China Tests Anti-Satellite Laser Weapon

schnippy writes "U.S. intelligence agencies believe that China has successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon by destroying one of their old weather satellites. The test, if confirmed, would be an order of magnitude more provocative than earlier reports of Chinese blinding lasers being tested. Arms Control Wonk has a good writeup on what this will mean for U.S. policy."

How is this provocative ?

The USA already has this sort of capability ... so why is China having this procative ?

Or is it OK for the USA to have it but no one else ? I suppose it depends on who you consider the bad guys. I note that China has invaded fewer countries in the last 50 years than the USA has ... so what is the answer to the question ?

Re:How is this provocative ?

The same reason that Iran's nuclear ambitions are deemed provocative. Apparently only the west is allowed anything nuclear or dangerous - everyone else has no right, apparently. And even then the US has a right to everything, and the right to deny whatever it wants to anyone else. "Land of the free" needs to be updated - may I suggest "Land of the free (to dick on everyone else without the burden of a conscience pissing on your parade because the US is always good and right and never does anything bad to everyone else who are just jealous and should be grateful that the US saved everyone's ass in every war ever fought at least that's what's been drilled into everyone's head since being kids)". Pretty catchy, huh? :)

Re:How is this provocative ?

remember they "won" vietnam

And north korea!!!

Now iraq!!! Hey they are 3 for 3!!

Re:How is this provocative ?

Really? I don't recall in the last 5 years China saying anything about wiping another country off the map.

I'm sure residents of Taiwan and Tibet would be happy to disagree wth you.

Re:

Tibet was a separate country, and had been for a very long time. The Chinese invaded, killed somewhere around 90% of all wildlife (including yaks) to enforce a dependence on Chinese food supplies, and destroyed the Tibetan monastic system. Oh, and they als

Re:

I'm surprised the news had time to cover it after all the sordid details of the US's chum Israel attempting to wipe Palestine off the map.

What's not surprising, however, is the fact that almost nobody knows what Palestine really is [wikipedia.org].

Re:How is this provocative ?

they just told the bit about Isreal valiantly defending there right to annex parts of other countries

How dare a nation annex land belonging to foreign invaders -- who, to this day, continue to proclaim the obliteration of that nation -- as a means of protecting itself from future attacks!

Re:How is this provocative ?

How dare a nation be taken away from one group of people and be given to another simply because we feel sorry for them! Why don't we just give France to all the descendants of American slaves while we're at it? Makes just as much sense as taking Israel away from Palestinians and giving it to holocaust survivors after WWII.

Re:

Bruce Willis

Re:

I note that China has invaded fewer countries in the last 50 years than the USA has ... so what is the answer to the question ?

I see you're from the UK. It figures. In the last 50 years, the US has invaded
Grenada - don't see anyone but Cuba and some Gr

Re:How is this provocative ?

Yes Gulf War II was a big disaster. However, if the situation ever stabilizes the Iraqis will have a chance to guide their own lives. China's policy in Tibet is to weaken the local populice by flooding the area with Han Chinese immigrants. I suspect that most Tibetans would like to control their own future if possible but at this point they'd be glad to just not watch as their culture is destroyed in front of their eyes. I don't see that kind of cultural assassination going on in Iraq.

Sorry.. I normally try to refrain from commenting on these kind of issues, since I'm European, and will be considered someone not knowledgable enough by a lot of people. But... I can't resist this time.

The US is actually doing *exactly* that in Iraq: Do things our "democratic" way or we'll stay here and keep killing people. You'd see this if you'd actually look at things happening from a distance. The current not-yet-civil war is a direct result of the US removing the one authority figure in charge, and trying to democratize the country. I personally believe that Iraq isn't A> ready B> helped with democracy.

You can't force two peoples (in this case mainly divided along religious borders) to work together if they don't want to, and haven't in known history. This is simply an enormous mistake in thinking.

Democracy is what works for *us* (most of the time anyway), but forcing that on other people and countries should not be the way to propagate it, I think.

