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.
partly I agree, but how far up does China own the space above it? If Mars is over the UK at the moment does the Queen own that too? At what point does it stop belonging to the earth and start belonging to everyone/everything in the universe? What if these satelites were above that point?
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
...which are likely left as decoys for the other dozen or so invisible ones...the reconnaissance version of a honeypot. The US has had stealth technology for a long time...aerodynamics is what took so long to build the F117. Since aerodynamics doesn't matter in space, I think it is likely that the satellites put up in the 70s where probably stealthy. Highly directional, bursty, spread spectrum downlinks would make it very difficult to detect. Again, that's 70s-era technology.
The $500 billion dollar annual defense budget is being spent somewhere. I would hope some of it was put into spy satellites that are awful easy to overlook.
People were saying the same things about India and Pakistan before those countries both aquired nuclear weapons. And about the Soviet Union and China before that.
The last thing one wants is to have nuclear weapons in the possession of unstable regimes either unable to control the devices or demonstratively irrational. But do either North Korea or Iran really meet those conditions? I personally don't think so. It is also somewhat understandable why these states are intersted in possessing them given the sort of armchair militarism that passes for IR analysis in much Western punditry.
The invasion of Iraq was a huge disaster, if only for destroying the credibility of international organizations like the United Nations as a restraint on the unilateral militarism of its members. The proliferation of nuclear weapons through the Middle East may be the only thing capable of stabilizing the region at this point.
This isn't an easy case to argue either way.
If I swing at your face, and hit you hard enough to swell your eye shut, is that an attack?
After all, I'm just disabling your eye -- temporarily at that.
I'm pretty sure the authorities would disagree with me when they hauled me off to the pokey as I screamed, "It wasn't an attack! I was just disabling him, or perhaps blinding would be more fitting!"
No a better analogy would be if you shined a laser in my eye. You don't ever physically touch me. Punching me is attacking. Shining a light in my isn't.
What if I was looking through your bedroom window from a public sidewalk as you and your boyfriend made sweet love. Then to prevent me from seeing this lovefest you shined a laser in my eye.
Now if China shot a rocket into space and blew up the satilite or damaged it, then that's an attack. Otherwise you could call what the US is doing to China an attack.
Can I bum a sig?
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?
While a common practice, spying of another country is a gray zone. A caught spy is usually condemned by the spyied country unless he/she has a diplomatic status.
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.
The same treaty makes space a military-free zone. So tell me, what was a US milmitary item doing in orbit ?
I don't like the chinese govt and such news give me a cold feeling in the back but I would consider that, regarding current laws and treaties, it is only fair game. They treat the spy satelite more gently than a spy : they didn't destroyed, didn't ask for it to be removed, they just blinded it temporarily.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
As a Serb, I must tell You that You are giving our forces too much credit. They managed to survive, that is true, but when the bombing shifted to strategic targets, there was not much they could do about it (without blowing their covers). If the war continued they could had been a nuisance to NATO, but best they could do in the end would had been to put a high price on our skin. The surrender ("truce") came when, allegedly, Ahtisaari, accompanied with Chernomirdin delivered the message that in next phase there will be a carpet bombing of settlements (targeting the Serb civilians). Of course, (almost) none would ever know about it or, if they did, believe in it, or if they did, even think it was wrong (on the similar basis as 1945 A-bomb defense argument). Well, some things you can hide, but you can't hide just everything!
Contrary to what You said, Iraq was always much better equipped then Serbia, or any Yugoslavia for that matter, both in weapons' numbers as well as their generations. Saddam's Iraq is probably the top tech western oponent in real combat so far and probably (as well as hopefully... any higher up the ladder and we'll see nuclear warfare) for quite some time in the future.
The morale of this is that a weapon system doesn't have to work perfectly or even with 50% efficiency. Military commanders don't expect it to, nor they place their bets on that. They just operate with chances and statistics. Of course, the forces on the ground have much more dependence on their gear, but they tend to glorify it more then it deserve anyway. Without optimism, you are a dead meat in advance.