Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Lasers Blind US Satelites

SniperClops writes, "China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources." The article mentions the reluctance of the U.S. administration to talk about this "asymmetric" effort by the Chinese military.

23 of 739 comments (clear)

  1. What I really want to know... by Tsagadai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As does alot of the world not in the united states but still grounded under it's definition of right and wrong is why can't a foreign self governing nation control its own airspace and space space. If I built a spy satellite and orbitted it over the united states I would be a terrorist and bombed in seconds. Why the difference for china?

    1. Re:What I really want to know... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It surely may sound ironic in the case of China, but : a sovereign nation has a right to privacy.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:What I really want to know... by LittleBigLui · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What if these satelites were above that point?


      What's the problem with the chinese shining their lasers at space that nobody owns anyway?
      --
      Free as in mason.
    3. Re:What I really want to know... by miyako · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nukes aren't really ok for anybody to have, but being that the cat is out of the bag, the only reason it is ok is because of the whole MAD thing. Of course, mutually assured destruction is only a deterrent if the other guy cares about being blown up.
      I can't say much for North Korea's mindset (maybe they are just their own special brand of insane?) but for the militant islamist countries, they would certainly prefer everyone dead over both they and the "infidels" being alive.

      --
      Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    4. Re:What I really want to know... by russ1337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I honestly believe the US is more likley to use a Nuke before any of the above mentioned. Any of the states using a nuke will result in their elimination - deterance. We also know the US is not affraid to strike pre-emptivley. Plus they've talked of wanting to use 'tactical nukes' against Iran.

    5. Re:What I really want to know... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It surely may sound ironic in the case of China, but : a sovereign nation has a right to privacy.

      I'll remember that the next time they try to steal nuclear technology from us.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:What I really want to know... by WhiplashII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, what about listening to messages transmitted in China from a listening post in the US? Are you saying that we have to not listen? Or do they have the right to bomb us if we listen?

      International law (you know, the thing that applies to the US but no one else) says that a nation owns only 100 miles up, and beyond that they can lay no claims. So, if this is to be believed, a the Chinese military just attacked the US military while the US military was in international waters. That is an act of war. If the US acknowleges it, we have to acknowlege it as an act of war.

      My guess is that this was some Chinese general stroking his manhood, and that the US is going to use back channels to force China to remove that general. Better than admitting that we are at war with one of our largest trading partners...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    7. Re:What I really want to know... by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice treaty. Good treaty. Lie down and play dead. Good boy.

      The fact of the matter is that property is defined by the man standing on it with the biggest gun. Mars will be "free" until the very moment someone puts up a hotdog stand and the only reason people can take treaties like this seriously is because they can barely be violated, let alone enforced.

      If we go to space, we will war over its territory. And that's the way it is.

      KFG

    8. Re:What I really want to know... by bumptehjambox · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Dialogue? There are two problems with that:

      1) Iranians are Persians, good luck getting some dialogue in with a bunch of Persians that want to "wipe you off the map." Who wants to listen to anything Mr. Great Satan(USA) says anyway? Iran doesn't.
      2) North Koreans think their dictator is the son of God, you think you can have a dialogue with God? Good luck!

      The United States doesn't want to wipe out the Iranians or North Koreans, that is just what their leaders tell them, ya know, propaganda. Get them people your government won't educate properly all riled up and ready to die for their country, after all, it is easier than building a civilized nation. For the Iranians it helps get people rioting in the streets, together, and ignore their living conditions, or better- blame it on the USA, rather than their government. It's not like they know any better, their education system is a joke, pair that up with daily brainwashing, I'm sure you can understand why they'd want to kill all westerners. They're mad as hell, maybe they think if they kill us all they won't have to hear anymore boring propaganda, and try making some real art again- they've forgotten to for about 500 years. One of the biggest things they use against America, along with terrorists, is our bombing of Japan. Can you believe that? Japan doesn't make statements about it, but some desperate and angry Arabs do...very silly people really. Not the type who should have any weapons leaving their land, let alone nukes across the world.

      For the North Koreans hating America rounds out their life quite well, they believe they're the great race and greatest nation under the greatest ruler (God), and there's a great evil (US) out there. It's unifying. Oh yeah, and you're required by law to agree with the big little guy.

      If the US ever acted on a nation with nuclear weapons, it'd be a global relations disaster, they don't want that. The intelligent people in Iran and N.Korea know this, however they know better than to tell their people a fraction of the truth. Then they'd lose their "edge"

      As for being hostile to them, I never thought giving aid was a hostile action. We've not fought them, or threatened to, we've made very calculated actions with both of these countries. You must understand it's an illusion they are creating, in order to get more aid. And if you look at the facts, IT'S WORKING WELL!