Feel free to disagree, but that's my (possibly biased) point of view.

Re:

You can't force two peoples (in this case mainly divided along religious borders) to work together if they don't want to, and haven't in known history.

Absolutely you can. However the methods you'd have to use arent "democratic".

That's why the old Soviet s

Re:How is this provocative ?

Sorry.. I normally try to refrain from commenting on these kind of issues, since I'm European, and will be considered someone not knowledgable enough by a lot of people. But... I can't resist this time.

As an American who put in over a year overseas, I know our foreign policy reputation at this time. It's not kind. I have been recognized on the streets as an American and confronted on my political beliefs. I'd like to think I gave the "right answer", but I honestly don't know what would have happened a few times if I had expressed support for my president. Let me just let you know, there are many of us (maybe less than 50%, but more than 10%) who believe the French were right in holding off invasion plans and who believe the United Nations was founded in order to prevent another World War II. A seemingly unending bureaucracy it may be, but it's checked by the majority of countries with a last sanity check of the consensus of a diverse group with the most vested interest in a stable world.

We're fighting to change the political future of our country. It's slow, and it's built upon a mountain of vested interests in large corporations and minimization of energy insecurity.

Re:

Second Yugoslavia [wikipedia.org]:

Bosnia and Herzegovina [slashdot.org] -- Bosniaks, Serbs & Croats
Croatia [slashdot.org] -- Croats & Serbs
Republic of Macedonia [slashdot.org] -- Macedonians, Albanians & Turks
Montenegro [slashdot.org] -- Montenegrins, Serbs, Bosniaks & Albanians
Serbia [slashdot.org] -- Serbs
Slovenia [slashdot.org] -- Slovenians

Re:

OK, Kuwait was not really invaded - the government of Kuwait (in exile at that date) requested help from United Nations (and possibly USA). The UN mandated the liberation of Kuwait, and for the moment the only US troops that might be in Kuwait are observer

Re:

Nope, they destroyed an outdated, no longer used _CHINESE_ weather satelite.

Re:

Space treaties were based on the Antarctic treaty. Basically, no one can claim anything in space as their own terroitory, establish a military base, or anything like that. You absolutely cannot destroy another country's satellite, doing so would be an act

LASER weapon?

From TFA: " ...weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile"

That doesn't sound like a LASER weapon.

Re:

Maybe LASER stands for "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Rockets". An exploding warhead certainly ought to make the surrounding area a bit brighter...

Re:

The LASER malfunctioned, so they renamed it "kinetic kill vehicle" and threw it at the satellite.

Re:

Of course it would have to be a robotic shark, anything else would be ridiculous.

My bad...

The headline claims it's a laser weapon. Note to self: Pay more attention to headlines before replying to article criticisms.

Of course, the reason I stopped paying attention to the headlines here is that they often have litle relation to what's discussed

not a laser

from the article: "destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile."

Lasers are not kinetic weapons. They are light-based.

The topic-writer appears to have been confused by the article mentioning that an earlier test used a laser to temporarily brighten a satellite.

Re:

from the article: "destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile."

Lasers are not kinetic weapons. They are light-based.

The topic-writer appears to have been confused by the article me

Re:

They've got it wrong. They've attached the shark to the laser instead of the opposite. Hence the "kinetic kill vehicle". I still can't explain the missile, though.

What this will mean for U.S. policy?

I'd say that it will mean:

1. Bigger budgets for space weapons research.
2. Bigger budgets for everything else that is even remotely connected to space weapons research.
3. Bigger budgets for intelligence gathering.
4. It might take a little wind out of the war on terror due to budget reshuffling.
5. Conservative ideologists, demagogues and fanatics of all denominations will pop up on every TV channel to talk about the new red peril.
6. Left wing ideologists, demagogues and fanatics of all denominations will pop up on every TV channel to play the new red peril down.
7. If we are lucky points 5 and 6 will result in an unscheduled yet entertaining amateur boxing match on live TV.
8. Yet another rant on the O'Reilly Factor.
9. The list goes on.... and on......

