Spy Satellite Controversy

Recently, U.S. senators have shed light on the classified Misty program - a spy satellite project designed to elude detection while in orbit.

These events have raised a number of interesting policy questions:

1. Is it appropriate for government officials to make unilateral judgments with regard to classified material? Presumably the answer is yes given that the entire concept of declassification is dependent upon individuals in government making decisions with regard to classified material. Perhaps a more appropriate question is whether or not the legislative branch (and these specific members of the legislative branch) should be able to make this decision. The entire controversy highlights the inherent tension between the need for secrecy with regard to military development and the countervailing need for disclosure as a mechanism for effective oversight.

2. Now that Misty is effectively "out of the black," does the program itself make sense given the current geopolitical situation? The Misty satellites themselves are less capable than the current crop of spysats. While having equipment that can not be predicted or tracked is certainly a plus when faced with imaging mobile or otherwise obscurable targets, does the immense cost overcome the modest advantage in a post cold war environment where most adversaries lack the rudimentary ability to track conventional spy satellites? Can less expensive, atmospheric systems, such as drones, take up much of the tactical responsibilities of the Misty program?