Preparing For Satellite Defense 118
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Ssspawn more overlordsss
Re: (Score:2)
You need more vespene gas.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to take out the Zerg early. I think we are screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of hard to spy on someone surreptitiously with a blimp...
Re: (Score:2)
The really smart nations have noticed the more interesting changes with dark objects moving above their nations.
e.g. the funding fun that was Misty (satellite) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
the other option is movement e.g. Boeing X-37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
Or you just follow the staff cell phones and watch their sites on networked CCTV?
Re: (Score:3)
Countries tend to get annoyed if you send blimps over their territory. You can get away with sats though.
New potential battleground? (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:New potential battleground? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
In the future it's all about space. He who owns Low Earth Orbit will own the planet. From satellites you can watch and attack at will. ICBM's will be useless so any delivery system will have to be cruise missile or strategic bombers. That's the problem with warfare, the game constantly changes.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell it was only what? A year ago you were 8. I don't understand why you want to repeat that.
oblig simpsons (Score:1)
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
Re: (Score:2)
lasers are pretty easy to deflect with reflective surfaces. or you could just vent a cloud of gas or vapor that will attenuate the beam (obviously you'd have only so many uses of this tactic, but essentially "chaff" for lasers). plus even though lasers are coherent, they still diffuse some over extreme distances, which amplifies the power requirement in order to actually concentrate enough energy to do damage. plus the laser source would ideallyneed to be space-borne itself, simply because having to go thro
Re: (Score:2)
lasers are pretty easy to deflect with reflective surfaces that can handle the energy input
FTFY
Re:New potential battleground? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (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 s
Re: (Score:2)
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).
No, I am not making that assumption. You are right the opponents seek to exploit their opponent's weaknesses, and just because one has a relative strength in one area does not mean you have an absolute advantage. I just think that in this area we have a large potential weakness that would be hard to shore up against China.
Risky games (Score:2)
Re:New potential battleground? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can put a satellite there, you can put a weapon there as well. Payload has little to do with the capability to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, no. You have to consider the size of the rocket required to get there. And payload very much has to do with the capability to get there. The requirements for achieving near earth orbits vs geostat orbits are very different, and those requirements will change based on both payload size and orbit level.
The current ASAT's are very large missiles, but still borderline launchable from aircraft...specifically an F15 is a supersonic zoom climb, with initial ballistic guidance provided by the jet's traje
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just backed up my claim. Reread what I wrote. If you can get a satellite to a specific point, you can get a weapon there as well.
By payload I am referring to the use type, not the mass. Assuming equivalent mass, it doesn't matter if you're throwing up a few kilograms of circuitry or a a f
We must not allow (Score:1)
a mine shaft gap.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why bother with a defense? (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that's the sort of scenario that keeps you up at night - but kings and generals rarely pass up a shot at seizing an advantage just because it's not impossible their opponent is insane. And if there's a good chance they're insane that doesn't necessarily change anything except strategic details. Imagine some lunatic gets control of a superpower's nuclear arsenal - are you just going to stand by meekly and pray he doesn't randomly decide to push the button because it's redness offends him?
Iron Sky (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We beat them by sending the Japanese prime minister [wikipedia.org] into space to beat him at mahjong.
Re: (Score:3)
All kidding aside, I think this illustrates how important it is that we establish permanent moon telecommunications infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize for the possible mis-use of the word telecommunications.
Re: (Score:2)
-Matt
Re: (Score:3)
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 wor
Nuke the moon ? (Score:2)
Haven't we been here before ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Build more than one on different faces retard.
Re: (Score:1)
The moon is tidally locked so you're probably worrying about the wrong horizon. Go ahead and build on different sides - how does that help you when the moon is on the opposite side of the earth?
This can only end in one place (Score:4, Interesting)
Kessler syndrome. [wikipedia.org] Thanks, China!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Space is already militarized.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why? There's no oil in space.
Re: (Score:1)
Known risk (Score:2)
This puts a new spin on the phrase "sitting duck".
Looks like WALL-E was a prediction (Score:2)
We'll need to break through the space junk to get to the moon or Mars:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Arc Net Shield (Score:2)
Did the Men in Black fail their mission? Which timeline is this again?
Re: (Score:3)
so? (Score:5, 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... [wikipedia.org]
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.
space junk (Score:2)
there should be some treaties in place that would only allow space warfare if they properly handle the resulting space junk, otherwise space will become a no man land. perhaps this would result in non explosive/kinetic attacks, capture and burn in the atmosphere attacks, and repositioning attacks.
Re: (Score:1)
How would you enforce such a treaty?
Once you are at war with a country I doubt they'd care if they broke some treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
If a member state puts in orbit a weapon that could generate space junk, we blow it up! Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
It makes a good reminder of how stupid some things are that seem to make so much sense at the time we're doing them.
-Matt
Re: (Score:2)
Useful hint: first thing that happens when you decide to start a war is that you junk the Treaties.
