I have a new favorite blog to add to my list: Arms Control Wonk. I've been reading it for the last couple of weeks, and, thus far, I haven't been let down. I've linked to it several times when writing about China, Russia, and the US' quibbles over the militarization of space.

Well, yesterday, posted on the site was an extensive plea to the US not to break apart the USA 193 satellite that has lost control and is currently plummeting back to earth. The article holds as suspect certain claims used to argue for shooting the satellite down and positing that "worst case scenarios" were misleading in that they don't seem to take into account the possibility that "they are wrong about the debris estimates or how much debris would reenter with a successful intercept."

There's also the issue of hydrazine (jet fuel). I heard a guy from NASA yesterday on CNN explaining that if anyone is to see a brown or blue gas* in the air, make sure not to breath it. (Phew!) The stuff is apparently not very delicate:

May cause toxic effects if inhaled or ingested/swallowed. Contact with substance may cause severe burns to skin and eyes. Fire will produce irritating, corrosive and/or toxic gases. Vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation. Runoff from fire control or dilution water may cause pollution. (DOT, 2000)

What isn't being said when they talk about the hydrazine risk is that, apparently, there is very little of it on the satellite.

The political implications of a missile interception aren't too pleasing either:

I don’t know how to express the political risk. Not knowing the risk, however, is different from it being “zero” — which is how the Bush Administration, at best, seems to count it. At worst, some members seem to assign a positive value to conducting an ASAT test.

The Chinese will use this to excuse their January 2007 test and, perhaps, future ones. The Russians seem interested in playing along, too. I’d like to be able to argue that they’re wrong; That this is different.

I have argued, in the past, that we have a strong interest in constraining the development of debris-creating anti-satellite weapons. Sadly, our intercept will make that outcome harder to achieve, not easier.

Given the extremely small risk to people on the ground, as well as the three people in orbit, these risks — though difficult to quantify — almost certainly should dominate the discussion.

But what loser is going to go to bat for confidence building measures in outer space when there is a giant tank of hydrazine bearing down on a Cub Scout Jamboree and one really awesome, heroic chance to blow it out of the sky? Hell, I bet the thing explodes into fireworks with red, white and blue stars and streamers like over the Mall on the Fourth of July.

Let’s face it, supporting the shot is the “safe” thing to do. After all, the debris risk will probably work out ok, while we’ll never know if the satellite would have hit a populated area. The cost, in terms of space security, is so difficult to identify, that one can simply explain it away with facile counterfactuals. “Oh, the Russian’s were just looking for an excuse, they would have done it anyway.”

Indeed, China has already said it is working on "preventive measures," which could mean anything. Of course, none of this is going to stop them from shooting the satellite down.

*If you follow the link, you'll see that hydrazine is listed as a "colorless" gas. However, I specifically remember the fellow from NASA saying that it was blue or brown.