U.S. Considers Anti-Satellite Laser

SpaceAdmiral writes "The U.S. government wants to develop a ground-based weapon to shoot down enemy satellites in orbit. The laser will be much more powerful and sophisticated than a similar endeavor a decade ago. From the article: '... some Congressional Democrats and other experts fault the research as potential fuel for an antisatellite arms race that could ultimately hurt this nation more than others because the United States relies so heavily on military satellites, which aid navigation, reconnaissance and attack warning.'"

Comments

Purpose for defense or offense?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

From the article

In interviews, military officials defended the laser research as prudent, given the potential need for space arms to defend American satellites against attack in the years and decades ahead. "The White House wants us to do space defense," said a senior Pentagon official who oversees many space programs, including the laser effort. "We need that ability to protect our assets" in orbit.

Just doesn't seem credible to me.

Far more likely it's to protect America's "intellectual property economy" when it's cheap enough for private individuals to launch their own satellites to disseminate information under any laws they see fit.

Oh - and registration free link courtesy of Coral Cache

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[The Snowman]

Far more likely it's to protect America's "intellectual property economy" when it's cheap enough for private individuals to launch their own satellites to disseminate information under any laws they see fit.

Wow. There's my first good laugh of the day.

No, this is more of a paranoid-delusional fantasy of the Pentagon and some bureaucrats who don't want competition from China and maybe Russia. The key to U.S. military dominance is our excellent satellite intelligence. While HUMINT helps with the social engineering aspects of war, nothing but a satellite combined with proper munitions can blow up a tank underneath a bridge without hitting the bridge. From 40,000 feet. Our satellites give our military and NIMA a detailed view of pretty much every square meter of the planet, and we use this to blow shit up. No other nation on the globe has this capability to the extent we do. The United States government wants to keep it this way.

So, we're in a hypothetical future conflict with China. They have satellite capabilities similar to ours. Maybe not as good, but similar in ability. We use these lasers to blow up their satellites, removing their capability to deliver precision guided munitions. We retain that capability. We win the fight. Maybe not the war, as Iraq is teaching it takes more than bombs to do that, but at least the U.S. isn't the country blown to bits with an occupying force.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Luscious868]

Wow! An intelligent post on Slashdot about the US military and what it actually intends to do instead of paranoid ranting. Thank you.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[drooling-dog]

Just doesn't seem credible to me.

That's because the primary purpose of this program, like so many others, is to transfer vast amounts of money from the federal treasury to certain politically cooperative industries. Like Star Wars before it, I doubt that there is anyone in the Bush administration that cares one iota whether it has any real military value or even whether it ever "works" or not. The real (political) value is in the spending itself.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[ePhil_One]

Just doesn't seem credible to me.

They Russians were testing anti-Satellite weapons in the 80's as I recall, crude but effective in theory. All you need to do is launch a Satellites into an orbit that matches the one you are taking down, and blow yours up. Car bomb in space, in effect. I guess this is why we are suddenly afraid of this, though I suspect the White House is over-estimating the ease of putting a car bomb in space, then matching the orbit of an object flying at thousands of mph. For what? to take out one or two GPS satellites of the 26? Maybe hit a spy satellite that could be quickly replaced with a better one while unmanned drones cover the gaps and the men in black track the organization that paid millions to one of 5 or 6 launch companies capable of putting that car bomb in space?

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Hmmmmn,

I do agree with your post to a certain extent, but the US hasn't entered a hot war with an equivilant (or even close) power for over fifty years (and arguably never)

The hot wars of the future will be with countries like iraq, where the US can absolutely dominate in air & space.

This project seems more likely for cold/economic wars of the future. Think about the damage to the US economy if Chinese satellites rebroadcast everything that could be rebroadcast (from entertainment through economic/political/military secrets to proprietary source code/ blueprints/ etc).

The US has always used its military to protect its economy - there is no reason this project should be any different.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

(The sarcasm was meant to be somewhat teasing, but not cruel. Apologies if feelings were bruised.)

Of course no feelings were bruised!

You can't be a whiney mac fanboy without having a thick skin!

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Total_Wimp]

"We need that ability to protect our assets" in orbit.

Ok, call me an X files conspiracy theory type, but we've already got space defense systems and this is merely meant as an upgrade or additional weapons systems.

Lets examine the facts.