Or do you really think all it takes to prevent war is a Treaty of Eternal Chumship between all nations on Earth?
Re: (Score:2)
there should be some treaties in place that would only allow space warfare if they properly handle the resulting space junk, otherwise space will become a no man land. perhaps this would result in non explosive/kinetic attacks, capture and burn in the atmosphere attacks, and repositioning attacks.
We were also under treaty to assist Ukraine should they be invaded...
Re: (Score:2)
Who are we? America never had a treaty to assist the Ukraine if they were invaded.
Re: (Score:2)
well, we made an agreement with them, if they give up their nukes, that the USA would ensure their safety.
Re: (Score:2)
The agreement, not treaty consisted of
Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
Now while it can be argued that America broke the first condition by spending billions inside the Ukraine to destabilize the government leading to the resignation of its democratically elected leader, the only country that the USA promised to ensure the Ukrainians safety from was America.
Full text, https://www.msz.gov.pl/en/p/wi... [msz.gov.pl]
GPS needed for everything (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Now as to conventional stuff, we have multiple ways of triangulating and controlling locations. If GPS is taken out, then the battle field will still be OK. Where GPS really helps is if you want to change a cruise missile, etc in-route to a different target and you do not have an active targeting system.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be worse (Score:4, 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).
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't an either - or. They are doing both.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you so sure they're not doing both? I certainly would, and in today's climate it would be bad PR to publicize the fact that you are growing your stockpiles before their size becomes sufficient to rival the primary threats and/or their imminent usage becomes a serious possibility. After all you're not looking to leverage a cold war against your own population - just ensure that if/when the day comes you're the one standing on higher ground.
WRONG. (Score:3, Informative)
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 additio
Re: (Score:2)
Since ICBMs predate GPS by several decades and the US has a massive submarine launch capability I doubt taking out the satellites would affect the US counter-strike much. What worries China is the US rocket shield technology, they say it's against "rogue states" but who is to say what it's really capable of. If the US strikes first are they able to retaliate? Do they have any submarines capable if the ICBMs fail? Doubtful. Take out the satellites and you're back to MAD - if the US can nuke China then China
Geostationary? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
The geostationaries also probably handle drone C&C, which is of interest I'd imagine.
Sun Tzu already knew (Score:1)
The entire western world is thankful for the teachings of Sun Tzu. One cannot blame China for following a good defensive strategy.
By the way, the article makes it sound like it was an offence by China, but the initial offence is the one of nations putting spy satellites into space in the first place. It is then just twisted and ironic, if not funny, to see how the US and Japan seemingly want to defend themselves against China's defence plans, when it took some more spying to find out about the launch.
Be gla
Re: (Score:2)
Spy satellites aren't offensive, they're intelligence assets and good intelligence about equal opponents leads to more peace and calm, not more war. The Cuban missile crisis is a good example of this in action.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, this sadly only shows the culture you are growing up in. To some of us is spying a sign of mistrust and an offence. If you had read Sun Tzu would you know that spying is an act of war.
China's is more than 5,000 years old, possibly 10,000 years. The "Art of War" was written more than 2,500 years ago. The book alone is far older than the Bible or the USA. It is also being used at the military academy in Westpoint as teaching material.
Anyhow, when you then want to make China your enemy, should you also l
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
I said to be glad in comparison to what China could have done instead. Nothing more. You are missing the point if you now want to expand onto what happened in Europe. We might be sitting here all day and night just remind us what happened before then and then before then, and so on. Say, are you at least glad it is not worse?
Re: (Score:1)
No, sorry, you must have read too much into it. It is an example of a nation responding to a situation in a stupid and escalating manner, which is only asking for more conflict. China took a different approach and chose to change the nature of the situation itself. I think it is a smart and brilliant move by China.
I would love to know how many spy satellites each nation has got in orbit. We only get to see the bickering and bitching really, but perhaps it is coming from those nations who also deploy the mos
They are stealing from Japan (Score:2)
satellites equipped with grappling arms that could co-orbit and then disable expensive U.S. hardware
They watched Outlaw Star [wikipedia.org] decided that they had uncovered a Top Secret military program and then decided to copy them verbatim. [wikia.com] Can these guys do ANYTHING original?
including the destruction of a defunct Chinese... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...sprayed deadly space debris all over the place....
Which killed George Clooney and almost got Sandra Bullock too.
Re: (Score:2)
It will always be easier to blow one up than to put it there. You do not need orbital velocity to take it out, you just need to get into its path at the correct time. This takes a lot less fuel to do, and should therefore be cheaper.
The scary part about this (Score:2)
China is NOT thinking of MAD. They are planning and designing a first strike system.
This WILL lead to a war between the wests and China, along with China's Allies (north Korea, Iran, and whom ever else China is sharing nuke secrets with).
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to remove moderation error.
I think you are exactly right.
Kessler Syndrome (Score:1)
Already well prepped!! (Score:2)