Congress

A Congressional ASAT discussion

Yesterday’s “Decision 2008″ event at CSIS was billed as a “discussion”, and that was an accurate description: although Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) are from opposite sides of the aisle, there was more agreement than disagreement between the two on the topic of China’s anti-satellite weapon test and its ramifications. Some highlights:

  • The moderator, CSIS’ James Lewis, noted that the test may have been a “miscalculation” on China’s part, as China may not have anticipated the strong negative reaction the test got internationally. Nonetheless, Kyl, previously criticized the administration for its initial low-key response, is still dissatisfied with the official response. “I’m still concerned that neither the administration nor the Congress has been adequately vocal about the implications of the test or what our response should be.”
  • Kyl said that, to counter any Chinese ASAT threat, the US needs to invest in four key areas: defensive counterspace, offensive counterspace, space situational awareness, and operationally responsive space. He expressed some concern that the budget for space situational awareness has been but in the FY08 budget proposal. “We have to create in my view a major force program for space, similar to how we budget for special operations, so that the funds can be protected from other Air Force priorities.”
  • Harman agreed with Kyl on three of his four key areas, with the only area of disagreement being (not surprisingly) offensive counterspace. Harman was concerned about the “polarizing” effect of the debate on weaponization of space, and worried that such a debate would prevent greater cooperation with allies, or even consensus within the US government, on the general topic. “I think we lose the opportunity to, perhaps, develop better policy.”
  • Kyl was skeptical of arms control or even “code of conduct” agreements about the use of space, believing that they would be ineffective in general, including subject to concerns about definitions and verification. Harman, though, said she would pursue such agreements in parallel with private discussions with various nations. “But I would, at the same time,” she added, “be very clear about what would not be acceptable to the United States.”
  • In a broader strategic sense, Kyl noted that China’s ASAT program fit into its general military approach of asymmetric warfare, developing relatively low-cost approaches to attack the perceived weaknesses of American military systems. (Another example of this, he said, is China’s development of quiet diesel subs to counter American naval fleets.) However, he said, news that China is planning the development of an aircraft carrier represents a shift in strategy. “It almost suggests to me that they’re preparing to make a big mistake, which is to move out of an area of doctrine that can serve them very well… into more prestige kind of weaponry that can cost a lot of money and not necessarily fulfill your immediate doctrinal requirements.”
  • Harman, following up on that point, said that the US military, including space systems, is in need of transformation—a point of personal concern for her, since her district in southern California includes the Space and Missile Systems Center and a number of military satellite manufacturing facilities. “Maybe we’re not going in the right direction” with existing systems, she said.

16 comments to A Congressional ASAT discussion

  • richardb

    It is time for the debate to begin about America’s view of Chinese intentions. Harman unfortunately isn’t representative of the Democratic leadership, she is akin to a Potemkin village for the Democratic party’s far left luminaries.
    Its a start though and I’m glad Kyl highlighted the growing appetite for strategic systems such as asats, carriers, submarines. I notice too that the Washington Times this week had an article about Chinese espionage being aggressive and widespread in the US, a leak meant to reinforce a new message about China that is going out this week?

    Cheney had a message recently too about the dangers of an opaque Chinese military.

    Then there is the large arms sale to Taiwan of advanced air to air and air to ground weapons.

    Finally it will be interesting if fear of China will reinvigorate the FTA talks between South Korea and the US, something that will help lock in South Korea as a partner to the US against Chinese regional dominance.

    China, whether we like it or not, she is getting equal time from a GWOT preoccupied Washington.

  • Anonymous-Prime

    This is a non-issue. The Chinese are playing us for fools, and our politicians are taking the bait. The true “threat” from China is in economic dominance, which is fair game, as far as I’m concerned. The U.S. needs to lose the post-9/11 paranoia and act like the progressive global superpower it once was. Recognize the actual game we’re in and start focusing resources on solving the problem. That means more investment in education, R&T and establishing dominance in nascent economic markets.