-we currently have more than 20 GPS sattelites in orbit. Besides helping you find the closest Starbucks, these are also used to help our soldiers find their way throug remote mountain passes and help missiles find their targets.

-Military doctrine is to control the media as soon as you can in any conflict. A large part of the media is broadcast via sattelite

-Our military insists on protecting its assets. Quick, name any military asset of regional significance that we don't guard?

-We've already have antisattelite missles. in the mid 80s, an ASAT took out a satellite in a successful test.

-China is interested in anti-satellite technology.

-Squadrons of fully operational stealth fighters were deployed and used for more than half a decade before being made public. Our military clearly is able to keep very large opperations secret for quite some time.

When I add this all up, I come to the conclusion that we already have space-based weapons designed, at a minimum, to disrupt an incoming missile. Others may have similar, which would explain why we'd be interested in lasers. The only question I really have is why they'd bother to make it public.

TW

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[breadboy21]

"So, we're in a hypothetical future conflict with China. They have satellite capabilities similar to ours. Maybe not as good, but similar in ability."

You're vastly overstating the power of the Chinese military. Not only are they not on par with the U.S., they aren't even close to being so. Many of their soldiers just go trucks to move around in, previously they were walking. The Clinton Administration made it possible for them to launch an ICBM and actually hit something. Before that, their guidance systems had an error rate of a few hundred miles. Their navy is weak and cannot project power much further than Taiwan, their huge army is incapable of moving great distances quickly, and their Air force, well, it isn't worth much either. The Chinese are simply a regional power with few military interests outside of that area. They only have 22 ICBMs even capable of reaching the United States, a deterring force at most. We don't need to worry about them developing anti-satellite lasers because they've proven themselves less than capable in all other military matters.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[nacho_dh]

"The US has always used its military to protect its economy - there is no reason this project should be any different." I don't agree. From my point of view, the US has always used its military to CREATE its economy instead of protecting it. But I do agree that "there is no reason this project should be any different". Though I work with ppl from the US all the time, I'm really not sure about how you see the your goverment's and their non-stopin bully attitude against the rest of the world. We are not talking about just defending what "it's yours" in here, we are talking about (just to set an example) invade other countries to get it's oil (cof-cof-irak-cof) and make up some cowboy story about chemical or nuke bombs. I would really like someone to tell me what ppl in the US think about their goverment's international relations policies. I'm sorry if this first post (my first one on slashdot) offended someone around here, i did't mean to, but that's a question that has been going around my head for a while.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Good first post :-)

I'm sorry if this first post (my first one on slashdot) offended someone around here,

Don't worry about offending people - it's just words (and our ancestors have died to protect our rights to free speech).

If anyone gets offended, they have the right to reply & debate. That way everyone learns something!

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Luscious868]

That's because the primary purpose of this program, like so many others, is to transfer vast amounts of money from the federal treasury to certain politically cooperative industries. Like Star Wars before it, I doubt that there is anyone in the Bush administration that cares one iota whether it has any real military value or even whether it ever "works" or not. The real (political) value is in the spending itself.

Our current Secretary of Defense, who so many around here love to hate (myself included), would disagree with your assessment. He's cut programs that he deems unnecessary in the past. He didn't make a lot of friends inside or outside the Pentagon by doing it. I'm no Rumsfeld defender after the colossal fuck up that is Iraq, but I will give him some credit where credit is due.

The real culprit, IMHO, is Congress. Where the heck is the oversight? You expect the Pentagon to push forward every weapons program they can dream up. That's what we pay them to do. Congress controls the purse string and has oversight which means ultimately they've got the power to put a stop to these programs if they choose to use it.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Hal_Porter]

        The hot wars of the future will be with countries like iraq, where the US can
        absolutely dominate in air & space

I'm sure the French thought something similar when they built the Maginot line - "Now we're safe from the Germans, all wars will be small colonial ones".

The world can change pretty quickly, as Pearl Harbour or 9/11 show. If you want to survive, you need to prepare for all possible sorts of wars, not just the ones that seem likely at the moment. And a war with China is all two possible. I'm not suggesting that either side want it, but if you look at the regular standoffs over Taiwan, it's always possible that an accident could esacalate into a very dangerous situation. To a lesser extent, it's possible that North Korea could drag the Chinese and the US into a conflict.

And a war between China and the US would be much more evenly balanced in a sortf of Zerg vs Protoss way. It would also be marked by extreme ruthlessness, and it's hard to imagine that shooting down satellites would be regarded as particularly unacceptable.

