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.
Kessler syndrome. Thanks, China!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.