the truth is being manipulated here

first the story that the baiji, the blind chinese river dolphin, has gone extinct

now the announcement that the chinese have an advanced laser weapon

there's only one obvious conclusion: the extinction news was a lie, a cover up...

it isn't sharks with frickin' laser beams they're building, it's a top secret corp of dolphins with frickin' laser beams!

that's a very clever twist, but i see through your cynical machinations beijing

China just need to put dollars in market

China just need to put all the dollars they have accumulated in market and boom!!! it would affect US economy more than if they a war instead.

Lasers?

I know this is Slashdot, but did anyone read the article? There is no mention that this is a laser based system at all. To quote, "destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile." That's not a laser, that's a high speed rocket launced from a larger missile. This isn't some laser based ground weapon, it sounds quite similar to the system that the U.S. has that is almost deployed for attempting to knock down ICBM's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missil e [wikipedia.org] , just applied to taking out a satellite instead of an incomming missile.

Re:

The problem is two fold. Initially, it the debris now clogging up the orbit. This will cause damage to other satellites, possibly knocking them out completely (debris is a huge problem in space).
Secondly, it opens up an arms race in space, with money thr

Re:

Secondly, it opens up an arms race in space, with money thrown into space weapons research, testing, and bigger and heavier weaponry.

Why do people keep thinking this is new? It's not. The only new thing is that it's China doing it.

The USA successfully te

Re:

I recently read about the Kessler syndrome. Interesting theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome [wikipedia.org]

Re:short term

And this is different from any other country how? Maybe they feel it's just about time for China, the largest and oldest nation on earth, to keep up with the competition?

Re:

Well, countries as well as people vary in the degree to which they can recognize enlightened self interest.

Throwing your weight around is not always the best way to get what you want, a lessone we've had to relearn here in the US these past few years.

Re:

OTOH, throwing your weight around is usually a good way to get what you want. A lesson that the US, China, and many other countries know.

Re:

You know Russia and Canada are both larger then China right? Heck the US is almost the same size depending if you count Taiwan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and _outlying_territories_by_area [wikipedia.org]

Re:IMHO

Considering that they shot down one of their own satellites, perhaps the US could shoot down one of their own satellites. From a European perspective this would be the funniest escalation of hostilities since Freedom Fries.

Re:IMHO

US Admiral: "Look at this, slitted eye! The Nimiz! The most phatt3st aircraft carrier ever build! Look what i can do!"
*push button* ... *buzzz!*
His colleague from the airforce: "You yellow little man think you can disarm ICBMs better than we can? I'll prove you that we disarm our complete arsenal in half the time your tech peons will find their screwdrivers, commi!"

Re:IMHO

It's as funny as nations conducting nuclear testing on their own soil!

Wait, that wasn't really funny at all. Maybe you had to be there.

Re:This is just one more piece of bad news from Ch

America first, dude! A dictator in the whitehouse, military running amok all over the middle east (watch this space), global warming contributions, funamentalist influence. Don't act like the US is some beacon of how a country should be run. To the rest of the west it's quite the opposite. I apologise if this sounds like an anti-US rant, but I guess it technically is, as it's countering an anti-Chinese rant by demonstrating the hypocrisy employed by many people with regard to not acknowledging their own country's short comings, and jumping on another's.

Re:This is just one more piece of bad news from Ch

Things like censorship, product safety, military issues, global warming contributions, and anything that seems enough of a problem to become a law in western countries should be forced upon the Chinese government.

Half of these things the US is guilty

Funny that we should view this as "provocative"

It's ironic that the US should view this as "provocative" in the light of its stated policy to achieve hegemony in space (see http://www.space.com/news/061007_bush_spacepolicy. html [space.com] for the administrations statement of policy , and see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199827&cid=163 65327 [slashdot.org] for my earlier post on the matter, which refers to US weaponisation of space http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,13 45460,00.html [guardian.co.uk], and the Airforce acquiring new business http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /higher_ground_040222.html [space.com])

I certainly won't claim that China wouldn't have pressed ahead with its anti-sattelite weapon if the US hadn't stated space hegemony as its policy objective, but in terms of being provocative it really seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The US space policy is confrontational if nothing else.