And there are other possible conflicts where the US would be evenly matched, e.g. against Russia or even Iran. Whilst it's unlikely that Iran would be able to launch satellites, they would be able to buy coverage & GPS like services from European or Russian ones.

Even if none of this happens, shooting down satellites with a ground based laser is a cool trick. AFAIK, the US does have anti satellite weapons already - there was a cold war program to fire missiles from an F15. Looking at that link, the Russians experimented with a load of anti satellite techniques from kamikaze 'figher satellites' to a ground based laser that fry satellite's image sensors.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[I Like Pudding]

How in the hell was my post a troll? Dropping bombs fixes everything! You want more fixed? Drop more bombs!

The national debt? BOMB IT!
The homeless? BOMB THEM!
Healthcare cost spiraling out of control? BOMB THE INVALIDS!
Terrorists? MOAB!
Gas prices? BOMB OIL-PRODUCING COUNTRIES! BOMB RIGHT DOWN TO THE OIL!
Complaints about Camp X-ray? BOMB CUBA!
Lasting peace in the middle east? BOMB THEM!
Air safety? BURN THE SKY! ARCLIGHT FROM HERE TO CHINA!
Chinese satellites? LASER BOMB!

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[rjhubs]

A hypothetical war with China is just that... Hypothetical. We will never go to war with China as long as we are dependant on their imports. The U.S. government knows this as well. Hence why we 'ignore' their violation of human rights, nuclear development. Both things which have been more than enough reason to go to war in the past. If any country has any sense, it seems obvious that leaving space a peaceful place is more beneficial than creating another battleground.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[saltydogdesign]

Did it never occur to you that the oil motivation may be a little more long-term? By having a massive base in the middle of an OPEC country, we get a de facto vote in what OPEC does. Moreover, the U.S. now has forces on two Iranian borders -- rather a vulnerable position for Iran, regardless of whether bullets are fired in the near term. It may well not have anything to do with oil today, but you can be damned sure that Bush and Co. are thinking about oil in forty years, when we'll be in a position to fight for that last drop. This has nothing to do with media and popular culture and everything to do with common sense. What is our interest in the Middle East? Sand?

The tragedy is, they ought to be thinking about something *besides* oil in forty years.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Comboman]

That would be relevant, *IF* it was the US. It was a NATO attack, run by england's general, using english pilots. And just to top it off, it was an accident that it happened. That's hardly proof that even Europe/England don't "worry" about such things.

1) The US is a member of NATO.

2) Although the commander of the NATO operation was British, the plane that made the attack was a US Air Force F15E manned by an American Air Force pilot and weapons officer.

3) Amnesty International's investigation determined that NATO had not taken sufficient precautionary measures to ensure there was no civilian traffic in the vicinity of the bridge before launching the attack and even worse, sped up the video of the attack released to the press to make it appear more unavoidable than it was. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/060700-02.ht m

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[qeveren]

I always figured the oil was just a side benefit compared to the huge, huge, fat cash injection that was going to the military-industrial complex. THAT is what the 'war' in Iraq was about.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Menkhaf]

Fuck off you dumbass. Not everyone here speaks english natively, including me, and I'd guess that the poster you're talking about is from Argentina (looking at his homepage adress).
Seriously, cut that crap you fucking grammar nazi. We all know what this guy means.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Random Destruction]

rak

n : a republic in the Middle East in western Asia; the ancient civilization of Mesopotamia was in the area now known as Iraq; modern government is involved in state-sponsored terrorism [syn: Iraq, Republic of Iraq, Al-Iraq, Irak]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Andrew Aguecheek]

Hey, some of our ancestors died to oppose free speach! Or rather, some of our ancestors fought in wars that were conducted by those who opposed free speach. And some of our ancestors conducted those wars.

The fact people related to us died for something does not make it good.

What matters is that speach remains free.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[sp3d2orbit]

"I'm sure the French thought something similar when they built the Maginot line..."

For those who don't know:

In 1914 the Germans invaded France by passing through Belgium. This was in the early stages of WWI. After WWI the France began building massive fortifications on their border with Germany.

In 1939 the Germans again decided to conquer France (for the 6th time in 100 years). They saw the massive defenses built along their border and decided to circumvent them by attacking, once again, through Belgium.