  • Anon2

    Hmmmm. Neither Kyl nor Harman suggested that increasing NASA’s human exploration program is the solution to this national security in space crisis. Didn’t they get the message?

    Hurry … somebody call Mike Griffin to talk about how more funding for the CEV and Ares 1 is critical to national security. Senator Hutchson is not doing her job!

    More seriously, both Kyl and Harman appear to be reasonably intelligent and knowledgeable. A breath of fresh air compared to some Members. Although some will disagree with either one of them about their position on offensive on counterspace, at least they can string together a reasonably logical argument for their position, and it appears that neither one of them stuck their foots in their mouths.

    – Anon2

  • Freely Expressed

    China is a communist dictatorship flexing its muscles. It’s successfully annexed 5 million Tibetans and taken over 7 million people in Hong Kong and the New Territories, and it continually threatens 28 million Taiwanese with war. It physically suppresses any internal criticism by its 1400 million citizens with imprisonment. Altogether the Chinese government oppresses almost a quarter of the world’s population. All this with hardly a word of international complaint. Economic engagement still holds promise but as China builds more muscle it’s necessary to match their strength. The alternative is to accept increasing Chinese global domination in all spheres and secretly pray for internal collapse while learning Chinese.

  • GuessWho

    Anonymous-Prime – Clearly China is an economic threat, no argument there. It is also a fact that China has significantly increased their military spending, 14% this year by Chinese accounts but likely double or triple that in reality. They are increasing ther submarine fleet capabilities, military aircraft, ground based missiles, etc. Recent exposure of Chinese spying and arms-acquisitions of US technology have been widely reported. I think the ASAT test is just a smaller part of an effort by the Chinese to develop targeted military capabilities to challenge the US for power in the Pacific Rim. They will probably never achieve parity, and I don’t see that as their goal, but they can use leap-ahead technologies that can neutralize large segments of the US arsenal if employed correctly. The ASAT fits this role in that it can severely disrupt US C3 architectures. There have also been some discussions among US defense experts that China is pursuing EMP technologies as a means of disrupting both military and commercial space assets as a way of inducing instability within the US. Senator Kyl is dead-nuts on, the US needs to take a very aggressive stance in developing its space capabilites, both defensive and offensive. As for NASA and its “prime objective”, what a complete waste.

  • anonymous

    “China is a communist dictatorship flexing its muscles. It’s successfully annexed 5 million Tibetans and taken over 7 million people in Hong Kong and the New Territories, and it continually threatens 28 million Taiwanese with war. It physically suppresses any internal criticism by its 1400 million citizens with imprisonment. Altogether the Chinese government oppresses almost a quarter of the world’s population.”

    I don’t want to apologize for China’s more brutal treatment of its own and neighboring citizens. But I think we have to be careful not to misinterpret these local moves as part of a larger plan for global domination on the part of China. At various points in time for the past hundreds, if not thousands, of years, Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have been part of “One China”. The reintegration of Taiwan does not equate with overthrowing decadent American imperialism or even domination of the Pacific Rim. I think we should be careful not to create enemies where they did not previously exist (as we have done in Iraq).

    “It is also a fact that China has significantly increased their military spending, 14% this year by Chinese accounts but likely double or triple that in reality. They are increasing ther submarine fleet capabilities, military aircraft, ground based missiles, etc.”

    Again, I think we should be careful about over-interpreting Chinese intentions. All militaries go through upgrade cycles and that 14% is off a very small base. Until China starts developing effective and substantial weapons for projecting power across continents (a much larger ICBM arsenal, working nuclear subs, intercontinental bombers, long-range aircraft carriers, etc.), I have a hard time claiming that China is serious about taking on the United States militarily.

    “The ASAT fits this role in that it can severely disrupt US C3 architectures. There have also been some discussions among US defense experts that China is pursuing EMP technologies as a means of disrupting both military and commercial space assets as a way of inducing instability within the US.”

    The key question is towards what end? In the absence of other capabilities, I have a hard time seeing how China could leverage such a capability offensively or avoid massive retaliation.

