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.
I got "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
I bet the lasers are red in colour ;)
bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
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?
From TFA:
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
For it's national defense program? The whole "do everything with lasers" mindset seems to fit.
Where's Austin Powers when you need him?
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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!"
Read the rest of it. It's an interesting article, but some of these statements come off as revenue generating news (and considering this is Defense News, it's no surprise).
They forget to mention that we would probably do the same (if not worse) to deter spy satellites over our own country. They also don't address the concept of whether or not a country has a righ to its own privacy here. I think we would want privacy for our country and should not be surprised or angered to find our attempts thwarted when spying on other countries. Well, that jamming station must not have worked well and I highly doubt it was put there by the Russians. I cannot think of a clear motive for it. Probably sold as surplus or exchanged for payment by a disgruntled soldier and found its way to Iraq.
So we'll either change our standards or give the military a special encrypted standard. The cat and mouse game will begin between the US wanting to see what China's doing and China not wanting the US to see what they're doing. Frankly, I don't really give a damn. China has some bad leaders and some severe problems but they're more internal than anything.
You'll find at the bottom of the article: That's right, they do. So this isn't really news so much as "Country X Defends Itself Against Country Y" except that Country Y is the only country that thinks it's hot shit and that the world must reveal all and revolve around Country Y. Also, our leader has stated that non-compliance means you are with the terrorists and you're against us.
My work here is dung.
Did you ever see a friggin' shark in a Google Earth picture? No?
Now you know why.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Meta will eat itself
...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.
According to the UN Treaty on Outer Space (also here at wikipedia), of which both China and the US are signatories, "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". So it is not "chinese space or airspace". Attacking a satellite (or blinding it) is akin to doing the same to a ship on the open seas. It is a violation on the freedom of other nations and a violation of the neutrality of space. It's just one step short of piracy or an act or war.
And BTW, other nations including China and the Soviet Union (now Russia) have been sending spy sattelites over the US for decades without the US attacking them (although we have plans to do so in time of war).
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
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
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
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.
ex-boeing tech who had worked on one of their stealth efforts...he really wasn't the sort of person to invent stuff
Is that why he was "ex"?
I know, that is nothing like what you menat, but it made me giggle.
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
So, I am suggesting that our next spy sat to go over China be nothing but a mirror. See what they think of that laser then.
The blurb says that they did blind the US satellite, whereas the article says they merely attempted to and that "It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful." Good old hype.
...that you'll just be hungry again in an hour.
Thank you, I'll be here all night.
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?
It is COLOUR good SIRs! Contrary to your DIALOGUE and ARGUEMENT (though you may CRITICISE), the only HONOURABLE thing to do is admit that the U.S.A. is not the CENTRE of the world. ;)
Dude. Your keyboard is totally broken.
I don't care if it's the most popular dialect by number of speakers, I'm still gonna punch the next American to tell me I have nice pants.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
China has the FSW-1 spy satellite. Pacifist Japan launched their third "intelligence gathering" satellite a few weeks ago.
The old Soviet Union maintained heavy orbital surveillance of the US.
This was and is a Good Thing. US scaremongers shouting "missile gap!" were overruled by satellite intelligence. Soviet paranoia was limited to what was actually going on. Arms control treaties specifically and explicitly required both sides to submit to "national technical means" of verification.
>someone else has the right to disable it with proportionate force
As close as the Cold War came to ultimate horror, and as much as spy satellites stabilized it, that's an idea you do not want people to adopt.
>self-appointed global hegemon
Spy satellites are not a reason to believe that, unless the US starts shooting down other nations's satellites while maintaining their own.
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.
Excellent trousers, mate!
So if China had a satilite fly over the US and we pointed a laser at it are we attacking them?
Can I bum a sig?