The French were surprised.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[prurientknave]

Fact:The US controls all traffic around each tap point in iraq. One general referred to it as the steel ring. Unauthorized foreign access is always met with overwhelming force. At least one article mentions an iraqi vessel being sunk when it trespassed the area of control.
Fact:There are several stories about missing/unaccounted reconstruction money that the US govt sent to companies in iraq to rehabilitate the region. This sum numbers in the billions.
Fact:There are several cnn reports that state that there is a lot of oil being somehow looted and there's no way to track it because it isn't metered.
Fact:There are several stories about US contractors being caught bribing officials.

Now let's be intellectually honest. How do you know you're missing oil if it's not metered? How does one loot oil from a pipeline? These pipes are over 9ft in diameter are made of steel and are 5-6 inches thick. and are designed to move oil at a rate of 1000gals/sec. One can't just punch a little hole in it and tap out some oil. It's not a wee little coconut that you can stick a straw in and sip a little juice from.

Fact: oil companies are rolling in profits we're paying higher gas prices at our pumps but only because the oil companies have to pay higher prices to Middle East oil barons and they've had losses in refiner productivity due to katrina. That is supposedly they're only passing on an increase in costs to us the consumer.

Now either we're in some kind of crazy voodoo capitalism that allows american oil companies to increase gas prices to match costs and somehow come out with huge profits OR they're selling black market oil along with the real stuff. On paper there's no justification for prosecuting them but I doubt their accounting for gallons of oil purchased, refined and sold will tally properly.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[saltydogdesign]

They can state whatever they like -- it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. is building a 104 acre embassy in Iraq. That's the size of 80 football fields. Awful lot of room for the ambassador and a few security troops. Given that the U.S. has admitted it is already running military operations out of embassies around the world, their claim of not having a permanent base sounds like malarky.

Now add in the fact that the U.S. is actually building 14 large bases at the same time they tell us they plan no permanent presence. I suppose that's technically true -- if by permanent they mean "the next 14 billion years," but really, their words may be counter to my theory, but their actions aren't.

I don't know your reasons for supporting this mess, but that right there ought to give you plenty of reason to question it. The U.S. government isn't being straight with anyone, least of all their own people. Not that that's anything new: the "stabilization" of Germany and Japan went on decades longer than necessary.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[DigiShaman]

Fact-of-the-day:

It's investment in military technology that trickles down the the public sector. In fact, without US military funding, you wouldn't have the Internet access to even read this post.

A bitter pill to swallow, but suck it down. The truth shall set you free.

Sooner than we think...

[hkgroove]

It'll be ready when Kent gets back from the cleaners to finish mounting the optics.

More likely

[jim_v2000]

Congressional Democrats and other experts fault the research as potential fuel for an antisatellite arms race that could ultimately hurt this nation

Actually, if that happened, I would imagine that there would be an "arms race" to produce stealth satellites, and weaponized satellites that can take down antisatellite weapons.

Danger is the middle name

[roman_mir]

Dr. Evil: [about his new "laser"] You see, I've turned the moon into what I like to call a "Death Star".
[Scott snickers]
Dr. Evil: What?
Scott: Oh, nothing, Darth.
Dr. Evil: What did you call me?
Scott: Nothing.
Scott: [pretends to sneeze] Ripoff.
Dr. Evil: Bless you. ...

Dr. Evil: I will hold the world ransom unless you give me... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
[UN members all start to laugh.]
Dr. Evil: Er, that is, unless you give me... ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!
[UN members gasp!]

Wow.

[Sierpinski]

Nothing says 'Peace' like the United States blasting another country's satellite out of the sky. I can't see how doing so would help prevent attacks on the U.S. Perhaps the idea is to disable communications and espionage capabilities, but there are other, more conventional means of warfare, as ineffective as they may be.

The other theory, give countries warnings about removing satellites? Countries love ultimatums too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'm against this (or for it, really) but I'm suggesting that perhaps the political and diplomatic repercussions might need to be investigated more thoroughly.

From a sci-fi point of view, its Spies Like Us all over again! Sounds interesting and technological to say the least.

Re:Ronald Reagan - Your Laser Is Ready

[Sierpinski]

WTF? What happened - the Iranians are now developing satellites? al-Qaeda? What a waste of money.