    Like most asymmetrical weapons, I think China’s pursuit of ASAT or EMP capabilities is defensive in nature, to counter a massive U.S. strategic advantage in the event that China’s small nuclear arsenal is rendered impotent by emerging missile defense systems. A workable verification regime would be critical, but for the foreseeable future, I think we’d be better off reassuring China’s strategic security through diplomacy than engaging in an expensive space arms race in which we have much more to lose than they do should such weapons ever get used.

    And economically, with massive problems of population, poverty, political change, and environment degredation to overcome, I’d guesstimate there’s as good a chance that China’s rising star will fall as continue to rise in the coming decades. It’s one very small data point, but my own experience in Beijing leaves me very unsettled about China’s long-term political and economic stability.

    My 2 cents… your mileage may vary.

  • anon2

    Anonymous,

    I agree you that China is most likely just trying (in the short term) to counter our huge strategic advantage for legitimate national security purposes … but on another point, in my opinion, you are engaging in wishful thinking.

    ANONYMOUS: And economically, with massive problems of population, poverty, political change, and environment degredation to overcome, I’d guesstimate there’s as good a chance that China’s rising star will fall as continue to rise in the coming decades.

    Although possible, there is also “a good chance” that there star will not fall, but keep on rising.

    I am quite sure that there were highly intelligent people in England and France who came up with reasons to worry about the rising star of the U.S. They were wrong.

    Yes, China has LOTS of problems and a long way to go, but there is good reason to believe that China’s economy can keep on growing until it exceeds the total U.S. GDP, and then goes far beyond that. Economic power creates military power.

    Which leads me to …

    GUESSWHO: They will probably never achieve parity, and I don’t see that as their goal, but they can use leap-ahead technologies that can neutralize large segments of the US arsenal if employed correctly.

    If China’s economy grows to much more than the size of the U.S. economy, I think it is almost a given that they will (someday) achieve military parity.

    Maybe the problem is that this is so long in the future that people don’t care. But if we don’t acknowledge the problem, there is no way we have a chance of dealing with it, and our grandchildren will reap the consequences.

    On this issue, I agree with Anonymous-Prime who stated The true “threat” from China is in economic dominance, which is fair game, as far as I’m concerned. The U.S. needs to … Recognize the actual game we’re in and start focusing resources on solving the problem. That means more investment in education, R&T and establishing dominance in nascent economic markets.

    – Anon2

  • ijustcanttellya

    I have done a little research, and there appears to be several House Democrats who publicly support “operationally responsive space”. In addition to Harman, there is Silvestre Reyes, and Solomon Ortiz (He joined Ken Calvert in sponsoring the “”Invest in Space Now Act” (HR 2177) in 2001 which is good enough for me to be counted as an ORS supporter.)

    But does anybody know of any Democratic Senators who have publicly supported ORS? (There are a handful of Republican Senators, but they are backbenchers now.)

    – Ijustcanttellya

  • al Fansome

    Anonymous-Prime and Anon2,

    I agree with you on the importance of first *recognizing* the real threat is a long-term economic threat, and “that means more investment in education, R&T and establishing dominance in nascent economic markets.”

    I would just add that one “nascent economic market” we really need to dominate is commercial reusable space transportation. That is a nascent economic market that is strategically critical to dominate.

    – Al

    PS — NASA could help with this national security objective by structuring its human exploration plans around a LEO propellant depot, which would create another customer for reusable RLVs.

  • ijustcanttellya

    Al,

    Good point on the LEO Propellant Depot, and the importance of expanding the markets for commercial space transportation services.

    FYI, Lockheed reported in 2003 that ONE of the barriers to acquiring large investments by private markets in VentureStar was the lack of proven markets.

    Check out:
    http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS1/SESSION7/MEADE/7001P.pdf

    In this paper, Lockheed executives concluded that “market risk” was “pivotal to the success” of the follow-on RLV. (They do acknowledge many other problems) Lockheed says “NASA’s contention that lowest possible prices would create significant market growth — basically a “build it and they will come” philosophy — was not a comfortable market forecast approach for investment bankers.”