  2. Temporary blindness by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA:

    acknowledges China has the ability to blind U.S. satellites, thanks to a powerful ground-based laser capable of firing a beam of light at an optical reconnaissance satellite to keep it from taking pictures as it passes overhead.

    So its a bit like saturating a camera with light so it can't take good pictures, but once it moves on it should be OK.

  3. What would we expect them to do? by dave-tx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, good for them....I guess. I would imagine that the US would do the same to Chinese spy satellites (if they had any - which I don't know and don't feel like googling), so why be surprised when the Chinese do it? It seems to me that this is just a case of the Chinese government acting in the interests of it's own national security. This may be news, but it should not be surprising.

    --

    >> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"

    1. Re:What would we expect them to do? by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would imagine that the US would do the same to Chinese spy satellites (if they had any - which I don't know and don't feel like googling)

      They do, and they pass over the US. So do Russia, India, France, Spain, the UK, Germany, Turkey, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Iran, Algeria... in short, pretty much everybody (Note that I'm considering any satellites capable of earth observation as "spy satellites" -- most of them aren't intended for that purpose, but most of them can, and probably are, used for intelligence-gathering). Though the US has various anti-satellite weapons, including both lasers to blind them and experimental systems intended to destroy them, all testing of US anti-satellite weapons is done on US satellites and drones, in order to avoid provoking incidents with other nations.

      Perhaps the US should change this policy with respect to Chinese satellites? I don't think so, but I can see where others might disagree.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:What would we expect them to do? by Control+Group · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The key, here, is when you say "it probably is." Not only is it "probable," it's certain. China has had the capability of launching satellites since at least 1984 (IIRC, that's the year they first put a bird in geosynch) that I know of. If they've got satellites up there, it's virtually guaranteed that some of them overfly the US, and some of those are capable of looking down. And if not China, every other space-capable nation on the planet has satellites that overfly the US.

      Yet you don't see us blinding their satellites and claiming "it's not aggressive, it's just common sense."

      Satellites, outside of a state of war, are like transoceanic cables. You're supposed to leave each other's alone because it starts a chain of retaliations that ends up with very little accomplished aside from a disastrous collapse of certain types of infrastructure.

      So yes, China going and doing this is an openly aggressive act. It's not as aggressive as cutting a cable would be, or landing soldiers in Hawaii, but don't think it's somehow innocent.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  4. Re:China Is a Potential Trade Partner by j35ter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    But the combination of China's efforts and advances in Russian satellite jamming capabilities illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S. space network are at the core of U.S. Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, according to sources.

    As a non-American, I find it problematic that a spy-satellite "attacked" in that way over a sovereign third country is seen as a vulnerability to the U.S. space network.
    This report is suggesting that the U.S. have the right to spy on anyone anywhere, everywhere; while the rest of the world *has* to accept that...of course no one should dare to do the same thing to the U.S. and dare you spy on us!
    You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!
    --
    Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
  5. Re:Eventually... by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Chinese can launch satelites, put men into orbit, have nuclear weapons, are financing most of our balance or payments thanks to Bush

    Honestly, did the world just begin for many of you people in 2000? Look I'm no fan of Bush, but it is not like prior to 2000 the Chinese held none of our assets, the Islamic extremists loved us, and the federal government held civil liberties in high regard. You know, EVERYTHING is not Bush's fault.

    Finkployd

  6. How is this interesting? by Flying+pig · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A spy satellite is a near object, Mars isn't. A spy satellite was made by someone on Earth for the exact purpose of invading the privacy of someone else on Earth not subject to the same laws as the manufacturer, and it seems to me that the someone else has the right to disable it with proportionate force at the time when it is trying to invade their privacy. Mars is not a human manufactured object...

    Of course, reading my own definition, this would justify Afghans and Iraqis seeking to expel the Americans and the British, just as it justified the French Resistance in WW2, and the American Colonists in the 1770s.

    At what point is the present US administration going to face up the fact that it is the self-appointed global hegemon and that five and a half billion people disagree with that?

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:How is this interesting? by HighOrbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it seems to me that the someone else has the right to disable it with proportionate force at the time when it is trying to invade their privacy

      So does this mean that the US has the right to disable Chinese "fishing" vessels outside the 12 mile limit on the open seas if the "fishing" vessels are covered with anttenae? No, because that would be an act of war or piracy because nations have a right to sail on the open seas, just as nations have a right to have satellites in space. You are justifying a violation of treaties governing the neutrality of space.

