quote: China last week successfully used a missile to destroy an orbiting satellite, U.S. government officials told CNN on Thursday, in a test that could undermine relations with the West and pose a threat to satellites important to the U.S. military.
According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by ramming it.
U.S. official, who would not agree to be identified, said the event was the first successful test of the missile after three failures.
The official said that U.S. "space tracking sensors" confirmed that the satellite is no longer in orbit and that the collision produced "hundreds of pieces of debris," that also are being tracked.
Under a space policy authorized by President Bush in August, the United States asserts a right to "freedom of action in space" and says it will "deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so."
The policy includes the right to "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."
"The thing that is surprising and disturbing is that [the Chinese] have chosen this moment to demonstrate a military capability that can only be aimed at the United States," he said.
Couple thoughts on this:
1. What does the US have to counter this?
2. Does referencing Bush's policy on neutralizing threats to our space capabilities mean there's some sort of intent in Washington to threaten China in response? With military force? With diplomatic or economic pressure?
3. Was this test a fluke? US ABM missiles only sometimes work, and more often than not they fail. Is their system that flukey?
4. Why exactly would they show us their capability? Such a move could ONLY be interpreted as overtly threatening to the US, and no one else. We're the only ones that have such assets in space.
They have to know that as soon as they show us that, DARPA is going to be all over it creating space lasers for satellite defense. The problem with the arguments against weaponizing space, is that weapons in space are the best way to defend against attacks from the ground, and if we agree that space can't be weaponized, we have to agree that assets in space can't be attacked either. So the next logical step is for the US to put defensive weapons on satellites to stop the Chinese from shooting them down. And I think with our capabilities we probably could do that sometime soon, if we haven't already.
We probably already do have some sort of defense against this, and it might even be breaking some rules in the process, but these actions from China are provocative, and I don't get what they want out of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't much information in the news coverage on China's motives or POV on this issue (at least in English!). I'm assuming China not yet made a statement?
And to put things in perspective:
quote:The United States has not gone so far as to blow up a satellite in orbit. It has, however, flown spacecraft that can autonomously reach targets in orbit, such as defunct satellites and spent upper stage rocket bodies.
The Bush Administration also removed prohibitions against anti-satellite tests in space last year when it revised the country's National Space Policy, setting the stage for more advanced orbital demonstrations.
quote:Under a space policy authorized by President Bush in August, the United States asserts a right to "freedom of action in space" and says it will "deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so."
The policy includes the right to "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."
posted
On the surface it has the feel of a new arms race.
Irami -
He's not talking about us owning space, if anything, his words are more closely mirrored in freedom of the seas. He's saying we'll do what we must to make sure we can freely act in space, much in the same way the US Navy has made the world's waterways almost free of piracy. He isn't saying we have the unilateral right to kill other nation's satellites, only that we must act to defend our national interests in space.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it comes down to a choice between the USA owning space, and the PRC owning space, then hell yes, we own space.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. IIRC we've known how to shoot down satellites for a while, using fighter-mounted weaponry. The "537-miles-up" seems to be new a new development, though ... [Edit: Known how, as in "tried it before." Not sure about the success rate on that one. Will have to look it up.]
3. An unidentified official cited in the article claims this is their first success "after three failures" -- I doubt he received that information from the Chinese. If something launches from the ground in an attempt to reach that altitude, I would be very surprised if we didn't know about it. I suppose we'll know if they try it again.
4. a) I think China wants to avoid any sort of military conflict as much as we do, so letting us know that they can hurt us in space works as a deterrent. b) As mentioned above it's highly unlikely that they could test these things without us knowing, anyway, so there may not have been an intention to overtly show us anything.
posted
Dubya, "Only I can blow stuff up in space." China, "Stuff it ya blowhard." (sotto voce) Dubya, "Thanks. Now the paranoid idiots won't complain when I steal their tax money to feed my parasitic friends" China, "No problemo. One hand washes the other. Thanks for the idiot customers supporting our military build-up."
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Couple thoughts on this:
1. What does the US have to counter this? ... 4. Why exactly would they show us their capability? Such a move could ONLY be interpreted as overtly threatening to the US, and no one else. We're the only ones that have such assets in space.
1. From your article,
quote: The United States has been able to bring down satellites with missiles since the mid-1980s, according to a history of ASAT programs posted on the Union of Concerned Scientists Web site. In its own test, the U.S. military knocked a satellite out of orbit in 1985.
4. I can't agree, looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#Launch_capable_countries , in 2006 Russia (surprisingly) has more satellites than the US and Japan has more than China. Both are also potential enemies. There's also the problem that the only way you know if such a system works, is to test it. There's no way around it.
It would also cost a crazy amount of money to either retrofit all American satellites with defensive weapons or launch all new ones.