    If NASA wants to help, a LEO Propellant Depot architecture makes sense.

    – Ijustcanttellya

  • canttellya

    FYI, Lockheed reported in 2003 that ONE of the barriers to acquiring large investments by private markets in VentureStar was the lack of proven markets.

    Yeah, and the other one was the laws of physics…

  • anonymous

    “Anonymous,

    I agree you that China is most likely just trying (in the short term) to counter our huge strategic advantage for legitimate national security purposes … but on another point, in my opinion, you are engaging in wishful thinking.”

    Just to be clear, I only said that there was a “good chance” that China’s economy will experience a major setback. It’s a WAG, but I wouldn’t put the odds at more than 50/50 that a major disruption will emerge in the next, say, 40 years that upsets Chinese economic progress and probably less than that. But between China’s overpopulation, rampant and worsening rural poverty, long-suppressed political dissent, and huge air/water pollution, exhausted ecosystems, and related health issues, I think the probability of such a disruption is significant.

    “I am quite sure that there were highly intelligent people in England and France who came up with reasons to worry about the rising star of the U.S. They were wrong.”

    While your point is taken, I think it’s a poor analogy. With the exception of the Native American population, the United States was blessed with blank slates in terms of both physical frontiers and governmental and social institutions. With one of the most ancient cultures and longest-standing boundaries of any nation, China arguably has more baggage to deal with than any other country attempting to industrialize and modernize. China has demonstrated remarkable adaptability in some areas — in disposing of some communist market trappings, for example — but there are many, much more difficult, economic, social, and environmental problems that hold the potential to trip China up in the coming decades, certainly way baggage than the United States or any other New World nation had to deal with.

    China’s economy is riding on a wave of cheap labor. Even if no event external to the Chinese economy causes a disruption, a cheaper alternative to China’s labor (Africa, increasing automation, etc.) will eventually emerge in the global markets. Whether China can manage that transition as well as blank-slate nation like the United States has remains to be seen.

    BTW, there was a good article in Saturday’s Washington Post business section regarding China’s foreign currency reserves, the amount of U.S. T-bills they control, and what they plan to do with those reserves in the future (invest some in higher-return instruments such as stocks and bonds). If I’m reading the article right, at least from the perspective of these currency reserves, China’s economy would appear to be more reliant on ours than the other way around. Almost all of their reserve is in T-bills, but if they dumped those T-bills tomorrow, it would amount to only one day’s worth of T-bill trading on the global markets. It would appear that the U.S. could screw with China’s economy by restricting T-bill sales more easily that China could screw with the U.S. economy by dumping T-bills.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030900194.html

    Also, while I prefer diplomatic initiatives to a space arms race (especially non-reversible and debris-creating weapons) for the foreseeable future (if ever), I agree with the general sentiment here that responsive space (rapid launch, easily replenished satellites, in-space fueling/repair) is a good defensive investment that would pay dividends outside the national security sector and that NASA’s human space flight efforts could fit into that, were it a priority.

  • anonymous

    Interesting article on China’s space science plans:

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/12/content_5832530.htm

    China may appear to be more aggressive on the robotic side than on the human side of its civil space plans.

    FWIW…

  • Justin McCarthy

    Chinese intentions aside, China can buy R&D, engineering, science & weapon systems at maybe 30cents on the dollar vis a vis the U.S. Their economic development coupled with their technological development compounds overtime and will have a logrythmic result that will confront the U.S. with a formidible strategic challenge in very short order.

    The above coupled with a Confucian ethos (hierarchical) perspective toward individual liberty, the need to redress 500 years of humiliation and a burgeoning sense of national pride and mission among its middle class will create a potent challenge for the unfocused, over-indulgent and undisciplned west.

    Will we rise to the challenge? History will tell. I welcome the Chinese, especially in the arena of space. We are better when a little scared. The partnerships and “cooperation” of the previous administration were excuses for stasis. The worst thing that happened to the U.S. was the demise of the Soviet Union. Compete, grow or die.

Leave a Reply to Anon2 Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>