|
|
Chinese successfully take out satellite
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status:
Offline
|
|
Link
My Political Science professor made this sound like it's a big deal. China could theoretically take out our military's communications satellites and pose quite a threat to us.
"If we, for instance, got into a conflict over Taiwan, one of the first things they'd probably do would be to shoot down all of our lower Earth-orbit spy satellites, putting out our eyes," said John Pike of globalsecurity.org, a Web site that compiles information on worldwide security issues.
Any thoughts on how much of a threat this really is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm not concerned. It isn't hard to take out one satelite. They would have to take out many successive satelites to make an impact on our spying capability. Last I heard we had 10's of satelites devoted to gathering a variety of different intelligence.
Most spy satelites aren't geo-synchronous (which this satelite was) meaning they are harder to hit. Satelite orbits are pretty easy to predict, but in the event that they did try something that extremely stupid, we'd have a chance to divert/move some satelites orbits that are on the other side of the earth to make them a harder target to hit if/when they do pass over China.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
OK, so they can shoot their missiles at a few satellites and we'll shoot ours into Beijing. Sounds like a fair tradeoff to me.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status:
Offline
|
|
I would worry less about military based action and more about ecomonic action
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
"Oops... was that Verizon's satellite?"
"God damn it, Young, I told you not to mix metric and imperial units!"
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
I wouldn't necessarily bet the farm on this, but historically, the Chinese have been a defensively oriented society.
If the Japanese or the Germans start taking out satellites, that's when you get worried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Gossamer
Link
My Political Science professor made this sound like it's a big deal. China could theoretically take out our military's communications satellites and pose quite a threat to us.
Any thoughts on how much of a threat this really is?
Why would we have to go to war with China over Taiwan? That's just retarded.
There is no threat if we don't plan on attacking China.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm sure the US military has several contingincies in place to make sure china can't blind us with a few missles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
No one answered yet.. why should we care??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm disgusted that some people seem to think the US should have some sort of military domination of Earth orbit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well done China (engineering viewpoint of course)!
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by red rocket
I'm disgusted that some people seem to think the US should have some sort of military domination of Earth orbit.
Well, who would you suggest instead?
The fundamental component of military doctrine is air-superiority, therefore I think it is wishful thinking to imagine space-superiority is not of interest, to everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Well, who would you suggest instead?
The fundamental component of military doctrine is air-superiority, therefore I think it is wishful thinking to imagine space-superiority is not of interest, to everyone.
I suggest maybe no single country should seek orbital world domination, kind of like no single country should seek planetside world domination, either.
It's like the US is at war with everybody, and as soon as anyone else exerts their right to act as a sovereign country, the American imperialists get their knickers in a twist.
The United States do not have an exclusive right to outer space, and any attempt by them to enforce such a state of affairs is de facto an act of aggression for which retaliation should be expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by red rocket
The United States do not have an exclusive right to outer space, and any attempt by them to enforce such a state of affairs is de facto an act of aggression for which retaliation should be expected
How is this not China attempting to enforce their own exclusive right to space?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by macintologist
Why would we have to go to war with China over Taiwan? That's just retarded.
There is no threat if we don't plan on attacking China.
Tawian is a free democratic nation, China is not. Taiwan is an ally, China is not.
The US does not leave her allies undefended should they be attacked. If China asserts that Taiwan is part of China and attempts a takeover, the US should come to her aid.
The US does not assert that it owns all of outer space: the ESA and Soviet Union, and Russia post-USSR are all active space entities - who have never shot down satellites.
China shooting down a satellite is an exercise of a military nature and now poses a contingency which the US must plan to address.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
Tawian is a free democratic nation, China is not. Taiwan is an ally, China is not.
The US does not leave her allies undefended should they be attacked. If China asserts that Taiwan is part of China and attempts a takeover, the US should come to her aid.
The US does not assert that it owns all of outer space: the ESA and Soviet Union, and Russia post-USSR are all active space entities - who have never shot down satellites.
China shooting down a satellite is an exercise of a military nature and now poses a contingency which the US must plan to address.
