Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 19, 2007
War In Space

The Chinese government demonstrated the capacity to destroy satellites in low earth orbit. 

A rocket fired from the surface did a hard "kinetic kill" of an old Chnines satellite flying at 850 kilometers (530 miles) altitude. As satellites are relative tiny objects, in this case maybe some three yards wide, this was an impressive technolgical achievement.

Aviation Week has some details. The Arms Control Wonk discusses implications here and here. Noah Shachtman at Defense Tech writes about possible countermeasures. There is not much the U.S. can do about it.

The biggest problem is the debris a destroyed satellite leaves in space. Other satellites may collide with such debris and get destroyed too. The Chinese knowingly created a mess and one may ask why they decided to do so. The New York Times gives an answer:

In late August, President Bush authorized a new national space policy that ignored calls for a global prohibition on such tests. The policy said the United States would “preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space” and “dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so.” It declared the United States would “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.”

"Bring it on!" said Bush and the Chinese did do so. A Russian general concurs (via Arms Control Wonk):

“We remember Bush’s announcements about monopolization of space and his threat to destroy all unidentified satellites. Therefore it is possible to say that, it is indeed the Americans who are provoking a new arms race in space ” [Ivashov] said, noting that China is compelled to react to such US policy.

If the Chinese are compelled, the Russians of course are too and General Icashov points out that China probably did use some modified Russian technology.

Instead of negotiating a treaty against all weapon use in space, as China and Russia proposed, the U.S. declared it will deny space operations to anyone or anything who might endanger its national interests.

There is still time to get back to the negotiation table and to stop a cold-war weapon race in space. With its good relationships on both sides, would Walmart not be an appropriate arbitrator?

But any real treaty is not in the interest of Lockheed & Co, conservative nuts and general military Keynesianism. A new round of wasting taxpayer dollars is therefore assured.

Comments

b @ 1: would Walmart not be an appropriate arbitrator?
lol!
excellent post.

Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 19 2007 16:53 utc | 1

here’s a link to an analysis preceding the missile test
US-China and a New Cold War

The question is just WHO would want to ‘limit’ U.S access or use of space? WHICH adversary would they wish to deny ‘the use of space capabilities hostile to the United States interests’? WHO would want to claim sovereignty ‘over outer space or celestial bodies’? Could it be a) Osama Bin Laden b) Iran c) Lindsay Lohan or d) China? Yes folks, the guessing game is over, the only power that could conceivably have ambition or the capability to use space power ‘hostile to U.S national interests’ is China, and it is clear from this document the United States and China are in one hell of a strategic tussle. This document is replete with suggestions that the Pentagon planners are ready to actively make Space the ‘final’ frontier. (Not that space hasn’t already been a strategic player via satellites and the Global Positioning System in most wars since Iraq Mark One, Alvin Toffler first letting us know of its importance eons ago) You might think this has to do with scientific advancement, and to some extent, that’s correct, the Moon having a particle that can help in the future development of nuclear fusion, helium three. Unfortunately, this mostly has to do with the space program of America’s ‘peer competitor’ China, and the so called threat of Chinese ‘asymmetrical warfare’ that might possibly bring down or impede American satellites and weapons during warfare. The idea is that the Chinese are using ‘commercial’ technology or lunar technology for military application in space, thus ‘challenging’ US military supremacy. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the second Rumsfeld Commission (or ‘The Report of the Commission To Assess United States National Security and Space Management and Organization’) warned of a possible space ‘Pearl Harbor’ and recommended a range of options that basically protects United States hegemony in space, as does this new space policy. The idea is that hypothetically, China may be able to take out United States satellites via anti-satellite weaponry in the event of war, say during a conflict over Taiwan. The problem with this logic of course is that while China may be able to momentarily attack a US satellite, the vast inventory of US space and military technology would then rain down on the Chinese, and leave the peer competitor with very little option other than to surrender.
But that has not stopped the Pentagon planners.