I've never tried, but I'd assume its relatively difficult to make satellites out of sticks and dirt.

it's dual-use technology and an acounting shift

[DoofusOfDeath]

Check out the story "Death Ray -- or Accounting Shift?" here: http://www.defensetech.org/

And the ultimate defense for a satellite?

[Anonymous Coward]

A mirror.

Re:And the ultimate defense for a satellite?

[e2ka]

That probably wouldn't work. Any laser sufficiently powerful enough to destroy a satellite would destroy a mirror too. If the mirror has less than perfect reflectivity it gives the laser something to heat, damaging the mirror and eventually getting through.

Re:And the ultimate defense for a satellite?

[op12]

The could make it out of zero-relection glass.

That way thinking is the problem with the USA

[bogaboga]

"The U.S. government wants to develop a ground-based weapon to shoot down enemy satellites in orbit..."

As the USA concetrates on the development of these so called lasers, al-Qaida and its affiliates will enter the USA through the porous southern and norther borders and do greater harm.

Folks, do not be suprised to hear in future that this project has corruption and greed behind it. Remember that the USA spent US$5.99 billion on the shuttle which was never value for money!

Re:That way thinking is the problem with the USA

[Pike]

"As the USA concetrates on the development of these so called lasers, al-Qaida and its affiliates will enter the USA through the porous southern and norther borders and do greater harm."

Right, because there is only one person working in the Pentagon and he can only concentrate on one thing at a time.

Seems like we have more to loose

[slusich]

Devoloping this technology could ultimately come back to bite us. The US has more birds up there then anyone else does, and once we develop the technology, other countries will get it quickly after that. Sounds like it's time to start developing laser proof sats.

The USA needs to be careful here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Militarizing the space in near-earth orbit and creating a military highly dependant on satellites is just stupid. A few missles that blast millions of ball-bearings into to orbit, and the entire planet will be locked out of space for hundreds, or even thousands of years. High-altitude, high-endurance vehicles that can hover over a single area for long periods of time leave us far less vulnerable (we just need air-superiority), and don't make near-earth orbit a target. Unfortunately the current administration is crazy-arrogant and shortsighted.

Re:The USA needs to be careful here...

[Phanatic1a]

Militarizing the space in near-earth orbit and creating a military highly dependant on satellites is just stupid.

Oh, wake the hell up.

News flash: Reconnaissance satellites are *weapons*. They are also *not new*. They've been around for decades, so space has already been 'militarized.' The Russians had a working anti-satellite program back in the *late 1960s*. We were succesfully killing satellites with missiles back in the mid-80s. The notion that this 'militarization of space' is anything that has its roots in the current administration bespeaks a woeful ignorance of recent history.

A few missles that blast millions of ball-bearings into to orbit, and the entire planet will be locked out of space for hundreds, or even thousands of years

No, it wouldn't. There are any number of ways to deal with that scenario, ranging from heavier armored satellites to different target orbits to cheap pop-up satellites that you can launch from submarines and don't have to survive for more than a fraction of an orbit. None of these are as good an option as what we do now, but the suggestion that all someone would have to do to prevent all access to space for millennia is set off a few rockets full of ball-bearings is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm not defending the program, but...

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Regarding your comment...it's a bit pointless to work on a defense measure for a military threat AFTER it has been deployed or its deployment is iminent. While it sure is popular to bash the US these days, I'm sure there is all kinds of research going on around the world to counter perceived threats that might seem silly now, but may become dead serious 10 years from now.

if we're just hearing about this now

[JeanBaptiste]

They've been doing it for the last 10 years.

You can't shoot down a satellite

[Viol8]

An object in a stable orbit cannot be "shot down". Its not an aircraft.
You can destroy it but all that will happen is that the pieces will
spread out from the point of explosion/impact and eventually become
space junk that could cause problems from friendly satellites.
Hopefully the laser would only disable a satellite and not cause its
fuel tanks to detonate , since if they do then the US will simply
be causing problems for itself , its allies and all space farers in
the future.

Re:Ronald Reagan - Your Laser Is Ready

[zaguar]

Unless you're McGuyver, in which case all you need is the aformentioned sticks and dirt, a coathanger, and the game guide to the 1964 Superbowl

Doesn't make sense

[Brix Braxton]

It's kind of like in a real world fight - sure, you would love to bring a baseball bat into the fight but you don't because you don't want the other guy to bring one in either. Seems to me like it would make more sense not to have the technology at all. I have to admit though - the other day when I read that Isreal had launched a satellite - seemingly in response to the actions of Iran it all seemed too easy to do - made me wonder what regulates who gets to send one up in the first place.

