Comments:US Navy successfully destroys disabled spy satellite

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

at least we know our missiles work

-Lets face it, we all know that is the main reason they did this, testing their accursed missiles. How hypocritical, to criticise China shooting down a satellite, then having the gaul to say they are "saving" lives. <Hoj Ferwerk - (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)>

Assuming the conspiracy theories aren't true. I wonder what the hell kind of sattelite it was. But the thing that gets me is, if it was toxic.....wouldn't blowing it up mid-air be more troublesome? Fephisto - (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not when it's in outer space, there isn't any air and it would all just fall back to Earth harmlessly and burn up since it's a liquid and it's the size of rice grains, inside the atmosphere would be a problem however. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• The video suggests an explosion. With a non-explosive warhead like the ones their ABMs possess, like the SM-3, there is no way an explosion that big could be created without releasing the hydrazine. And in the vacuum at that altitude, the remaining hydrazine and its byproducts would dissipate rapidly, resulting in no danger to Earth. --Kitch - (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should look up what hydrazine is before making comments like that. Fephisto - (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a copy of an earlier comment from an earlier article

Grow up US.

The US is once again acting like a spoilt child. Early last year they were 'concerned' when China did exactly what they are proposing to do now. The US needs to stop making up one set of rules for themselves and another for everyone else, and accept that they are no longer the only 'big kid on the block'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.181.37 (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

20 Bucks say the US liberated your country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.35.146 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh...

We didn't know about the what China did until a week later. The U.S., on the other hand, has given quite a bit of ahead notice.

I say China should do some growing up, considering their hypocritical complaints about this shoot-down [1]. (24.98.235.224 00:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

(168.28.49.190 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

As an aside, what where the reasons for China shooting down their weather satellite, other than it being old?; I mean the U.S. was willing to admit their expensive spy satellite malfunctioned almost immediately (just hours after launch), which is rather embarrassing in my opinion. I don't see how admitting that a new satellite died could be used politically against China. It is stated in this articles that most of the resulting debris fell to earth. Did the debris from China's satellite follow the same fate, or are there still many pieces in orbit? (168.28.49.190 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

The U.S. military likely knew about China's anti-sat test as soon as it happened. NORAD keeps track of all objects in orbit around Earth, including space junk. They would know very quickly if something is destroyed, even if the object is inert. --Kitch - (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

China and "outer space security"

To the commentor above complaining... this is an entirely different situation. The satellite destroyed by the United States posed a danger to Earth, and at the very least its destruction posed no danger to anything else in orbit. China paid no regard to anything when it did its test a year ago, destroying a weather satellite at a height of 500 miles. The debris from that could easily harm the International Space Station, the Hubble Space Telescope, or any of a host of objects currently in low-earth orbit. Hell, it could easily jeopardize future Shenzhou manned flights--did China think of that? China is a hypocrite when it claims it is concerned about "outer space security". --Kitch - (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Another stunning victory for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!

Wait, what? It was already disabled? Doh!

And it was our OWN satellite? Doh!

And it really wasn't a threat anyway?! DOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH -161.88.255.240 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I love idiots who say stupid things and don't have the balls to have an account and identify themselves. --Kitch - (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We love you too. I guess. Sorry for any offense caused by my stupidity, expression thereof, being a eunuch, or anonymity. -161.88.255.240 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say this, as someone else who doesn't have a wikinews account: well played. (24.98.235.224 02:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

taxes

The US Navy once again flamboyantly demonstrates it's military capabilities in this sector. How much money is being spent? The taxpayers must know. - kjinnra_nemesis

'guns dont kill people, people kill people' this, ladies and gentlemen, is wrong. Guns, knives, bombs and missiles kill people. Get rid of them, spend the money on food and therapy for the kids who feel the only way out is by maiming and killing their fellow pupils. Maybe then the american psyche will be less violent. - kjinnra_nemesis

Comments from feedback form - "useful"

useful —223.181.226.184 (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)