Posted by: b real | Jan 19 2007 17:01 utc | 2

Excellent post, and thanks for taking away yet another hour of the few I can still sleep at night… LOL.
Here are two little language edits (since you wanted them):
“Instead of negotiating” (not “Instead to negotiate”)
and
“With its good relationships on both sides” not “With good relation”

Posted by: Bea | Jan 19 2007 17:14 utc | 3

Any US administration should be rightly concerned about the militarization of space and its potential impact on our intelligence assets in orbit. Virtually no way exists to prevent satellite killers from being developed. We, as the biggest user of space intelligence assets, would actually benefit from a moratorium on anybody developing space-based or oriented weaponry. I do realize that this is too much for the current crop of buffoons squatting in the Oval Office and flinging offal (Offal Office == Bush Administration?) to understand.

Posted by: PrahaPartizan | Jan 19 2007 17:24 utc | 4

If they mess with my DISH TV I’ll be really pissed.
China’s actions are an understandable response to a ridiculous U.S. policy, but they have to know that the Tellerites will paint this as a first-strike-enabling weapon. Given how the U.S. has become so dependent on GPS and satellite imaging and communication, that argument will fall on receptive ears. Not mine, but others who are afraid of looking “weak on defense”. Perhaps this point was made elsewhere but I think it is important in that it goes beyond just the militarization of space. I find it interesting to contrast this action by China to the speculations of the retired Indian diplomat posted here a few days ago, in which he explained how China had no choice but to cooperate with the U.S.

Posted by: YouFascinateMe | Jan 19 2007 17:53 utc | 5

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?
Reagan’s Star Wars never blew up any satellites. China’s system just did. So, yeah, China’s system is bad.
It seems odd that China tested their system in this way. 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. I find this a highly unusual aggressive move for China.
13 ways to fight American dominance of space.
Get ready for the new frontier of missile defense, where peacekeeping space lasers battle a storm of rogue nukes.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 19 2007 17:53 utc | 6

p.s. I’d be more worried about the following…
Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons
I also recommend this excellent 50 page essay by the journalists who do Project Censored, very rigorous and straightfoward, and very comprehensive:
Electromagnetic Weapons and Human rights2006.pdf

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 19 2007 18:12 utc | 7

We, as the biggest user of space intelligence assets, would actually benefit from a moratorium on anybody developing space-based or oriented weaponry.
sounds about right to me.
Perhaps if they had named the program Crouching Laser, Hidden Missile it would have been better received by the US government?
lol

Posted by: annie | Jan 19 2007 18:17 utc | 8

one would think it might be a more effective countermeasure to intercept and reprogram anothers satellite capability using it as a hosting agent. someone has probably already thought of that.

Posted by: annie | Jan 19 2007 18:20 utc | 9

Jeeze, yet another form of craziness unfolds.
Today, debris from the breakup of old satelites is already something of a problem — if there was an exchange of this sort, with each side taking out the other party’s satellites, we might end up making it impossible to have stuff up in apace.
On the other hand, it might make for some nice shooting stars when the stuff finally comes down.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jan 19 2007 19:29 utc | 10

here’s an analysis from back in november by tom barry on the hawk’s interest in space
Space: The Phantom Menace. one thing’s for sure – they know how to get mileage out of an analogy

The October publication of President George W. Bush’s new space policy marked a definitive victory in a long-fought campaign by right-wing hawks to extend their agenda toward the stars.

Since the early 1980s, a campaign by defense contactors, right-wing policy institutes, and former military officials to control and militarize space has paralleled efforts to build an anti-ballistic missile defense system. President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), known as the “Star Wars” defense, sought to raise public fear that the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor would come from space and called for an extensive missile defense system.