We still don't do radiation scans at all ports

[Reality Master 201]

We don't scan for radioactive material coming into the US at all ports.

This is a waste of money. Spend the cash you'd put into a ground based anti-satellite laser and instead do things that would measurably improve the security of the US against attack from vectors which matter in realistic terms. If we determine we really need to destroy a satellite, we already have specially designed anti-satellite missles.

Re:what amazes me

[Enigma_Man]

Or... our 'enemies' could just start building reflective satellites, or even just carrying a big, reflective 'shield' underneath them. It could be something as simple as a big, inflatable mylar bag. I don't know how much heat a very reflective mirror would have to dissipate when being hit by a laser, but it obviously can be done, if the adaptive optics in the 'gun' don't burn out, and that's right freaking next to the output of the laser, instead of through 100+ miles of atmosphere and space. Actually, a big shield might work really well. Any sensors that need to see around the shield could retract back quickly upon detecting a really freaking bright light source.

Military Bozos

[Khammurabi]

So, instead of thinking of a better way to defend OUR satellites, they are thinking of ways to obliterate THEIRS? WTF?! If any country stands to lose more from having their satellites blown our of orbit, it's the United States!

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are thinking of the most likely attack that will befall satellites, but the logical step after this is to design something that can divert this type of attack. If the US were to suddenly lose all satellite communications, we'd be in some serious doo-doo. It seems, at least to me, that the prudent course of action would be to make a DARPA type of contest for this technology, or at least focus more grant money in this area. (Granted, the result would probably be to wrap more tin-foil around the things.)

Re:Because we all know other nations

[Brian Stretch]

Umm, read some history. There's even a picture of one National Socialist German Labor Party nuke design.

Imperial Japan had nuclear bomb programs too.

Personally, I'm glad America got there first.

The Soviets took the easy route. They had some Useful Idiots steal the technology.

The Soviets had ASAT programs too. ASAT weaponry is old news, it's just that now they're using lasers rather than missiles. Heck, even that's not all that new, though making it work would be.

Don't you think the way for the US to really ensure its population's security would be to try to track down the arsenal of the former USSR?

Don't you think Putin ought to take nuclear security more seriously? The Russians built the damn things and they're not so poor that they can't deal with them if they want to, especially with high oil prices pouring hard currency into Russian state coffers.

The race has begun

[gryf]

The anti-sat laser race began years ago. Whilst the US was cutting back defense research into all but the most pork laden projects, China was pushing a serious military space strategy. This included new ICMBs, satellite and anti-sat and guidance technology. All very dual use for their manned program, but by comparison we've been looking the other way whistling whilst a non-democratic expansionistic country that tends to threaten our major trading partners and threaten first strike nuclear assaults against the US is building weapons to cripple the US military.

My response to reading the article: duh!

Here are some recent articles on the developments in China. The US is not starting this race, but it'd be nice to keep up regardless.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-07 -27-china-satellites_x.htm
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad03.html
http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch4.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-01c.html
http://www.taiwandc.org/twcom/84-no3.htm
http://www.afio.com/sections/wins/1998/notes48.htm l

The world is, a dangerous place. As with Sudan and Iran, the UN is no deterrent to aggression. Enlightened self-interest directs us to investigate these types of systems for the same reasons we investigate lethal pathogens. Surviving them requires understanding them even if we never intend to use them.

Re:The race has begun

[Lord Ender]

"The world is, a dangerous place."

Is that comma meant to indicate a Shatner-esque pause?

We win the fight ?

[Anonymous Coward]

removing their capability to deliver precision guided munitions.

And therein lies your problem. If your enemy can't pin-point the military target, then their next best option is to target a large city. Way to go, that was smart. Instead of losing a missile silo, you lose 250,000 citizens.

Re:We win the fight ?

[AGMW]

And therein lies your problem. If your enemy can't pin-point the military target, then their next best option is to target a large city. Way to go, that was smart. Instead of losing a missile silo, you lose 250,000 citizens.

Not sure why this is modded at zero ... I think the AC is onto something here! Take this to its logical conclusion, ie otherwise totally powerless citizens against a superpower, and you end up with terrorists, as that is the only apparent way to strike back!

