military career is concluded. I just wish, if only for the sake of appearances, that these capable people were involved in activities that did not have them calling on their former comrades. There is plenty of developmental and research work that does not involve lobbying or sales. </p>
<p>Make mine an extra dry Belvedere martini with a twist. please. :)</p>
<p>Bullet, that book is already written, in part. It is unfortunate that Blackwater the Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army is written from such an obvious point of view, because it is likely to turn off the very people who need to read it.</p>
<p>Mafool, I understand your feelings on the situation, and the same could be said for doctors who join the pharmecutical industry, or teachers who represent the NEA, or even (heaven forbid) politician’s who become lobbyists. </p>
<p>Belvedere martini coming right up. And how was your game today? :)</p>
<p>Something in the back of my mind keep tickling me about an old conversation. Something about some satellite being shot down a few days ago… Man, by page 6 threads tend to go waaaaaay out there. :)</p>