Chinese challenge US dominance of space militarization

January 19, 2007 8:54 AM

Newsfilter: China successfully knocks one of its satellites out of orbit. This brings the race to militarize space to the public eye again. The Chinese central government has been working for years to keep up with the Americans.
posted by Burhanistan (65 comments total)

Oh, good. Maybe now NASA will start getting real funding again.
posted by IronLizard at 9:04 AM on January 19, 2007

I'M N UR NEAR-E4RTH ORBIT KILLING UR SATELLITES
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 9:20 AM on January 19, 2007

Reagan's Star Wars -- good, necessary, and patriotic.
China's similar system -- bad, unnecessary, and dangerous.

Perhaps if they had named the program Crouching Laser, Hidden Missile it would have been better received by the US government.
posted by flarbuse at 9:23 AM on January 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

Get ready for the new frontier of missile defense, where peacekeeping space lasers battle a storm of rogue nukes.
posted by empath at 9:25 AM on January 19, 2007

Prediction: The FCC will lease this technology to take out Howard Stern once and for all.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:28 AM on January 19, 2007

actually-- that link didn't include the bit of the article I remembered:

13 ways to fight American dominance of space.
posted by empath at 9:29 AM on January 19, 2007

Reagan's Star Wars never blew up any satellits. China's system just did. So, yeah, China's system is bad.

Incompetence ≠ good intentions.

If they had advertised that they were testing a low cost system for de-orbiting aged satellites first, it would not have been such an aggressive move. Instead, they chose to make a surprise demonstration of the system.

Except that China is not scared of the U.S. and likes to prove it. In fact, the whole point of this exercise was to get the U.S.'s attention.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 9:35 AM on January 19, 2007

The hypocrisy. What right does the US administration have to claim space for themselves?
posted by jeyoung at 9:35 AM on January 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

Shooting down a ballistic missile and shooting down a satellite aren't the same thing.
posted by Cyrano at 9:40 AM on January 19, 2007

Wait until you see what they plan to do with it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:42 AM on January 19, 2007

What right does the US administration have to claim space for themselves?

We have a flag on the moon?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:44 AM on January 19, 2007

I shat on a toilet in the US once. Can I lay claim on America?
posted by jeyoung at 9:54 AM on January 19, 2007

Also, the US isn't saying that China can't play in space.

i think the chinese just told the u s that they're not playing
posted by pyramid termite at 9:56 AM on January 19, 2007

I blame Bill Clinton myself.
posted by nofundy at 9:57 AM on January 19, 2007

Ha! They hit their own satellite, buncha dummies :P
posted by Mister_A at 9:59 AM on January 19, 2007

Funny, they had the urge to blow another satellite up thirty minutes later.











*tap tap*

Is this thing on?
posted by The Straightener at 9:59 AM on January 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

I shat on a toilet in the US once. Can I lay claim on America?

Did you plant the Union Jack? Offer void in New Mexico.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:02 AM on January 19, 2007

It was in a 537 mile orbit. Impressive, but hardly effective against higher satellite orbits such as GPS and geostationary birds. It's a serious order of magnitude to consder doing anything to those.
posted by Doohickie at 10:08 AM on January 19, 2007

My only concern is that they do not knock out any thing in space that might wreck my TV reception. Are we sure the Chinese did it and not the Zionist entity?
posted by Postroad at 10:12 AM on January 19, 2007

I'm sure there's a sci-fi novel in there somewhere, based on what would happen should anti-missile-laser-equipped satellites start shooting down anything trying to get into orbit, thus trapping humanity on Earth.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 10:16 AM on January 19, 2007

Poor Santa!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:16 AM on January 19, 2007

Next thing you know they'll have frikkin sharks with frikkin laser beams on their heads.
posted by Gungho at 10:25 AM on January 19, 2007

Seriously, though, how do they even know which one to shoot down? They all look the same to me.











I'll be here all night, thanks for coming out!
posted by The Straightener at 10:31 AM on January 19, 2007

Ready, take aim, FOX SATELLITE KABOOOOM!

Well, maybe that's just me then.
posted by BigCalm at 10:31 AM on January 19, 2007

It was in a 537 mile orbit.

According to this the Space Shuttle flies well within the range of whatever "ground-based ballistic missile" they're shooting. Come to think of it, isn't the Space Shuttle program going to end in another few years? And is there another crewed follow-on platform currently in the works, or just noncrewed heavy-lift rockets? I'd hoped after 35 years, we'd have commercial SSTO flights going to orbital spas (three words: sex in microgravity) but we never quite made that dream happen.