It was not, however, until the so-called Rumsfeld Space Commission released its report in January 2001, which warned of a “space Pearl Harbor,” that serious pressure started building for the government to develop space weapons.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been a leading proponent of a U.S. military presence in space. In 1999, Rumsfeld chaired the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, the so-called Space Commission established by the Republican Congress to challenge the perceived weakness of the Clinton administration on national defense issues. Rumsfeld also chaired the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.
The Space Commission concluded that it is “possible to project power through and from space in response to events anywhere in the world. Having this capability would give the United States a much stronger deterrent and, in a conflict, an extraordinary military advantage.” The commission argued in Orwellian style that because the United States is without peer among “space-faring” nations, the country is all the more vulnerable to “state and non-state actors hostile to the United States and its interests.” In other words, U.S. enemies would seek to destroy the U.S. economy together with its ability to fight high-tech wars by attacking global-positioning satellites and other “space assets,” which would effectively result in a so-called space Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: b real | Jan 19 2007 20:10 utc | 11

“aggressive move”? or Warning on Iran attack?
Did I read on another thread or somewhere else or think it up myself (unlikely) that China’s display of satellite destruction capability could be a signal to Bushco that the same could happen to US GPS systems if there was an attack on Iran, disprupting targeting, etc. Or does China not have such a degree of capability yet?

Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 19 2007 21:21 utc | 12

Or does China not have such a degree of capability yet?
i would imagine they could adjust their aim without too much difficulty.
Did I read on another thread or somewhere else or think it up myself
another example of creative imaginations running wild!

Posted by: annie | Jan 19 2007 21:41 utc | 13

hamburger- are you thinking of this comment from PeeDee yesterday?

Posted by: b real | Jan 19 2007 21:45 utc | 14

yep – that was it b real #14. Thanks.
And wasn’t there another suggestion that it might be China’s way to nudge the US towards a “space treaty”? Ha. Fat chance, that.
It seems to me that China, as banker to US consumption, has the US by the short and curlies yet cheney-bush evince no fear – “deficits don’t matter”. Yes US and China are clinched in a mutual dependency of finance, currency, export and consumption, but doesn’t China really have the upper hand?
I’ve been thinking lately – as seems people do when they reach late middle age that really the world is truly hell bound and not a place I want to hang around in forever. The attraction of an afterlife or life everlasting or heaven is so abhorrent to me – why would anyone want such a thing? – as awful to me as being forever kept awake, never allowed to sleep. Total invasion of privacy, the tracking of every move and transaction, not a space the eye will fall that will not be an advertisement, genocide, ethnic cleansing, the militarization of space, craven corrupt leaders, all this religion everywhere.
Wasn’t it George Carlin who said at some point he just gave up the rage against the folly (of US govt, etc) and trying to change the world and now just “watches the show”. I can’t tear my eyes from the show and I’m still enraged.

Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 19 2007 22:41 utc | 15

yep – that was it b real #14. Thanks.
And wasn’t there another suggestion that it might be China’s way to nudge the US towards a “space treaty”? Ha. Fat chance, that.
It seems to me that China, as banker to US consumption, has the US by the short and curlies yet cheney-bush evince no fear – “deficits don’t matter”. Yes US and China are clinched in a mutual dependency of finance, currency, export and consumption, but doesn’t China really have the upper hand?
I’ve been thinking lately – as seems people do when they reach late middle age that really the world is truly hell bound and not a place I want to hang around in forever. The attraction of an afterlife or life everlasting or heaven is so abhorrent to me – why would anyone want such a thing? – as awful to me as being forever kept awake, never allowed to sleep. Total invasion of privacy, the tracking of every move and transaction, not a space the eye will fall that will not be an advertisement, genocide, ethnic cleansing, the militarization of space, craven corrupt leaders, all this religion everywhere.
Wasn’t it George Carlin who said at some point he just gave up the rage against the folly (of US govt, etc) and trying to change the world and now just “watches the show”. I can’t tear my eyes from the show and I’m still enraged.

Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 19 2007 22:41 utc | 16

oh crap – I did the post thing ONCE! 2 postings of my whining. Take ’em away, b. going to bed.

Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 19 2007 22:43 utc | 17

sleep well hamburger, try not to become too enraged, maybe carlin has the right idea. they can’t control our dreams anyway, not yet.

