It's pretty obvious what the motivations are... Follow any organization and 
they will only take the route that gives the most 'bang for the buck' (pun 
partially intended), and the easiest way. If it had been a communications sat, 
they'd let it burn up and pay any damages (small change, easiest way). Given 
the hydrazine that might remain, the cost goes up a little. Given the spy 
nature of it, the 'cost' goes up a little more in having it come down in big 
enough pieces to recognize.

The Chinese created another motivation, showing we aren't behind anyone in 
defense capability... The easiest, lowest cost way to satisfy all the 
motivations was a kill. No payments, a missile system that could already hit 
re-entry BMs, look like an environmental good guy, lose no technology, and show 
  the US can do it too. Talk about wins all around... A half dozen great 'check 
marks' rolled into one event. It doesn't get much better than that.

The only question that might remain, and I didn't follow the history of that 
sat to know if it did have early failure or not, was whether it really was dead 
early or it was an old, expendable one ready to give its life for a great PR 
moment. It would seem not, because it could violate the 'easiest, lowest cost' 
rule, especially since the capability had been proven in the Pacific for that 
type of vehicle. There probably weren't enough 'motivators' to create the 
scenario, but once it started on its own, there's no question what would be 
done. ;)


Cedric Chang wrote:
> http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V1788553
> 
> The government lies so often about so many things, I doubt there is  
> is even a consensus privately between government muckity mucks about  
> why they shot the missile down.  "because we can" is probably the  
> most shared thought.
> 
> CC
> 
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist