Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Releases Test Footage of Ballistic Missile Defense System (mirror.co.uk)

Posted by BeauHD on from the computer-generated-imagery dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Mirror.co.uk: China has released footage of its first interception test of a mid-air ballistic missile, destroying a target miles above Earth. Footage of the experiment, which took place in 2010, has never been made public until now. According to Chinese news agency CCTV, Xu Chunguang, an expert working at a military base in northwest China, said: "All of our research is meant to solve problems that may crop up in future actual combats." It reportedly took researchers another three years to develop the core technologies to improve the system. A second successful test was reportedly conducted in January 2013. China's decision to finally release the footage could be seen as a warning shot to the U.S., which was critical of China for not notifying the Pentagon of the tests at the time. In May, China announced it would send submarines armed with nuclear missiles into the Atlantic Ocean, arguing it had little choice if America continued to advance its weapons systems. China has recently denounced South Korea's decision to deploy a U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system to counter threats from North Korea, saying that it harmed the foundation of their mutual trust.

34 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. Looks fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really fake

    1. Re:Looks fake by UnresolvedExternal · · Score: 1

      How dare you suggest that something published on the Mirror could be fake??

      I have personally checked the footage and it looks 100% real... if you stand back a bit and squint...

    2. Re:Looks fake by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      if chinese government official told me there were no extra-terrestrials living among us, I'd buy a log cabin in northern canada and bulk-order dumdum bullets the very next day. that's how much i trust anything the chinese say.

    3. Re:Looks fake by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think being neighbors with North Korea is reason enough to consider an anti ballistic system.

  2. Meme by johnsnails · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't always click on the linked articles, but when I do they look fake AF.

    1. Re:Meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody has noticed this yet?

      In the first footage, the target is stationary (the stars in the background and the target itself are both relatively stationary).
      In the part of footage where a destroyer launched a missile, the destroyer is from German NAVY firing a European anti-air missile.
      In the part of footage where the kill vehicle is shown is from US NAVY (SM3). On the bottom you can see the marking "national", may be they copied the footage from the National Post or something?

      This is funny as hell! May be the CCTV should be banned in China since they hate "fake and non-credible" news so much.

  3. LOL by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really enjoyed the comment about it harming our basis of mutual trust. The implication being that we 'trust' they are violating every agreement and treaty they've ever participated in and that they 'trust' we are spying on their every move ?

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:LOL by Archfeld · · Score: 1, Troll

      So speaks the flailing EU, the sinking GB, the nanny states of Australia, or the irrelevant nation of Canada ? or maybe you hail from the greater significance that is Central or South America ? Maybe you are posting from the land of wine and honey that is greater Africa ? There is no country or region at this point, or really at any point in history that is not suffering from some sort of failure or another, be it racial inequality, economic instability, privacy issues, global climate change, etc.
      But of course the US and 'north' China are the joke...

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  4. Harm the foundation of their mutual trust by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

    Funny, I thought the trust was that they trusted that the other side would invade them.

  5. This Looks Shopped by sexconker · · Score: 1, Informative

    I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

  6. They can't be serious by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    That has to be a joke. Something from the 50s, right? Did they blow the dust off some propaganda films and reuse the celluloid?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  7. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by khallow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and unseen by the west, via the new DEEP canal.

    It's not deep enough for that. Sorry, one doesn't sneak a sub through a canal with satellite and human int coverage.

  8. ABM systems equal escalation? by harperska · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I never understood that logic. We can have enough missiles pointed at you to turn all of your major cities into slag, but the moment you put up a system that would protect yourself from those missiles, hoo boy!

    1. Re:ABM systems equal escalation? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      That's the logic. It's all about stability. If I'm Russia, and I think the US is about to develop a real working ABM system, then the clock is ticking on the use of my missiles. Maybe I should gamble on a first strike to wipe out US missiles. If I don't, then later the US can launch a first strike without fear of retaliation.

      --
      Play Command HQ online
    2. Re:ABM systems equal escalation? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      America promised not to do it and signed treaties and such.

      Yes. And the U.S.S.R. should be pisse...

      Oh, wait - are they still around?

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    3. Re: ABM systems equal escalation? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Russia is the successor state when it comes to treaties, so they still are in force.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:ABM systems equal escalation? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      The protection system shifts the threat considerably, because it means the country with it no longer suffers the same threat as the country without it - the concept of mutually assured destruction counts on the destruction of both parties being mutually assured (funny that...), and a protection system means it is no longer mutually assured, one party has a much better chance of coming out with significantly less destruction than the other.

      Think of it this way - you and your worst enemy both have guns pointing at each other from a distance of 50 paces. You both know there is enough time to fire back if the other one fires, and you also both know neither of you can move in time to not get hit. If both of you are sane, rational people, do either of you fire? No.

      Now consider how that dynamic would change if your enemy put on a full body bullet proof suit of armour. All of a sudden it doesn't matter as much to him whether you fire or not, he is much more likely to survive than before - and he is also much more likely to survive than you are as you dont have his suit of armour.

      Gets a little too uncomfortable, doesn't it?

    5. Re:ABM systems equal escalation? by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      America promised not to do it and signed treaties and such. But they have now changed their minds. Seems pretty obviously untrustworthy to anyone who isn't a shill or has an ounce of common sense.

