Thanks for the thoughtful analysis of the Chinese mind, and what is behind their actions. It makes sense.

WHITTINGON said: It’s remarkable how consistently wrong a certain kind of arm chair analyst can be when it comes to the intentions of tyrannical regimes. It’s been the same since Hitler started the Nazi arms buildup in the 1930s.

The difference here is that Hitler TOLD us all what he was going to do. It was black & white … he wrote a book saying what he intended to do. The facts were all there to see, we just ignored what the FACTS were saying.

Mr. Whittington, you have made an assertion, and I am willing to consider it, but now it is time to back it up. If you are serious about showing us all the errors in “anonymous” analysis, then you need to provide facts, and a reasoned argument. Show us the “book”!

“Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book.” – Patton (The Movie)

In a debate in which both parties make assertions, but only party provides facts and a reasoned analysis … who do you think is going to win?

BTW, my assertion continues to be that the real threat to the U.S. from China is 1-2 generations away. I am persuaded that their economy will continue to grow at a significantly faster pace than the U.S. economy for perhaps the next Century (following the same trend as other emerging Asian economies) and that they will soon surpass the U.S. GDP and eventually double the U.S. GDP (or more). To prove that I can “walk the walk, and not just “talk the talk”, I provided a reasoned analysis, based on facts, in support of my assertion on April 6, 2006 at 9:14 pm at:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/31/waving-the-red-flag-once-again/

The “China strategy” of the U.S. needs to take the “possibility” into account that my assertion is an accurate picture of the future.

I have heard others suggest skepticism of my economic assertion, but nobody has backed up that skepticism with an ounce of reasoned economic theory. Until somebody does, I have to write off the skepticism as “wishful thinking” that China will pull a Brazil (even though all the evidence suggests that China can reproduce the economic results of other successful Asian countries.)

– Al

A few points.

First I dont look for a “space Pearl Harbor”…that would almost be impossible. There are, as has been stated here about 10-20 “realistic” ASAT targets and a “time on target” to negate all of them, or even the more important ones all at the same time would be well very very difficult.

Space assets and their battle engagement are not where you do your “Pearl Harbors”…they are where you do both battle management…and you send poltiical messages while in battle with them.

IN the case of the Chinese…they might in some scenarios become the functional equivelent of CONUS targets in various battle scenarios where we start striking targets on the Chinese mainland. I can for instance in some sort of (very unlikely right now) fight over Taiwan see us making strikes (we would almost have to) on Chinese mainland targets. One target I can them engaging in retaliation is our KH and Lacrosse assets. NOt only would they have military significance, but they would have political significance as well.

The GPS satellites are even harder to actually engage and GPS jammers are (as of yet) not that efficient against modern military receivers.

AS for understanding what they are “REALLY SAYING” …that might be next to impossible. It really doesnt matter actually what they are really saying “now” if they continue to develop the capability…because what they are really saying “now” could easily be replaced by new words and actions latter.

It is foolish I think to believe that the Chinese will say with our assymetric space recee capability “we will let you have it while we develop our own”…when that may take sometime. Any prudent battle manager in the PRC would say “until we have it, and even when we do, I need the capability to negate what is now a SINGULAR American advantage in armed conflict”.

Events will in the future I think say a lot about what they are trying to do..as much as the words that they speak.

Robert

> Based on what I’ve read, I think that’s spot on.

>> “We better make darn sure we understand exactly what they are REALLY saying.”

> Amen.

Yes, but human beings are famously incompetent when it comes to reading minds. Frequently we get it wrong even when we’re honestly trying, sometimes disastrously so. Even more often, we come up with interpretations that promote our already determined agendas — the PRC ASAT test is a case in point from both the levo and dextro points of view.

What at some point, maybe during a walk in the woods or over a nice lunch with the right people, the Chinese really need to do is to let the US know in a believable and somewhat convincing way just what message, if any, the test was meant to convey. If it was a mistake, a bit of excessive zeal on the part of the PLA, that could also be conveyed.