In short, I believe that the situation is like this. China knows that the US has had this kind of weapon since 1985. China also knows that the US would be tempted to use such a weapon if the US attacked China. China cannot afford any sort of defensive system for its own satellites. China also knows that given the US record for the "Star Wars" program, that the US would have to spend a crazy amount of money to defend their satellites against what seems to be a relatively simple weapon (afterall, we built something similar way back in 1985).
To be honest, I do not see what choice they have. If they just sat back and did nothing, then the US would have a capability (knocking down satellites) that they do not have, which translates into a big advantage in the case of a conflict. With a successful test, in the short term there's a sort of MAD stalemate in capabilities, which is exactly what they probably want.
Besides, given the amount of money we're throwing at Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think we could even afford a space-based arms race in the near future on top of it all, plus there's the fact that they are still developing and catching up faster than we can develop genuinely new stuff to get ahead of them.
In the end, I think there is a disconnect here. America believes that China wants hegemony in space because America itself wants hegemony in space. Meanwhile, China knows it does not have the money or resources to gain the upper hand globally, so it is actually shooting for a balance of power between itself and the US.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I support Mucus POV.
As for "who" owns space its impossible for anyone to own it, its possible to gain a certain upper hand but space suporiority is not something that comes as easily as air suporiority.
The PRC as with any other responsible nation have the inherant and legitmate rights to expliot space for whatever purposes, defence, economic, etc. To deny this right is something that no nation has the right to do, China establishing that it has the ability to begin defending themselves and usiong space for their own commercial and defence gains is only a natural progression in the states efforts to defend itself.
IP: Logged |
posted
Your quotation from the article shows that we have the same capability, which is fine, but since China doesn't really have a major amount of MILITARY capability in space right now, like GPS (which is responsible for a lot of our smart bomb capability), or Keyhole spy satellites, etc, then the ability for US to shoot THEIR satellites down doesn't mean a whole lot, at present. My question was what do we have to STOP them from shooting down our satellites to begin with?
If we feel that this is important enough, cost won't be an issue. Why? If we'll spend half a trillion dollars to gain nothing in Iraq, then we'll spend tens of billions to make sure our entire military network can't be rendered pre 21st century by a few cheap Chinese missiles. Too much of our supremacy depends on those satellites, we won't leave them undefended.
To be honest, I would be VERY surprised if we didn't already have this capability, or something very similar to it already in use, or in space, or at the very least in a test lab somewhere. Knowing that another country has this capability now, we have no choice but to come up with a way to neutralize it, and I think that if we've had this same capability for the last 18 years, we have to of spent the last 18 years researching a way to beat it, because that's how our military research words. You invent a tech, you invent a way to beat it, you invent a way to protect it against THAT, and the process continues. It's how we stay ahead.
Blayne -
To be honest I think they have the right to develop those weapons too. However, I think it means we have an equal right to develop weapons to defend our satellites by whatever means possible, no matter what hardware that costs China. If they want to be able to shoot down our sats, fine, just realize we're going to come up with a way to stop them, then we're going to shoot down THEIR sats, then we're going to bomb the missile launch sites to remove the capability.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is how the cold war started. We've got a nifty weapon, so they get a nifty weapon. If your weapon does this, ours will do that. Next thing you know we're wasting money left and right just to stand the other guy down. Great.
That being said, too much of our lifestyle and technical capabilities rely upon satellites, including military capabilities. If China can smack all that down, we've got to be able to defend it.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Chinese are smarter than the Russians. And they're smarter than the Americans. This is not a repeat of the Cold War. It's a carefully engineered distraction. Bejing doesn't want satellites, they want oil. And they know just how to get it.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'll have to forgive me but, how does the threat of shooting down US Satellites get them more oil?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Huh? Japan is a potential enemy of the US? Or did you mean Russia and China?
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
Meanwhile, China knows it does not have the money or resources to gain the upper hand globally, so it is actually shooting for a balance of power between itself and the US.
...until the day when it does have the money (a lot of the natural resources it will need are already within its borders).
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
If we feel that this is important enough, cost won't be an issue. Why? If we'll spend half a trillion dollars to gain nothing in Iraq, then we'll spend tens of billions to make sure our entire military network can't be rendered pre 21st century by a few cheap Chinese missiles. Too much of our supremacy depends on those satellites, we won't leave them undefended.
Honestly, how much does the government care about the national debt, anyway?
quote:Originally posted by Survivor:
The Chinese are smarter than the Russians. And they're smarter than the Americans.
Can we please avoid these generalisations?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind such declarative statements so long as they are backed up with as least a theory as to why they are true.