      The ABM treaty had withdrawal provisions, and the US exercised them. It's not untrustworthy, and saying so probably indicates the person doing so is either "a shill, or [doesn't have] an ounce of common sense." They could also simply be uninformed and wearing their ignorance as a badge of honor, YMMV.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    6. Re:ABM systems equal escalation? by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      Somebody mod up. "Use it or lose it" is a very dangerous situation for all concerned, and why first-strike systems of any kind are so destabilizing.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    7. Re:ABM systems equal escalation? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      We can have enough missiles pointed at you to turn all of your major cities into slag, but we won't do it because you have enough missiles pointed at us to turn all of our major cities into slag. The MAD balance depends on both sides being unable to defend themselves, only retaliate. If one side can nuke the other side's cities and shoot down the retaliation, there is no balance. One side wins, the other loses. How is that hard to understand?

      Of course there's such a thing as not wanting war, like why would Americans want to kill Russians or Russians want to kill Americans today? But MAD isn't about that, it's about a power balance where war would doom both sides. While an arms race stalemate might temporarily keep us from destroying each other, I hope that lasting peace will come from a more positive source of inspiration. Because I never really expected MAD to last forever.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:ABM systems equal escalation? by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > The US installing a "missile shield" in Romania has
      > nothing to do with North Korea, though.

      No, but they're pretty close to the trajectory that Iran would use if their nuclear program were to succeed:
      http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=o...

      And they're completely useless against Russia:
      http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=u...

      So, it's pretty clear to anyone who knows about things like the Earth being a spheroid exactly who the missiles in Romania are meant to defend against. And since the Russian's can by no means be said not to understand ballistics, rocketry, or great circle paths; it's equally clear that their objections to the ABMs in Romania are simple posturing for 100% political reasons that have nothing to do in any way with MAD or their own national security.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    9. Re:ABM systems equal escalation? by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Maybe those missile defenses are supposed to protect Central America from Russian launches, and Putin's upset about that.

      I kid, of course. Thanks for those Great Circles.

    10. Re:ABM systems equal escalation? by harperska · · Score: 1

      The destabilization argument presumes that only one side builds ABM. If both sides are allowed to build ABM, the balance is preserved, and additionally, missiles themselves become obsolete as they can be effectively defended against. Additionally, if everybody is allowed to have ABM systems, the idea of obtaining ICBMs becomes less attractive to rogue nations who won't benefit from the power trip of having a superweapon that bigger nations have to take seriously.

  9. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by Boronx · · Score: 1

    I doubt you can sneak one around the horn either.

    --
    Play Command HQ online
  10. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Considering that we are talking about a west to east passage (the other way makes not much sense, at least not in "sneaking"): yes you can.
    a) the ocean currents are strong from west to east, like 6 knots IIRC, so you let the boat travel without power by the currents ... it can only be detected by luck.
    b) the gap between cape horn and antarctica is about 10 degrees big, that is 1852*60*10 meters = 1111200m aka 1111.200km about 690 land miles, or obviously 600 nautical miles.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  11. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by jittles · · Score: 1

    Considering that we are talking about a west to east passage (the other way makes not much sense, at least not in "sneaking"): yes you can. a) the ocean currents are strong from west to east, like 6 knots IIRC, so you let the boat travel without power by the currents ... it can only be detected by luck. b) the gap between cape horn and antarctica is about 10 degrees big, that is 1852*60*10 meters = 1111200m aka 1111.200km about 690 land miles, or obviously 600 nautical miles.

    It would be difficult to pilot the boat when depending on the current for propulsion. Not to mention the fact that the submarine requires power generation (or snorkeling if it is a battery/diesel) and life support systems. Those all make noise to some degree due to pumps and whatnot. It may still be possible to hear the submarine, it depends on how skilled they are at noise dampening.

  12. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by khallow · · Score: 1

    The Chinese are building expertise at noise dampening. It's an easier problem to dampen the noise of a battery/diesel sub than it is a nuclear sub.

  13. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    SRSLY? A diesel/electric sub is only quiet under electric drive. The range is bupkis compared with nukes. The diesel drive only can function within snorkel depths -- so much for nondetectability.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  14. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by khallow · · Score: 1

    Yes, seriously.

  15. Re: Whoopie by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Who the hell would declare war on Canada?

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  16. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    We are talking about a nuclear sub obviously.
    And in 50 meter depth, in an over 1000km wide 'channel' you don't need steering.
    Modern subs under electric drive use fuel cells, and not batteries, hence they mostly have either no combustion engine aka diesel or a gas turbine. So they use the same natural gas either for the gas turbine when not diving or under snorkel or for the electric engine when diving.

    And obviously, when they want to avoid detection, they are not running under diesel power in snorkel depth.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  17. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by khallow · · Score: 1

    might work for fooling lazy magnetometer reader or one without "big data" processing capability

    It'd fool me. But then I'm neither a major world power or trying.

  18. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by Daniel+Klugh · · Score: 1

    It may still be possible to hear the submarine, it depends on how skilled they are at noise dampening.

    Well dampening should be easy seeing as they are under water.

    P.S. Unless you meant "damping", of course.

    --
    Daniel Klugh
  19. Re:China has had nuke carry subs in atlantic for 6 by jittles · · Score: 1

    It may still be possible to hear the submarine, it depends on how skilled they are at noise dampening.

    Well dampening should be easy seeing as they are under water.

    P.S. Unless you meant "damping", of course.

    See definition 2 and let me know what you think I meant.