Otherwise, the US is probably going to, rightly, regard it as what it appeared to be — a step toward a capability to destroy US satellites in LEO for purely military purposes. (Not, IMO, that such a perception would necessarily be a bad thing. The US has been dealing with the other-country ASAT problem by avoidance and denial for way too long. Again IMO.)

Agreed.

“An ASAT test is a political message, not a military one.”

Based on what I’ve read, I think that’s spot on.

“We better make darn sure we understand exactly what they are REALLY saying.”

Amen.

> I don’t see your point. I’d much rather restrict China to the types of ASATs in which we have the technical lead
> and that don’t create dangerous space debris.

My point is that since your treaty would only restrict China from acknowledging ASAT tests, not conducting them.

>> “(Actually, that’s pretty close to what they said this time.)”

> If you have a source indicating such, please point to it. I, for one, would be interested in reading it.

From Aviation Week: “‘China conducted a scientific and technical experiment,’ Cao said, according to a Kyodo News report”

> We’re just re-stating known doctrine and logically trying to extrapolate China’s thinking in response. That doesn’t
> me we (I) personally would approve of such a nuclear response.

The doctrine you’re restating is unworkable, if not suicidal. I doubt the Chinese are stupid enough to think any US President would do that, just because some paper says he should.

> Human life is obviously a precious thing. Capturing a flight crew threatens a few lives. But taking out an
> early warning satellite could be part of a pre-emptive nuclear strike that threatens millions of lives. Hence
> the difference in likely U.S. response.

As many people have pointed out, early warning satellites are not the only (or most likely) target for an ASAT attack. Why do you keep harping back to that?

I don’t see your point. I’d much rather restrict China to the types of ASATs in which we have the technical lead and that don’t create dangerous space debris. If China wants to sign a ban on destructive, debris-creating ASATs, it would be a win for the U.S. (and other nations) on multiple counts.

“(Actually, that’s pretty close to what they said this time.)”

If you have a source indicating such, please point to it. I, for one, would be interested in reading it.

“So, you disapprove of threatening to use nuclear weapons (only threatening — *NOT* actually using them)”

Where did I say that I, personally, endorse the use of nukes?

“But you did propose using nukes in response to an attack on an unmanned satellite???”

Again, where did I say that I, personally, endorse the use of nukes?

I (and others in this thread) have stated that existing U.S. strategic doctrine places ASAT attacks on certain critical satellites on the same (or nearly the same) footing as attacks on our nuclear arsenal. China surely knows this and is thus less likely to be pursuing their DF-21 ASAT with offensive intent, at least against those targets. They know they’d be opening Pandora’s box if they did so.

We’re just re-stating known doctrine and logically trying to extrapolate China’s thinking in response. That doesn’t me we (I) personally would approve of such a nuclear response. Please separate analysis of existing U.S. military doctrine and likely foreign responses from my personal views on nukes. You, and anyone else on this blog, know nothing about the latter.

“If you place a higher value on a piece of hardware than the lives of US servicemen. I think most Americans would disagree with that.”

Ugh… please don’t question my ethics and views on the value of human life when I’m just stating the obvious likelihood that the U.S. is much more likely to go to DEFCON-4 over an attack on an early warning satellite than over a captured flight crew.

Human life is obviously a precious thing. Capturing a flight crew threatens a few lives. But taking out an early warning satellite could be part of a pre-emptive nuclear strike that threatens millions of lives. Hence the difference in likely U.S. response.

Again, please separate analysis of likely U.S. military responses from my personal ethics.

“Yes, in a later post. I was responding to your first post”

No, not in a later post. Here’s the relevant quote from the original post:

“Although the Bush II Administration does not want to put a ban on space weapons in a treaty, the U.S. could (and should) pursue a ban on space debris from destructive ASAT testing or actual use. With more satellites than any other nation, it is in U.S. interests to contain the space debris threat and maintain the utility of Earth orbit, even if we do not ban all ASAT weapons outright. Moreover, such a ban would immediately render China’s debris-creating DF-21 ASAT “stick” impotent, effectively removing their asymmetric threat from the playing field. With our technological lead, we could simultaneously pursue other, non-destructive and even reversible ASAT weapons, including electronic jammers, lasers, and even parasitic satellites. China’s primitive ASAT capability would be left in the dust (or on the negotiating table), while preserving more advanced and flexible ASAT options for ourselves.”

