Slashdot Mirror


Preparing For Satellite Defense

Taco Cowboy sends a report into China's development of anti-satellite technology, and efforts by the U.S. and Japan to build defenses for this new potential battleground. Last year, China launched what they said was a science space mission, but they did so at night and with a truck-based launch system, which are not generally used for science projects. Experts believe this was actually a missile test for targets in geostationary orbit. U.S. and Japanese analysts say China has the most aggressive satellite attack program in the world. It has staged at least six ASAT missile tests over the past nine years, including the destruction of a defunct Chinese weather satellite in 2007. ... Besides testing missiles that can intercept and destroy satellites, the Chinese have developed jamming techniques to disrupt satellite communications. In addition, ... the Chinese have studied ground-based lasers that could take down a satellite's solar panels, and satellites equipped with grappling arms that could co-orbit and then disable expensive U.S. hardware. To defend themselves against China, the U.S. and Japan are in the early stages of integrating their space programs as part of negotiations to update their defense policy guidelines. ... Both countries have sunk billions of dollars into a sophisticated missile defense system that relies in part on data from U.S. spy satellites. That's why strategists working for China's People's Liberation Army have published numerous articles in defense journals about the strategic value of chipping away at U.S. domination in space.

23 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. New potential battleground? by wiredog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    New since, umm, the 1960's? 1980's, anyway. The US has tested several different ASATs over the years, and has long had countermeasures. I assume other countries have countermeasures as well.

    1. Re:New potential battleground? by stewsters · · Score: 2

      What kinds of countermeasures are available? You can't intercept a laser, or is there some kind of coating they use? You can't easily dodge with the amount of fuel most satellites have. If there is another full scale war vs a major wold power, I don't think our satellites will last long. Hopefully we have practiced using other sorts of navigation.

    2. Re:New potential battleground? by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Asymmetric warfare. The US has more space assets and is more heavily dependent on them. If space warfare ever occurred the US would be hurt relatively more. And I have a hard time of thing of any decent countermeasures.

    3. Re:New potential battleground? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Asymmetric warfare is a misnomer. All warfare is waged by two non-symmetric sides.

      That said, the idea that if space warfare ever occurred, (in this scenario) the US would be hurt relatively more, is a shortsighted assumption. Your premise is based on the belief that no matter how hard the U.S. gets hit, it would refuse to retaliate in equal or greater strike(s).

      The car analogy would be: if your neighbor destroys your car engine with thermite; you don't retaliate by slashing his car tires, you retaliate by shoot him dead in the drive way because you're terrified of what he'll use next.

    4. Re:New potential battleground? by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there's a war with another superpower it's all over anyways because any general who see his realtime intelligence assets quickly going away is going to assume it's part of a preemptive strike plan and so will recommend we launch. That's why the idea of blinding the enemy is so dangerous, in a MAD scenario the only thing keeping the peace is the ability to verify that your enemy is not trying to perform a first strike.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:New potential battleground? by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the new part here was being able to reach targets in geostationary orbits. We've long had the ability to take out the orbits closer to earth, but geostationary is typically 22,000+ miles out. I'm not sure if our weapons yet have the capability to reach those satellites.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re:New potential battleground? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seems like submarines will rule then(as they already do now). If you can't lob one from the other side of the globe, you can still pop up out of nowhere and deliver your payload in 5 minutes or less.

  2. This can only end in one place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Kessler syndrome. Thanks, China!

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Re:Iron Sky by Dishwasha · · Score: 2

    All kidding aside, I think this illustrates how important it is that we establish permanent moon telecommunications infrastructure.

  5. so? by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given that the US is almost assuredly got armed satellites in orbit, and the US Airforce has a unmanned space shuttle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

    I think it's a bit silly to call this anything other than "Common sense" on China's part. At the very least during an armed conflict the US could use these satellites to spy on China... at worst they could nuke them from orbit. If they didn't have an anti-satalite program they'd be remiss in their duties I'd think.

  6. Could be worse by aprentic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The US has military satellites for a reason.
    Given that the US has a reputation for invading countries they don't like it only makes sense to defend against them and there are several potential strategies for doing so.
    I feel much better about China going the defensive route (get ready to blow up the satellites) rather than the MAD route (start stockpiling nukes).

    1. Re:Could be worse by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      This isn't an either - or. They are doing both.