Posted by: annie | Jan 19 2007 22:52 utc | 18

Remember the brief but brilliant TV series Max Headroom, set “20 minutes in the future” (and this was back in 1987, and on network TV, no less)?
In the episode “Lessons,” everybody is celebrating “Annual Sky Clearance Days,” in which the ZikZak corporation is bringing down old satellites. People walk around with umbrellas, and the skies are full of brilliant meteors…..oooh, ahhh.
Classic MH quote:
Edison: “Since when has news been entartainment?”
Murray: “Since it was invented…?”

Posted by: catlady | Jan 19 2007 23:43 utc | 19

y’know, if the space wars go into full swing, we might end up with some real purty rings–maybe not quite as nice as Saturn’s.

Posted by: catlady | Jan 19 2007 23:48 utc | 20

ah yes, M-M-M-Ma-Max-Max. don’t many of these sattelites have nukyular fuel? better have lead brollies.

Posted by: gmac | Jan 20 2007 1:47 utc | 21

The United States of SPACE!
(Mars section is at about 5:40. If you’re impatient.)

Posted by: Rowan | Jan 20 2007 2:12 utc | 22

oops. didn’t close my link. Mars, bitches!

Posted by: Rowan | Jan 20 2007 2:13 utc | 23

If b ever decides to add a blogroll to MoA, then the Yorkshire Ranter would be one of my recommendations:

Well, who saw that one coming? China blasts an old weather satellite with an MRBM. There’s a lot to say about this, but here’s one of the most important things. One of the classic examples of cooperation in an adversarial relationship is the understanding between the US and the Soviet Union, and then everyone else, that nobody would try to extend their sovereignty into low earth-orbit. John Lewis Gaddis devoted a whole chapter of The Long Peace to this idea. Originally, it wasn’t clear that satellites could actually orbit without the permission of states they passed over. But, even though it was soon obvious how useful they would be for spying, the superpowers tacitly agreed to tolerate each other’s sats.
Partly this was because it was clear that, without a cut-off point, it would be extremely annoying to get anything done in space. Partly it was because satellite reconnaissance was seen as a useful precaution against surprise attack, and hence a stabilising influence on superpower politics. So, although both sides researched the possibilities of shooting down satellites, and both the US and USSR carried out successful tests, they quietly agreed to put up with the other side’s birds in time of peace. (There’s a good post here at RussianForces.org about their ASAT program.)
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 added to, but was really just built on top of, this tacit understanding. It’s important to understand that US (or anyone else’s) complaining about the Chinese is not an argument that “We own space”, or rather, it isn’t one with that particular “we”. The existing position is that anyone who can get to space can use space, and this includes a lot of military or related activity. But all agree not to interfere with each other’s satellites. This is actually quite a good solution.
Many of the things civilians want to do in space are indistinguishable from things the military would like to do in space – the telecoms industry’s activities up there are not very different from military signals operations up there, scientists and cartographers carrying out photographic surveys and some forms of Earth-monitoring are not very different from military intelligence personnel doing photo-reconnaissance, GPS and GLONASS are used by all kinds of people.
This way, all the users are catered for with a degree of security. “We” own space, where the “we” is the community of space users. It’s rather like the high seas. Anyone trying to destroy satellites is effectively enclosing the commons, especially given the debris problem. Whichever way you cut it, it’s an act aimed at changing the status quo in space, and not in a direction I think anyone needs.
It’s also worrying exactly how it was done. The Chinese seem to have used a bloody big rocket fired directly into its path, like a huge SAM. They don’t seem to have told anyone beforehand. Now, firing a bloody big rocket on a ballistic trajectory is an act that can be dangerous. There are longstanding arrangements under which any state that is going to let off a bloody big rocket tells everyone else first. This is because if it goes high enough, it will be detected by early-warning radars looking for ballistic missiles. (The launch will also show up on the US’s Defence Support Program infrared satellites.) A rocket that can put a satellite into orbit can also be at least an MRBM.
That’s not good. In this case the launcher wasn’t big enough to be an ICBM, but it would have been big enough to target India or Japan or parts of Russia. I think all can agree that unacknowledged ballistic missile tests are not a boon to humanity.
Why would China want such a capability? It’s well known that the US armed forces love satellites, for intelligence, communications, weather forecasting, and navigation. A lot of these are in low earth-orbit, like the one the Chinese rocket smashed. There’s clearly a show of strength going on here, but the foxing question is why they found it necessary to do it in the way they did. There’s no point signalling a capability secretly. It’s impossible to do something in LEO secretly, anyway, as all kinds of governments and research organisations from many countries observe it routinely and their data is available on the Net, which is how the news of the hit got out.
The Americans are presumably being put on notice that their LEO constellation can be held in jeopardy. There’s another point, though – satellites are a field in which new countries are rapidly gaining capabilities. Taiwan, for example, rents a share in an Israeli satellite. Nigeria is working on one. It makes sense, I suppose, for the Chinese to keep ahead of states nearer to being peers than the US.
It’s also worth keeping in mind that the UK is one of few comparable states that has no satellite capability of its own. You might remember this post and the difference of opinion on Iraq between the countries without satellites, and France, which has its own. Surrey University and Astrium in Stevenage are good at making them. Arianespace are pretty good at launching any satellite someone will pay for.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jan 20 2007 22:56 utc | 24