And no, it appears we don't care about the national debt much lately. But we spend a half trillion dollars a year on our military, and much of that, and our domestic society, hinges on those satellites. Letting all that go to waste because we didnt want to spend another couple billion is silly, and a no brainer.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh sure, I don't disagree that protecting satellites is a high priority; only that cost really doesn't seem to be a worry for the government in the first place.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ...since China doesn't really have a major amount of MILITARY capability in space right now, like GPS (which is responsible for a lot of our smart bomb capability), or Keyhole spy satellites, etc, then the ability for US to shoot THEIR satellites down doesn't mean a whole lot, at present .... then we'll spend tens of billions to make sure our entire military network can't be rendered pre 21st century by a few cheap Chinese missiles. Too much of our supremacy depends on those satellites, we won't leave them undefended. ... because that's how our military research words. You invent a tech, you invent a way to beat it, you invent a way to protect it against THAT, and the process continues. It's how we stay ahead. ... If they want to be able to shoot down our sats, fine, just realize we're going to come up with a way to stop them, then we're going to shoot down THEIR sats, then we're going to bomb the missile launch sites to remove the capability.
A) Since China doesn't have a lot of satellites, then it makes what few satellites they do have even more important.
B) As for cost, isn't that the whole point of the excercise? They know we're stretched and for the cost of a few 1985 era missiles (maybe bought for a hundred million or so, I'm guessing) you're proposing a system that will cost tens of billions. This would be like a best case scenario for bankrupting an opponent. Even during the Cold War, we managed to do the same thing to the Soviets but paying at much closer to a 1:1 ratio (probably).
B) Of course we'll develop, but they'll develop too. But in the mean time, they have a counterpart to a known US capability, which is much better than no counterpart when it comes to forcing a stalemate.
C) You'll come up with a way and then test it, thats all good. But you can hardly shoot down their satellites and bomb their facilities for shooting down one of their own satellites especially while you're already at war in two other countries. Instead, you'll develop the capability to do so (at an extraordinary cost), but without an excuse to start a war, it will sit there, and then they'll *copy* it for much cheaper Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting to see exactly who the U.S. government owes money. Wikilink.
quote: The country holding by far the most U.S. debt is Japan which held $644.2 billion at the end of August 2006. In recent years the People's Republic of China has also become a holder of over $1 Trillion in total foreign reserves, of which about $339 billion are US Treasuries.
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Huh? Japan is a potential enemy of the US? Or did you mean Russia and China?
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
Meanwhile, China knows it does not have the money or resources to gain the upper hand globally, so it is actually shooting for a balance of power between itself and the US.
...until the day when it does have the money (a lot of the natural resources it will need are already within its borders).
Sorry, didn't think that was confusing, I'll reword it. Both Japan and Russia are potential enemies of China and both have more satellites, which is why China was not *just* demonstrating its capability to the US, it was demonstrating it to a number of nations.
As for the second part: *Yes*
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw this link on another forum. The U.S. is exploring cheap, quick satellite launching, which would also be a reasonable counter to anti-satellite weaponry.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
multiple points on the issue: 1) Mucus has a very valid point about the US certainly not being the only nation/entity threatened by this capability (though we probably are the most likely target) I'd add on that in addition to national defense type-satellites, there are a number of commercial satellites that are likely within range of a Chinese missile attack that could be either economic targets (in some wierd scenario) or even valid military targets (communication satellites in the middle-east/africa are sometimes jammed for various reasons so this is just an extension of that).
2) I'm hesitant to get too worked up about this before they have repeated successful tests against "hostile" targets. 1/4 on shooting at a "stationary" target that you own is potentially a lot different from trying to shoot down a "hostile" satellite that may have some sort of jamming/defensive capabilities as well as the simple ability to notice you've launched something and move out of the way. One way to potentially counter this (depending on the targetting/maneuvering system of their weapon) is just to watch for launches and have emergency procedures to have all our spy satellites in the vicinity fire thrusters to shift their orbit a bit.
China certainly has the right to have this capability, but it will be a lot hairier if they choose to use it. Basically, when we start getting into the legal international rights of "spy sats" and national right to privacy etc it gets pretty volatile. I think they should stick with their lasers blinding us or whatever it was that came up a few months back.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think they should stick with their lasers blinding us or whatever it was that came up a few months back.
Perhaps the are worried about America's response to them using lasers. Certainly you didn't expect American military minds to just take this all lying down.
China has put a HUGE emphasis on modernizing its military forces. Ever since Desert Storm where they saw to a huge degree our current military capabilities, they have been VERY focused on matching us on the land, at sea, and in the sky.
They have done a phenomenal job by using espionage, brilliance, and just pure hard work. The problem is nobody, not even the current Chinese leaders know what China is going to do if it catches up to the US, and possibly becomes a super power.
I agree that the sky should be governed by similar rules as the ocean. China on one hand does not owe us an explanation as to how they develop their military. But on the other we do tons of business and trade with them and we can certainly pressure them into leveling with us as we should be concerned about our own future economy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