  7. could this be a bluff? by petes_PoV · · Score: 5, Insightful
    OK, we've heard from the report that the Chinese have tried to blind a satellite. Until we can actually see the resulting images - which will simply never happen, how can we or the chinese know that they've succeeded in stopping photos being taken.

    If I was in the US spying game and I know that someone was trying to blind my satellites, I'd say "Oh no, you've stopped me photographing your secret installations" even if the attempts were unsuccessful. That way the target thinks they've stopped the spy satellites, whereas in practice, the lasers may be completely ineffectual.

    Until the Chinese spies can get hold of genuine, spoiled, satellite photos (that weren't staged/planted) they cannot be sure they have suceeded.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  8. Re:Eventually... by Lisandro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Welcome to the whacko world of international sovereignty!

    So, without calling me an American hater, please; what would be so wrong with the chinese launching satelites, putting men into orbit and having nuclear weapons? Oh, and by the way, whos' fault is that chinese are financing USAs balances?

    As someone said it before, this is no news at all. The novelity here is that China used laser to disable satelites, but i bet a lot of countries have done similar (if not worst) in the past.

  9. Re:Um, they can hit the ones they can see... by Woek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think so. First of all, they have plenty of other issues to worry about when designing the exterior of a satellite, like reflective material for thermal management, or solar cells for generating power. Secondly, I would imagine that the trajectories of all satellites are available to all agencies that launch stuff into space. Imaging a soyuz crashing into one of those massive spy satellites with a relative velocity of several kilometers per second...

  10. Why Iran and Korea can't have nukes by mikep.maine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am not a fan of nuclear weapons anywhere, but this is a dangerous world with people who *literally* want to send us to hell or to see our redeemer. They will buy and use nukes -- and Iran and Korea are all too willing to give or sell them away. In the business where others are willing to kill us, I want to be working to disarm them, period. The United States has few options -- and both the Europeans and Asian nations that are not China have largely stayed out of fray hoping once again to let teh US carry the burden of disarming. A united front would really sincerely help the world. It would even help the Iranians and Koreans who as a people would rather plan crops than seed nuclear bombs.

    --
    Mike www.sharecube.com
    1. Re:Why Iran and Korea can't have nukes by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And for some reason, I remember the "weapons inspectors" trying to play diplomat, commenting on how nice a guy Saddam was and how cooperative the iraqis were even while puzzling over being prevented from viewing certain sites at certain times. Hans Blix alternately stirred a hornets' nest of global opposition (presumeably in an attempt to garner favor from saddam) and "tried" to avert war.

      I'm not entirely convinced they were looking very hard at all for WMDs, as I suspect their goal was the rehabilitation of iraq on the international scene rather than the aparantly unromantic task of thorough confirmation of treaty compliance. Their lack of information was a prime driver in the development of the war.

      Of course the price of the war was terrible, but it could've been averted if the UN had at tried to at least appear willing to extract it. Diplomacy only works if the threat of a non-diplomatic resolution is real.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  11. Re:Seeing Red by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's not an attempt to "dumb down" anything, and the U.S. educational system was not crappy back when Merriam Webster mades such changes in his dictionary. Whether or not it is crappy now is more of an open question, but has no bearing on the change of spelling.

    In the U.S., 'colour' reads ass if it would be pronounced 'cohloor' or 'cohlowr'. It is pronounced more like 'culler', but just dropping the 'u' makes it much more clear that it represents the apperance of light bouncing off of something instead of it referring to one who weeds out members of a set.

    There was a big movement in the U.S. to get rid of old baggage not needed from colonial times ('colonial times' being pronounced "when North America was Britain's bitch" if you like). Unpronounced letters in some cases were part of that baggage. So was a state religion. Silly royals were too, but we in the U.S. seem to have hotel heiresses and movie stars to take up the tabloid slack. Eventually powdered wigs fell by the wayside in the U.S. too. Besides, 'colour' makes clear its French roots. The English if anyone should understand getting rid of French influence where it's unneccessary (well, after the Vietnamese, Persians, and those from Côte d'Ivoire -- all of whom have had abundant French influence more recently).

    Before you continue attacking educational systems, please note that "United States" is a proper noun and should therefore be capitalized in proper English (even the main British dialect). You were not speaking of the idea of nation states or of all "states" in the U.S., Mexico, and other countries that use the term for their political subdivisions, were you? Now maybe your questioning of other people's use of the English language, especially when they are making jokes as the parent of your post appears to have been, might not seem so hypocritical.

    Congratulations, you trolled and got responses and a mod of 'Insightful'. Sorry if this response was a bit more rational and level than you wanted. Now, I wonder if you're going to lecture the moderator of your post on the differences between 'insight' and 'incite'.