Soviet shot down missiles in the 80's. Just as the US did. And the US has just recently opposed banning such tests.
So any complaints from those two (Russia and the US) should quite frankly be ignored.
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Concern over China's missile test
|
"Learn to swim"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
How is this not China attempting to enforce their own exclusive right to space?
Whose satellite did they shoot down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
I wouldn't necessarily bet the farm on this, but historically, the Chinese have been a defensively oriented society.
If the Japanese or the Germans start taking out satellites, that's when you get worried.
LOLz!
Ask folks from Macao, Hong Kong, Chinese Kashmir, Taiwan and especially Tibet what they think of that assertion...
PB.
|
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
Tawian is a free democratic nation, China is not. Taiwan is an ally, China is not.
The US does not leave her allies undefended should they be attacked. If China asserts that Taiwan is part of China and attempts a takeover, the US should come to her aid.
Why? Poor bastards but... it's not our problem and it would be an enormous waste of money and manpower. Going to war with China when they never attacked us is quite frankly... retarded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
Whose satellite did they shoot down?
I guess you didn't read the article.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by macintologist
Going to war with China when they never attacked us is quite frankly... retarded.
Thats an interesting concept...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by macintologist
Why? Poor bastards but... it's not our problem and it would be an enormous waste of money and manpower. Going to war with China when they never attacked us is quite frankly... retarded.
How do you feel about our coming to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq invaded in 1991?
Or the USA coming to the aid of most of Europe when Germany invaded?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah
So, because of the actions of past leaders over two decades ago, you judge it's current policy? I think that's a bit short sighted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think the major concern should be the amount of space junk has now increased.
Article: ABC News: China's Space-Weapon Test Could Endanger Astronauts and Satellites
...engineers say it had a serious side effect -- it increased the amount of orbiting space junk by about 10 percent.
That could mean danger -- to other satellites, and even, possibly, to astronauts on the International Space Station and future space shuttle flights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
would they take out our super weapon that causes earthquakes anywhere on the earth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Railroader
So, because of the actions of past leaders over two decades ago, you judge it's current policy? I think that's a bit short sighted.
Seven weeks ago at the UN:
"Concerns about an arms race in outer space were again addressed this year, in two texts. The traditional resolution on preventing an arms race in outer space reaffirmed the urgency of preventing such an arms race and the fact that the existing legal regime applicable to outer space needed to be reinforced, with the Conference on Disarmament playing the primary role in negotiating agreements on the issue.
The Assembly adopted the resolution by a vote of 178 in favor to 1 against (United States), with 1 abstention (Israel)."
"By a second resolution, on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer-space activities, the Assembly invited all member states to submit concrete proposals on such measures to the Secretary-General before the Assembly's sixty-second session and requested the Secretary-General submit a report on those proposals at the Assembly's next session.
The Assembly adopted the resolution by a vote of 178 in favor to 1 against (United States), with 1 abstention (Israel)."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Vente: Achat
Status:
Offline
|
|
It took them 4 tries to get the sattelite. I'm not sure that's a terribly worrisome ratio.
Why hasn't anyone made the obvious Chinese takeout joke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Face Ache
Seven weeks ago at the UN:
Your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ah I thought you were talking about the US' history in space over the last 20 years. Mea culpa.
The point stands on it's own though - the US thinks as the "lone superpower" it should rightfully own all immediately available Universe. Adds a whole new meaning to "overlords", don't it?
Worry over whatever China is doing is only over how it will affect the US' ability to win a space-based war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug
I guess you didn't read the article.
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.
I certainly did. The point of my statement being how is China shooting down it's own satellite "enforc[ing] their own exclusive right to space?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Face Ache
Ah I thought you were talking about the US' history in space over the last 20 years. Mea culpa.
The point stands on it's own though - the US thinks as the "lone superpower" it should rightfully own all immediately available Universe. Adds a whole new meaning to "overlords", don't it?
Worry over whatever China is doing is only over how it will affect the US' ability to win a space-based war.
"the US", eh? The whole US, or what? Where do you come up with this FUD?