did this really happen? or is someone pulling our leg?
what to make of this
Russia’s defense minister denies satellite destruction rumors

MOSCOW, January 19 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian defense minister denied Friday allegations that China launched a ballistic missile January 11 that destroyed a satellite.
CNN, a U.S.-based global television network, earlier said that a U.S. National Security Council spokesman confirmed a report in the magazine American Aviation Week and Space Technology that China last week destroyed one of its old meteorological satellites with a medium-range ballistic missile.
“I have heard such rather unsubstantiated reports, and I am afraid they are unfounded,” Sergei Ivanov said. “There is nothing to comment on. The rumors are largely exaggerated.”
However, Japan, Australia and the United States have already expressed concern over the alleged weapons test and the theoretical possibility that China could shoot down satellites operated by other countries.
China has yet to confirm the destruction of its satellite, but is likely to face stern criticism for an attempt to spread an arms race into space.

a mention of moscow’s suspicions in prensa latina states

The Foreign Ministry said it does [not] have any kind of detail about the issue, but asserted that Beijing will not develop an space arms race, the radio station said, attributing the news of the experiment to exaggeration by the CNN television company.

the aviation week article that b links to was carefully worded

U. S. intelligence agencies believe China performed a successful anti-satellite (asat) weapons test at more than 500 mi. altitude Jan. 11 destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile.
The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA and other government organizations have a full court press underway to obtain data on the alleged test, Aviation Week & Space Technology will report in its Jan. 22 issue.
If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military capability.

The attack is believe [sic] to have occurred…

Although intelligence agencies must complete confirmation of the test, the attack is believed to have occurred…

The test, if it occurred as envisioned by intelligence source [sic],…

u.s. intelligence also believed in cold-war era stories involving a lot of gaps, which just so happened to benefit the military-industrial sector. the hawks got their star wars funding, DoD continued to receive increased funding, etc… point is, they believed (or pretended to believe) all kinds of exaggerations about threats to national security.
and then confirmation of the aviation week story comes via CNN? c’mon.
has china acknowledged any such test?
the hawks — including some of the same players from the team b scam — are likely grinning ear-to-ear. it certainly plays right into providing a justification for their programs.

Posted by: b real | Jan 21 2007 5:59 utc | 25

great timing

News of the Chinese achievement came as John D. Negroponte, the head of U.S. intelligence agencies, testified before the House Intelligence Committee on a range of international threats, including what he said were the potential dangers of China’s military buildup.
“The Chinese are developing more capable long-range conventional strike systems, and short and medium-range ballistic missiles with terminally guided maneuverable warheads able to attack U.S. carriers and air bases,” Negroponte said in his testimony. [source]

Posted by: b real | Jan 21 2007 6:25 utc | 26

this does get a little more curiouser, China now admits testing and also says they informed the US and Japan before the test.
to my surprise I was able to find mention of this little fact in papers and sites that are not US. Even Reuters carried it but not a single US paper (that I could find anyway). Coincidence?

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 23 2007 19:08 utc | 27