Very clearly in the third and fourth sentences, I stated that the U.S. should pursue a variety of advanced, non-debris ASATs in tandem with a ban on destructive, debris-creating ASATs.

Please don’t make false accusations about what I have (or have not) written.

“It’s interesting that you and Donald quote someone who was a supporter of Kaiser Wilhelm and later a Communist.”

And there it is. When you feel that you can’t win a debate on logic or evidence or even a quote contest, resort to name-calling. Yes, we’re all war-mongering imperialists and commies here except for you.

In between the name-calling, false accusations, and assaults on personal codes of ethics, I think you might have a good point or two that’s worthy of debate. I share many of your views on the NASA threads, and I think we might have a little common ground on this thread. But it’s practically impossible to get to the content through all the static. Please dial it down. This should be a discussion between adults, not a playground pissing contest.

> No. The recommended ban was on destructive ASATs that create debris. None of those systems do that.

Then it’s meaningless. The next time the Chinese want to test an ASAT, all they have to do is claim it’s an autonomous docking system like DART. (Actually, that’s pretty close to what they said this time.)

Imaging and elint can’t tell you whether they hit a satellite because of a malfunction or because they intended to. “Intent” generally comes from human intelligence, which is much harder to get and requires careful analysis. Which often turns out to be wrong anyway.

An ICBM warhead exploded at orbital altitude will create a lot more than debris. A treaty that encourages nations to use nukes instead of kinetic energy warheads is a very bad treaty.

>> “Sorry, but a threat to use weapons against an enemy in wartime…”

> You’re simplifying and generalizing a very specific and important historical case. A threat to employ nukes
> outside the field of battle and against population centers in country’s homeland carries a lot more weight and
> much graver consequences than a mere threat to use non-specific weapons in some generic wartime, especially
> when that nation has no nukes or strategic response with which to protect its homeland.

I assume you’ve heard of Hiroshima? Nagosaki?

So, you disapprove of threatening to use nuclear weapons (only threatening — *NOT* actually using them) against a nation with three-quarters of a million troops shooting at US soldiers?

But you did propose using nukes in response to an attack on an unmanned satellite???

And as others have pointed out, the most likely targets of an ASAT attack are not ballistic early warning satellites.

> A very misleading analogy. There’s a huge difference between a sigint aircraft and an early warning satellite.

If you place a higher value on a piece of hardware than the lives of US servicemen. I think most Americans would disagree with that.

>> “The idea that the US should have no capability to respond to an incident except by destroying
>> the world unrealistic. (Not to mention frightening.)”

> Agreed. That’s why I recommended that we pursue non-destructive ASAT capabilities in parallel with a ban
> on destructive ASATs and space debris.

Yes, in a later post. I was responding to your first post which suggested it was possible to have a verifiable ban on such weapons.

> “War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.”
> – Thomas Mann

“The Bible says ‘Blessed are the peacemakers.’ That’s why I’m here with you (the US military) rather than that lot outside.” — Ronald Reagan

It’s interesting that you and Donald quote someone who was a supporter of Kaiser Wilhelm and later a Communist. Perhaps you mean the peace of the grave?

Well quoted. Thank you.

— Donald

Yes, but they’re in GEO, and the recent Chinese ASAT is not thought(*) to have more than LEO capability. Optical/IR and radar imaging satellites (8 to 10) of them and defense meteorological satellites are the US LEO targets of interest. Do we love them enough to run the risk of nuclear strikes at CONUS if the PRC starts shooting them and we respond vigorously?

(*) Note that we in the public punditosphere don’t know much at all about the PRC ASAT. We’re guessing that it’s based on the DF-21, but don’t know that. We’re guessing that it was launched from a fixed site, but don’t know that. (The DF-21 is mobile.) We don’t have any particular guesses at all about the nature of the kill vehicle, how it homes, if it can be mounted on other boosters, etc.