We all saw the dozens of Patriot missiles shoot down many skud missiles live on TV during the first Iraq war. Later, the general staff confessed that not a single skud was hit. Great video tho'.

In theory it would remain in space, but widely dispersed. The amount of kinetic energy released in the instant of impact would destroy both missiles completely, leaving nothing with sufficient mass to gain re-entry. Or, if the defensive missile didn't hit anything with sufficient mass to cause a massive explosion, the plutonium would burn up with the rest of the missile when it went off course - re-entry trajectories are really precise, and being off by even a little would be enough to do the job.

Bush is following the Reagan doctrine, showing the "enemy" our cards and daring them to try and keep up. It worked before, but GW forgot the part about not wasting your military resources on expensive, unjustified wars so you have plenty available to deal with real threats.

Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

"Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma in humans. Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine." - Wikipedia

Nonetheless the idea that the tank would have survived reentry is ludicrous and Manjoo should know these things or a least be capable of discovering them. There is a reason Farhad that the shuttle and other reentry vehicles have elaborate defenses against the hellish heat of reentry.

Spy satellites are not designed as reentry vehicles, there fuel tanks even less so. A real reentry vehicle enters the atmosphere are the proper angle to reduce heat as much as possible. In contrast, USA 193 would be tumbling and the angle of descent would likely be high. According to the defense department's press release, the fuel tank contains about 1,000 pounds (453 kilograms) of hydrazine, a hazardous chemical related to ammonia.

Hydrazine's effect on people depends on the dose, duration, and manner of exposure, according to a 1997 fact sheet released by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Pure hydrazine is unstable in air and quickly decomposes, generally within minutes to hours. In the extremely unlikely event that the hydrazine tanks survived reentry and landed, leaking in a populated area, there is almost no chance anyone would be injured. Manjoo sells himself as a tech guru, this article puts the lie to that. Two feet off the Apple he has nothing to say.

If I want Pentagon talking points, I will go to the Pentagon web site. If I want intelligent informed analysis about "cruise missile" shootdowns, I will go anywhere but here.

And no, no goddamn video "proves" anything, not anymore, and not for a long long time if it ever did. Sheesh! Silly silly question.

Two glaring errors;

The SM-3 is most definitely NOT a "cruise missile";

the United States most certainly has shot down its own satellite before (in the 80s with a missile launched from an F-15).

Please, don't comment on things you haven't even bothered to Google, much less learn anything about; your wrong facts discredit anything else you scribble.

I've seen it pointed out on the web that the video looked very much like the destruction of the Death Star in Star Wars. Indeed, it does. But don't I remember some commentary somewhere that the Death Star scene was bogus because nothing can actually burn in space without oxygen, so the fireball wouldn't happen? Any ACTUAL rocket scientists out there know the answer?

This may seem picky, but the SM-3 is not a cruise missle. It is a "Standard Missle Three" which is more like an intercontinental ballistic missle. It has the speed and payload capacity to put something significant in orbit. A "cruise" missle is so-named because it cruises like an airliner for a long time at a relatively slow speed, usually with a turbofan engine, a small version of what you see on the airliners.

I agree the video could be anything, but it looked like what I would expect for the planned impact. And yes it was just a test or demonstration of satellite intercept capability, and was not necessary from a public safety perspective.

Next time, just call it a "rocket" Mr. Manjoo.

To LimeyG

The image is of a hit 130 miles above the ocean...I think the imager was some distance away. I thought it was a spectacular imaging feat and the operation a triumph for the Navy...

Those ABM systems relied on 'neutron' bombs to destroy inbound missiles with X-Ray Flux. Of course EM pulse would have fried every electronic device in the US too.

BTW no one's talking about what USA-193 was so it's hard to know why they shot it down. If it was a Lacrosse Radar Sat then its orbital insertion and dynamics were unique, mimicking a satellite much smaller than was claimed. If is was smaller than it was claimed then it wasn't a Lacrosse satellite and certainly not a KH11 or KH12 imaging satellite.

My own suspicion is that it was a one-off or early version of the next gen imaging or spy satellite that they put in orbit to test the viability of a non-space shuttle based heavy lifting program. The STS program is the only one in the US capable of lofting the latest production generation KH satellites which are about as big as a bus. Even the Delta 4 Heavy doesn't match the STS. So perhaps instead of waiting for unmanned rockets to backfill they're spending the effort to make smaller satellites. I really can't see the US using Russian lifters for that.