I'm fairly confident that the recently unveiled US space policy caused a massive "Oh yeah? We'll see about that!" response among China, Russia, India, and perhaps others too.

Re:Funny that we should view this as "provocative"

The simple fact is, the US policy is not about a hegemony, nor is it about denying anyone else access.

That's exactly what the policy is about. From the BBC [bbc.co.uk]:

"The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests."

Translation: we reserve the right to put weapons in space, and we will deny you the right to do so. Good on China for creating an intelligent solution! Hope they patented it.

+1 Traditional

You all are getting slow in your old age.
Trim your beards and try to keep up.
Its not we pwn teh space, or we ownerz teh space.
its
ALL YOUR SPACE ARE BELONG TO US.
Know your ./ history.

Re:Just what the world needs...

...another cold war.

Maybe this will offset all the Global Warming [slashdot.org].

Re:

...another cold war.

Yeah, but y'know -- if politicians want to be incurably stupid ninnies seeking a way to let off testosterone poisoning, I would prefer the posturing and pointless spygames of a cold war pissing contest over the more traditional "wipe ou

Re:Just what the world needs...

Just what the world needs...
...another cold war.

you can thank the USA for that.

the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a conservative think tank whose members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz (among other prominent republicans) places among its goals, the proposal to "control the new "international commons" of space and "cyberspace" and pave the way for the creation of a new military service -- U.S. Space Forces -- with the mission of space control." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A merican_Century [wikipedia.org]

Of course, we're talking about military control and that means in large part getting the upper hand in terms of information (WWII was won because of information). Hence the US fascination with spy satellites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacrosse_(satellite) [wikipedia.org]; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconic [wikipedia.org]; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samos_(satellite) [wikipedia.org]; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar_(satellite) [wikipedia.org]; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_(satellite) [wikipedia.org].

and let's not forget the National Missile Defense program, which will cost 53b US from the years 2005 to 2009 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponization_of_spac e [wikipedia.org]).

Re:

Neither America nor China can afford a cold war. The cold war was born of a different political climate, post world war two, such a situation is unlikely to recurr. For one thing China has no Stalin. Contrary to what american politions were claiming, every

Re:

"I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days."

I prefer the "e" and "o" in people as they seem to be missing from your posts.

One Word; Taiwan

This is just silly talk. There will be no economic embargo on China because it developed a new weapon. No one is talking about economic sanctions other then crazy Slashdot posters.

It is a provocation in the same way any new weapon is a provocation, but the response won't be military or economic. The response will be that the US starts upgrading their own anti-satellite weapon if they have not already done so and building in more stealth features to their old satellites. This starts a potential arms race, but that is it. Even then, I doubt it is going to be much of a race. The US has had known anti-satellite weapons for decades. It probably has other still classified anti-satellite weapons waiting in the wings as well.

The real 'provocation' in this is what it means for Taiwan. The US has been quietly backing away from its promise to defend the democracy of Taiwan in case of a Chinese invasion. Even now, the prospect of fighting over Taiwan makes the US uneasy. The US could certainly win today, but it would be far more bloody and dramatically more costly then Iraq. Such a war would have both nations getting itchy nuclear weapon trigger fingers. Now, to top it all off, China has the capacity to knock down US satellites making the military game much more dangerous while at the same time offering up a way to put a real hurt on American economic interests.

It is a good old fashion Mexican standoff. A war between the US and China is a war that both sides could lose (read that as going nuclear). Even if both sides agreed to take nuclear weapons off the table, the economic damage done to the US would only be matched by the massive economic destruction wrought on China. The whole issue is messy and ugly, and it is coming to a head. China WILL make a move again Taiwan in the next 10 years.