The United States decided to strike a dying satellite with missiles launched from a Navy cruiser on 20 February 2008 with the ostensible intention of protecting the population from space debris. The Standard Missile from the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence System, also called as SM-3, was used to destroy the satellite. SM-3 is basically designed for missile defence, but its software was modified to target the satellite. Its fuel tank contained hydrazine. It was feared that if it fell on earth it would cover an area size of two football fields, causing health related problems to the population. But some countries, including China, feel this reason was an excuse to test ballistic missile interceptors, which could be converted into anti-satellite weapons. China felt threatened and has asked for a full report on the dying satellite, where it was struck, and how much damage it could cause on descent.

The reasons given by the US to destroy the satellite are dubious. Geoffrey Forden, a research scientist in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke about the possibility of hydrazine falling on earth. He says there are only 3 in 100 chances of Hydrazine reaching earth. Certainly, this event has strategic and military implications. Michel Krepon, of the Stimson Centre, has said that the "stated rationale for shooting the satellite is simply not credible. In the history of the space age, there has not been a single human being who has been harmed by man-made objects falling from space." Therefore, the reason given by the US for destroying the "dying satellite" is not convincing.

So the question arises: what was the real reason behind the test? The dying satellite was a spy satellite launched by the US for intelligence purposes. The Europeans believe that the US wanted to destroy the satellite to prevent any information falling into the hands of rival powers and also to showcase the advantages of BMDs. In this case, a ballistic missile defence capability was converted into an anti satellite weapon. BMD seeks to destroy incoming ballistic missiles launched by the enemy side, which is quite difficult because it cannot discriminate between warheads and decoys. Warheads could be surrounded by decoys making interception and destruction of warheads difficult. Further, enemy missile trajectories are unpredictable, and they could be launched at any time. However, it is relatively easier to target satellites, which need not be distinguished from decoys and whose trajectory is predictable. The strike by the US BMD was meant to convince its domestic audience that the investment made in research has not been wasted. It also shows that BMD is a flexible weapon system and can also be used side as an anti satellite weapon.

The US ASAT test could have a negative impact on arms control and lead to an arms race. Russia and China could also build ASAT weapons. Many strategic analysts believe that the US ASAT test was an answer to the China ASAT test in Jan 2007, which posed a danger to US satellites. The US is conveying a signal to China that its own ballistic missile defence system could also be used to counter Chinese ASATs. Hence, China will have to continue taking steps to improve its own security, which will affect the strategic balance in Southern Asia. This will have implications for India since China's ASAT capability could be used to attack Low Earth Orbit satellites (LEO) and challenge India's C4ISR architecture. Other concerns relate to proliferation. China has a history of transferring its missiles and nuclear weapons technology. China could, therefore, proliferate these technologies to Pakistan or to Middle East countries, which would be inimical to the strategic interests of both India and the United States.

Russia and China also saw this demonstration as an effort by the US to sabotage arms control measures in outer space, which was jointly proposed by Russia and China in the UN recently. If this test results in an arms race in anti satellite weapons, it would harm the US more than any other country for the reason that the US has the largest number of satellites for military purposes compared to other countries in the world.

It is time for the US to realize that its BMD or ASAT programs would do more harm than good. The rationale used for construction of the BMD does not seem to be rational because rogue states are not yet capable of building ICBMs. Such measures by global power leads to strategic instability, global arms race and raises doubt about US intentions and policies. Instead of developing BMD or ASAT, the US focus should be on arms control and measures to strengthen the global disarmament regime.