  7. Geostationary? by rossdee · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most military assets are not in geostationary orbit. You get a better view from closer up, and you move around to cover more area.

    Geostationary orbit is mostly for communications.

  8. Re:Why bother with a defense? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Acts of war happen all the time - even armed conflict. Just because two nuclear powers go to war doesn't mean nukes will start flying - that probably triggers MAD and everybody loses. We're in new territory here - MAD mostly brought a cease-fire to the World War (parts I, II, and Cold), but that doesn't mean the conflicts are ended, it just means the rules fundamentally changed and, coupled with the implosion of the Soviet Union, we haven't yet had enough reason to work out the new rules of open conflict. But if there's anything history has taught us is that war never goes away for long. Hell, how many nuclear powers have been attacked by non-nuclear powers in the last century? You think the fact that I have nukes is going to make me dramatically *less* likely to attack a nuclear power than if I did not?

    The goal in nuclear-age warfare would seem to be to push your opponent as hard as you can without making MAD look like an attractive option. That is to say the potential winner has strong incentive to stick to reasonable demands - of course even total surrender might still be on the table, provided you could sufficiently appease the individuals capable of launching a nuclear strike. What do you think - is full citizenship under the new regime for your people and $100 billion each, paid discretely in gold to untraceable accounts, enough to convince most administrations that surrender of the nation they're currently leading is preferable to mutual annihilation?

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  9. Re:big deal by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    Countries tend to get annoyed if you send blimps over their territory. You can get away with sats though.

  10. GPS needed for everything by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    I wonder, how much high tech military gear (including drones) the US can operate if their GPS system goes down?

    Sure those things are not in low orbit but you start at lower orbit and work for outward from that. Plus the US has been wasting money on space based weapons systems since the 1980s and those were low orbit. Spy satellites are not the big deal.

  11. Re:DoD by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why? There's no oil in space.

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  12. Re:Sun Tzu already knew by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    Be glad they are not stupidly trying to set up nuclear missiles on Cuba in order to get a "head start" in a nuclear world war like the Russians did.

    Umm .. I think you need to learn some history. The Russian placement of missiles in Cuba was a response to the West's placements of similar missiles near the Russian border in Europe. And one of the terms of the resolution of the crisis in Cuba was a reduction of the West's missiles in Europe.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  13. WRONG. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

    The route that they are going, is NOT defensive. It is OFFENSIVE. Look, lets say that the west decides to launch against China. By the time that China realizes this, the ICBMs are on their way and have already switched off from sats and are working with intertia systems.

    Where anti-sat systems come into play, from a military pov, is knocking out the enemies eyes and communications PRIOR to your launching first strike.
    China is busy developing a first strike set-up, that is useless for defense.

    In addition, it is now known by the general public that China has active nuclear work going on. They can claim only 300 warheads, but, why hide a nuke facility underground and by a lake then? There was no reason for it, UNLESS you are up to things that get around treaties.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  14. Re:Right by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    If somebody attacks USA, such as say China, then it is already too late to make use of anti-sats. anti-sats are a first strike system.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  15. Re:Iron Sky by Dishwasha · · Score: 2

    It's much easier to deploy countermeasures from a large body of land than a relatively small satellite in orbit. It takes much longer for a missile to get there so there's a longer opportunity to respond. Different international regulations on bombing the moon. Redundancy for emergency failure. We can continue to target our nukes at them while the closer satellites are taken out. I could keep going on but either you'll understand or fail to see the motivations. "Better" is probably not the precise word to use here.

  16. Re:Why bother with a defense? by sound+vision · · Score: 2

    I don't think anyone sane would refuse that deal, but what concerns me more is the possibility of someone insane getting within arm's reach of the launch button. History is littered with examples, but one thing that immediately comes to mind is something Hitler said during the last few days before German defeat - something like "We may be defeated, but we will take the world along with us" as he ordered that German citizens fight down to the last man, including children and civilians. There didn't seem to be much concern for either his or anyone else's population, and he had already resigned himself to suicide, so all the gold in the world would have meant nothing.

    Currently the closest we have to that craziness (out of nuclear-armed nations) is North Korea, but that can change quickly. Maybe Kim Jong Un decides to pick up a speed habit like Hitler did, and it puts him over the edge? Maybe political instability somewhere results in incompetent and/or crazy people getting a hold of some nukes (similarly to the Malaysian jet that was just shot down)?