quote:

This only makes sense if the Pentagon considered it a slam-dunk...

It was a small target, moving very fast and very far away. Also - apparently - they needed a direct hit, as the missile does not have an explosive warhead. Inside America's Satellite-Killing Missile

On the other hand, the satellite's path was utterly predictable, and they had all the time they wanted to make the shot. They could also 'program' the missile to look for precisely that target: '...one of the program's biggest flaws: if it doesn't know what to look for, it is unlikely to make an intercept (situational awareness is pretty slim). And since the tests to date have all been highly scripted, the system has not had any practice of on the fly (if you'll excuse the phrase) intercept attempts.'

Given that the satellite was going to crash and burn anyway, even if they'd missed completely, couldn't they have claimed to have winged it?

And...

'Space security experts are calling the rationale highly unlikely. "Having the US government spend millions of dollars to destroy a billion-dollar failure to save zero lives is comedic gold," one tells DANGER ROOM.' Experts Scoff at Sat Shoot-Down Rationale

Star Wars began with the creation of NORAD and has really never stopped.

(This was not a test of capability, it was routine. You may not think so becaause satellites don't come down so often, but conducting out-of-the-ordinary jobs like this with almost no notice IS routine for us. Tsunami in Asia? Carrier battle group on station. Distress call from an Australian sail boat? USS Shiloh rescued and detoured to take them home. Big drug lord boating from Baja to LA? Drug interdiction is our middle name.)