Of course, the US has historically had the benefit of being physically remote from the people they wage war on - no V1 or V2 flying bombs flying over the channel in US history (discounting the Japanese balloons of WWII I guess). The threat of ICBMs brings this a little closer to home, but we know who has these, and "we" tend not to wage war on them so much! But now we have the age of the bomb in a backpack and all bets are off!

Been done.

[Kadin2048]

All you'd need is a large rotating mirror and a tracking system, and you could vaporize a human targ -- er, I mean, Intellectual Property Thief from space!

Re:One obvious target...

[Kadin2048]

I think you are actually right on the money here.

The U.S. isn't really concerned about enemy spy satellites -- god knows our borders are so porous, you could just send a TV crew in and photograph almost anything you want, as long as they don't look Middle Eastern -- but navigation satellites are another matter.

The saving grace of the GPS system, from a U.S. military perspective, is that an enemy really can't depend on it; we can throw errors into it pretty much anywhere, anytime we want without having our equipment be affected (except all the guys using civilian GPS receivers because they haven't been issued real ones). I think there's a real concern that if there was a competing GPS-like system, that an enemy could use it to pilot a cruise missile at a U.S. target in such a way that we wouldn't get much warning.

Now, I think this is kind of a false threat: I think, given what I said earlier about our borders, that it's a whole lot easier to just drive a truck up to said U.S. target and blow it up than it would be to cobble together a homemade V-1 or V-2 with Galileo navigation, but apparently others disagree.

At any rate, any navigation system that provided GPS-like accuracy that wasn't within direct U.S. control would almost certainly necessitate the creation of a way to destroy it, or at least temporarily disable it in certain areas (if you de-orbited a satellite or two you might be able to make a hole in the system's coverage that would take a while for the operators to replace from spares).

Not that it would do any good against ICBMs, Chinese or otherwise, since they use astro- and inertial navigation systems anyway.

Blind enemies lash out

[redelm]

Is it good to blind your enemy? Yes, it makes her attacks less precise. But they become more fearful and likely to lash out. Blindly. There are times you want your enemy well informed. Why else did the USSR reveal so much at May Day parades?

This was basicly the logic behind the ABM treaty. It still holds good.

With our current terrorist enemy, I cannot see blinding any satellites would help. With potential enemies, most of them have nukers and likely would get very edgy blinded.

impossible to generate a powerfull enough beam

[throwaway18]

This is impossible. A laser beam is a very high frequency electromagnetic wave.
It is a electric field and a magnetic field moving together.

The breakdown voltage of air is about 2000V per millimeter.

With a powerfull laser in a lab, which is about fifty orders of magnitude too weak to do anything to a satellite, you can get sparks in mid air due to the air breaking down because of the high voltage of the electric part of the electromagnetic wave.

You cannot generate a laser beam powerfull enough to destroy a satellite from the ground. IF you tried you would just make a lot of plasma in the air above your laser. Focusing lots of little lasers on a satellite would require far more lasers than could be practically built.
I suspect these storys are planted in the media to worry unfriendly countrys, just like the star wars program that never had a chance of working or the rediculous story I saw in a newspaper a couple of years ago about missiles that can burrow into the ground and destroy a shelter 150feet down.

I also think it's a sad reflection on the state of slashdot that this story is up to 150 comments and I'm the first to point this out. I'm going to go and bash my head on a wall unitl I come to my senses and stop even reading alterslash.

What about the mines??

[ianscot]

You neglected to mention the mine shaft gap.

The US is not starting this race, but it'd be nice to keep up regardless.

From your SpaceDaily.com link above: "China will become the third nation after U.S. and Russia to possess an ASAT system." China can make arguments identical to yours about enlightened self-interest. They could make the same argument about WMDs -- and Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and the regime in Iran have all done just that. Deterrence, etc.

Movie plots

[DanTheLewis]

We're slowly moving from Goldeneye, Goldfinger, and Star Wars to The Pink Panther Strikes again.

Wake me up when we get to shark poewred lasers.

the world did not change after 9/11

[SuperBanana]

The world can change pretty quickly, as Pearl Harbour or 9/11 show.

The world DID NOT CHANGE after 9/11 because of 9/11. It changed because of people claiming it changed, and said people "protecting" us from boogeymen. First it was communists- now it is terrorists.

3,000 people died in the WTC attacks; twice as many Americans die from heart attacks in a month, and preventing their deaths doesn't require stripping people's civil liberties.