I worry over what China is doing because they are doing things WRONG! Did you see the quote I posted and the article I linked to? I'll repost it.
..engineers say it had a serious side effect -- it increased the amount of orbiting space junk by about 10 percent.
That could mean danger -- to other satellites, and even, possibly, to astronauts on the International Space Station and future space shuttle flights.
THAT is what concerns the US. The fact that Chine just did a MAJOR screwup without thinking of anyone other than if they could do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Railroader
THAT is what concerns the US. The fact that Chine just did a MAJOR screwup without thinking of anyone other than if they could do it.
Are you aware that the US and Russia conducted similar tests in the '80s?
From your article:
When the Chinese government destroyed one of its weather satellites in a military test last month, it sent a chill through the U.S. military.
And engineers say it had a serious side effect -- it increased the amount of orbiting space junk by about 10 percent.
So you are choosing to worry about the junk, not the race to weaponize space?
Who is responsible for the other 14,000 pieces of space junk?
One space-war and we'll be Earth-bound forever, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Face Ache
Are you aware that the US and Russia conducted similar tests in the '80s?
From your article:
So you are choosing to worry about the junk, not the race to weaponize space?
Who is responsible for the other 14,000 pieces of space junk?
One space-war and we'll be Earth-bound forever, eh?
What size tinfoil hat are you wearing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Railroader
What size tinfoil hat are you wearing?
Large - I have a huuuge head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Railroader
So, because of the actions of past leaders over two decades ago, you judge it's current policy? I think that's a bit short sighted.
Originally Posted by vmarks
The US does not assert that it owns all of outer space: the ESA and Soviet Union, and Russia post-USSR are all active space entities - who have never shot down satellites.
...
|
"Learn to swim"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Railroader
How do you feel about our coming to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq invaded in 1991?
Or the USA coming to the aid of most of Europe when Germany invaded?
Typical rhetorical questions...
But I can say that I'd be all for a coalition (contrary to this sorry "solo" attempt in Iwaq) to free Tibet, or to support Taiwan's independancy. I guess though, between a rock and a hard place, the western powers will always side with the Chinese. People of Tibet know. :-/
Regards
PB.
|
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
I certainly did. The point of my statement being how is China shooting down it's own satellite "enforc[ing] their own exclusive right to space?
Then you should have said so in the first place.
Anyways, it's target practice obviously. While they're not "enforcing their own exclusive right to space", it's definitely a political statement.
Originally Posted by paul w
It took them 4 tries to get the sattelite. I'm not sure that's a terribly worrisome ratio.
I hope you don't think they'd just give up after missing the first try when trying to shoot down enemy satellites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by macintologist
Why? Poor bastards but... it's not our problem and it would be an enormous waste of money and manpower. Going to war with China when they never attacked us is quite frankly... retarded.
Not really. Taiwan is an ally, of course we'd come to their defense.
Additionally, committing to come to Taiwan's defense is a good deterrent from ever having to.
Anyway, on topic: It looks like China wants a space arms race. They don't realize that the US can waste more money on useless weapons projects than every other country combined. We'll teach them for trying to compete with US defense spending wastefulness, just like we did the USSR.
|
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
The successful use of a kinetic kill vehicle in taking out a satellite IMO represents a serious strategic threat to the United States, given its reliance on satellite-based command, control and communications in almost every aspect of modern warfare technology. This event would seem to underscore a major vulnerability in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by DBursey
The successful use of a kinetic kill vehicle in taking out a satellite IMO represents a serious strategic threat to the United States, given its reliance on satellite-based command, control and communications in almost every aspect of modern warfare technology. This event would seem to underscore a major vulnerability in that regard.
Indeed. Regardless of the political implications, it is a significant achievement, even if it took four tries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Powerbook
Typical rhetorical questions...
They were not rhetorical. I like honest answers.
Cheers
Railroader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status:
Offline
|
|
Kudos to the Chinese for improving their in-house technology. Nevertheless, if they want some sort of strategic equality, they should be sending spy satellites to other nations' airspaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|