Oops, 'scuse the derail)
posted by pax digita at 10:31 AM on January 19, 2007

“It is like slingshotting a chopstick into the eye of the great Satan.”, Commented the Iranian President.
posted by MapGuy at 11:01 AM on January 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

This is how James Bond movies start.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:10 AM on January 19, 2007 [3 favorites]

Ok fine blow it up! Now it's time to pick up all the little pieces of space-junk. Will anyone hold them accountable?
posted by katice at 11:13 AM on January 19, 2007

Haha! Spend a zillion Chinese rupees (I'm unapologetically too lazy to look up their currency) to send something in outer space to shove something else? Laughable. Bring it on China.
posted by Mister_A at 11:24 AM on January 19, 2007

I've been methodically learning Mandarin, so that I can get a cushy clerical job while you saps toil away in the Tofu Pits of Shaanxi.
posted by RavinDave at 11:25 AM on January 19, 2007

"start shooting down anything trying to get into orbit, thus trapping humanity on Earth." -- EndsofInvention

Say, that's not a bad idea... Us Gaians sure could use something to prevent the Cosmists from leaving the planet and escaping their responsibility to the planet their destroying. Make them face the karma.
posted by symbioid at 11:28 AM on January 19, 2007

By that logic, Germany and Japan (along with many others) should drop any pretense of outrage over ethnic cleansing.

Eh? Are Germany and Japan in the process of some kind of ethnic cleansing that I don't know about?

I mean, I know that Japan doesn't errect the same kind of mournful never-again monuments that Germany does, and my reaction to Eastwood movie style tales of WWII era Japanese hardship tends to be "fuck them, rape of Nanking!", but I'm fairly certain they're not actively engaged in anything of the sort at the moment, am I wrong about this?
posted by Artw at 11:28 AM on January 19, 2007

Shooting down a ballistic missile and shooting down a satellite aren't the same thing.

Which do you think is the more difficult to do? I would think that any system that could take out a ballistic missile could very easily take out a satellite.
posted by flarbuse at 11:29 AM on January 19, 2007

It's deployable to say we have a flag on the moon therefore we have the right for x,y or z. "We came in peace for all mankind" means it is open territory, as we intended it. The US has already been dumping stuff in our own backyard - RE: anti-satallite technology. ASAT was the US program in the 80s that explored this type of behavior.


Plaque on Apollo 11


I am not surprised that we don't like it because you take out the US satellites and you take out our doctrine for fighting a battle. Shortly after that an aircraft carrier is sunk and we go nuke.

Of course, we won't dialogue with them, so expect a carrier group to appear in the Indian Ocean if not already cruising there.
posted by fluffycreature at 11:30 AM on January 19, 2007

oops, I meant "they're destroying..."
posted by symbioid at 11:31 AM on January 19, 2007

According to David Wright of the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists, the satellite pulverized by China could have broken into nearly 40,000 fragments from 1 cm to 10 cm -- or up to 4 inches -- roughly half of which would stay in orbit for more than a decade.


No... they have some clean-up to do!
posted by katice at 11:32 AM on January 19, 2007

"Say, that's not a bad idea... Us Gaians sure could use something to prevent the Cosmists from leaving the planet and escaping their responsibility to the planet their destroying. Make them face the karma."

By the same logic: Say, that's not a bad idea... Peaceniks sure could use something to prevent the US military from ever leaving Iraq and escaping their responsibility to the country they're destroying. Make them face the karma.

Remember: Karma kills. Everybody. Eventually.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:35 AM on January 19, 2007

Ok fine blow it up! Now it's time to pick up all the little pieces of space-junk.

Outside of the Chinese thumb-on-nose with wagging upthrust fingers that is the real issue.
posted by caddis at 11:39 AM on January 19, 2007

China's response: Wha?!
posted by Balisong at 11:50 AM on January 19, 2007

what's with these knee jerk must learn Mandarin comments I see all the time? I am far from a flag waving right wing Republican following uhh...person...yet I think that our small blip in the history of the world has such a huge impact, that it will last for far longer than the doom and gloom people think. Don't underestimate what this country can do in a crisis. Oh wait, we kinda fucked that up these past few years. Damn.
posted by evilelvis at 12:32 PM on January 19, 2007

This is actually the second ASAT they've tested recently. In September the Pentagon acknowledged that the PLA had tested a new ground-based system to blind US recon sats.

So much for the Key Hole...
posted by Dr.James.Orin.Incandenza at 1:09 PM on January 19, 2007

The phrase "by the same logic" is not logic at all. It is a statement about logic.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:10 PM on January 19, 2007

jeyoung :The hypocrisy. What right does the US administration have to claim space for themselves?

I don't see this as the US claiming space for itself (Whether or not the US has done that in the past is certainly open for debate, I just don't think it applies here.)

In fact the condemnation over this is not even America specific, Australia, Canada, and Japan all quickly got on board with this as well.

Ignoring the obvious military applications of something like this, the problem that it presents, (as has been indicated upthread) is that it sends out debris that can damage other satellites. Our world has grown increasingly reliant on the stuff we stick up into space, and someone is putting those at risk.

I certainly don't blame the Chinese for wanting to show their might and how far their technology has progressed. And I think they have as much right to space as any other culture on this planet. But I think of space the same way I think of Antarctica, we need to try and keep it nice for everyone, or it will be safe for no one.
posted by quin at 1:20 PM on January 19, 2007

So much for the Key Hole...
posted by Dr.James.Orin.Incandenza at 3:09 PM CST on January 19 [+]

Wasn't the rationale for the death of the SR-71 program that there was no sense having expensive superfast spyplanes when satellites can provide imagery and can't be shot down? I wonder if there'll be any sort of call to revive them, or replace them with some other high-performance, hard-to-kill spyplane, given these developments.

unless you buy the Aurora thing. WHich, well, it makes a nice story, but nah...
posted by COBRA! at 1:23 PM on January 19, 2007

"what it usually means is that someone is not really going to take your position on its own terms, but rather demonstrate how they can cleverly refute it by applying additional criteria that may or may not have any bearing on the subtleties of the issue at head"

Perhaps that is how it is usually used - but in my case, I used it to introduce an analogy that I did expect people to accept on its own terms: if you really are against people [x] destroying [y], you probably don't really want to force them to stay around long enough to completely finish the job, even if it means they make a clean (pun intended) getaway. For all values of x and y, including Cosmists/American Soldiers, and Gaia/Iraq. See? It's actually the same logic. It might still be wrong, of course - but the logic's consistent.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:26 PM on January 19, 2007

I wonder if there'll be any sort of call to revive them, or replace them with some other high-performance, hard-to-kill spyplane, given these developments.


It's called the U-2 and it's still in use. Hey, if it ain't broken, don't fix it
posted by Dr.James.Orin.Incandenza at 1:31 PM on January 19, 2007

b1tr0t - pff. As recently as last year the US was claiming to own all of Space. The US is very much in the business of space militarisation right now.
posted by Artw at 1:36 PM on January 19, 2007

I'll buy the 'more expendable' argument, but the whole point of the SR-71 was that you could bring down a U-2 with 1960 technology. Not (as much of) a problem if you're looking at Iraq; but if push came to shove with China, wouldn't any attempt to get imagery turn into a U-2 turkey shoot?
posted by COBRA! at 1:52 PM on January 19, 2007

Well now, this is convenient....

AN ASSESSMENT OF CHINA’S ANTI-SATELLITE AND SPACE WARFARE PROGRAMS,POLICIES AND DOCTRINES [PDF]
Prepared for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission by Michael P. Pillsbury, Ph.D.

Report submitted to the Commission by the author on 19 January 2007
posted by Dr.James.Orin.Incandenza at 2:08 PM on January 19, 2007

Wasn't the rationale for the death of the SR-71 program that there was no sense having expensive superfast spyplanes when satellites can provide imagery and can't be shot down?

Do you really think the US gave up on spy planes, just because they have not publically announced a replacement for the SR-71?
posted by caddis at 2:10 PM on January 19, 2007

Do you really think the US gave up on spy planes, just because they have not publically announced a replacement for the SR-71?
posted by caddis at 4:10 PM CST on January 19 [+]

I go back and forth. Sometimes the satellite/U-2 excuse seems plausible to me, sometimes it doesn't. I can see how satellites would seem more cost-effective if you don't think the other guy can bring them down.

Also, it's been a long time since the SR-71 program got its final shutdown. It's certainly possible that a replacement could be kept under wraps for a decade, but I don't think either the U-2 or the Blackbird stayed secret that long.
posted by COBRA! at 2:22 PM on January 19, 2007

the US military is not stupid. Keep in mind when it comes to destroying shit, you can't argue that they do that quite well (Iraq cough cough, like it or not they rolled over any immediate resistance), and they have plenty of backup spy stuff. Drones, other normal planes, AWACS, and do you think that China could realistically destroy every single spy satellite out there...or do you think they would, knowing the immediate backlash of hell that would ensue?
posted by evilelvis at 2:37 PM on January 19, 2007

Prediction: The FCC will lease this technology to take out Howard Stern once and for all.

I'm pretty sure the FCC can regulate satilite radio. The content isn't regulated because it's not broadcast in the clear.
posted by delmoi at 2:50 PM on January 19, 2007

I don't think either the U-2 or the Blackbird stayed secret that long

On the other hand, they maintained pretty tight secrecy from Have Blue in 1977 until the public announcement of the 117 in 1989 or so. People were pretty sure that the USAF had stealthy attack aircraft, but nobody seemed to have any good idea about their appearance.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:23 PM on January 19, 2007

Which do you think is the more difficult to do? I would think that any system that could take out a ballistic missile could very easily take out a satellite.

Right. But the Chinese took out a satellite. Unquestionably the easier of the two. It's pretty easy to kill something when you know exactly where it's at. Which is why I don't understand the references to Star Wars or missile defense. Apples and oranges.

(I'm sure there was some "Russian satellites bad!!!" element to Reagan's Star Wars somewhere, but the focus was definetly on ballistic missiles.)
posted by Cyrano at 4:47 PM on January 19, 2007

"Haha! Spend a zillion Chinese rupees (I'm unapologetically too lazy to look up their currency) to send something in outer space to shove something else? Laughable. Bring it on China."

I hope you're being facetious, Mister_A.

If not, I invite you to consider what a "shove" from a projectile moving at a relative speed of, say, 10,000 miles per hour (roughly 13.0 Mach) might feel like.

When you're going that fast, you don't need a warhead.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:05 PM on January 19, 2007

I miss the days of Mutually Assured Destruction when you could depend on your enemy nuking your butt back to the stone age if you lipped off too much ( or popped a nuke ). Perhaps we could use some of that to restore some moderation and modesty. . .
posted by mk1gti at 5:21 PM on January 19, 2007

Sure enough, on October 25 the United States was the only country to vote against a draft text on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) at the United Nations General Assembly's annual First Committee on Disarmament and International Security.

"We see no value in proposals such as the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, commonly referred to as PAROS," said Robert G. Joseph, State Department's under-secretary for arms control and international security, explaining the U.S. position in a December speech before the Marshall Institute. "There is no arms race in space and we see no signs of one emerging."

posted by homunculus at 5:50 PM on January 19, 2007

Our satellites do more than take pictures, there are part of the C^4-I (command, control, communication, computer & Intelligence) in the military. They are our military - again the entire doctrine is centered around being to coordinate our actions. Iraq, as pathetic as they were (twice) basically showed what this type of coordination and efficiency in effort can do (the invasion not the following police action.) [and yes, every military planner in the world was watching]

My guess, if they have not already thought about it, can an entire (warfare) theatre be run through an AWACs plane. Command, Control and Communication through an AWACs. Someone already mentioned the military is not stupid, so I am guessing they already have a replacement for the (active) theatre. But, in time of action, expect us to unleash a sh*tstorm of pain if one of our satellites is taken out on purpose.

China has drawn a line is the sand, basically saying we have the ability to play if needed. Lovely... champagne corks are popping in the military industrial complex this weekend. It time to ramp up our defense people!
posted by fluffycreature at 5:54 PM on January 19, 2007

Balisong said: China's response: Wha?!
[link to news article — Chinese Deny Participation in Outer Space Arms Race, January 19, 2007]

I'll bet you a fortune cookie that Communist Chinese definitions (and rationale) behind malleable terms like "arms race", "defense", "peace", "preemptive strike", "terrorism", and "war", are not quite the same as the West's.

Besides, as homunculus' link points out, there isn't any space arms race.
posted by cenoxo at 6:43 PM on January 19, 2007

Bush issues doctrine for US control of space - October 19, 2006
posted by Artw at 8:24 PM on January 19, 2007

Off topic, but very much related ...

TIME Magazine: China Takes on the World.
posted by ericb at 8:29 PM on January 19, 2007

I smell a new season of 24.
posted by tehloki at 9:45 PM on January 19, 2007

From the October 2006 survey (mentioned in the Time article), The United States and the Rise of China and India:

• Americans place their country significantly ahead of all others in terms of influence in the world today and prefer that other countries have significantly less influence. A slight majority thinks maintaining superior military power worldwide is a very important foreign policy goal.
...
• Chinese see their influence in the world today as second only to the United States and believe they will pull even with the United States in terms of influence within ten years. They prefer their country to have more influence than any other and highly favor China taking an active part in world affairs. They overwhelmingly view the prospect of China becoming more powerful economically and militarily as positive.

Should be an interesting decade.
posted by cenoxo at 11:45 PM on January 19, 2007

Also this one time I went to Kennedy Space Center and watched this film about the ISS, and Tom Cruise did the narration and titally talked like HE owned space, the smug git.
posted by Artw at 9:02 AM on January 20, 2007