In an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review, I report on a recent event where experts discussed the reasons why China conducted its ASAT test, or, more accurately, why we don’t know why China carried out the January 11th test. There are a couple of schools of thought behind the confused Chinese response when word of the test became public: either the Foreign Ministry wasn’t aware of the test itself, or didn’t anticipate the strong negative reaction and needed time to figure out a response. However, a lack of transparency into the Chinese decision-making process means that, nearly four months later, we don’t understand why China carried out the test in the first place. And as Dean Cheng put it at an event last week, “For a nuclear superpower, for a nation that we do negotiate with, and have ties to, both economic and strategic, that should be very, very worrisome.”
I’ll try to answer this challenge “we don’t understand why China carried out the test in the first place”
They did it because they want to demonstrate a deployable military system to destroy a satellite at a useful orbit in a very short time. They want a system that can be decisive in time of war as it’s a system that attacks American systems that have given decisive advantages over the last few American wars.
The Chinese have developed a MOBILE launcher system. If they merely wanted to show they have mastered the technology they would have strapped the missile on some existing fixed launcher. But no, they took the time and expense to go mobile to show they have a militarily useful system right now.
So the Chinese have shown a military capability to attack and destroy a vital American military system. Whats’ there to question?
This is a conventional counterforce effort. And probably not a little impressive from a technological standpoint. I dont think that it is caused for enormous concern.
Robert
Jeff, as you know, your boss and I were at an interesting meeting on this subject a couple of weeks ago. While the remarks made there were not for attribution it can at least be said that a version of Chinese and Russian thoughts, as well as those from the U.S. were represented and were represented in interesting ways.
There are two streams of thoughts on the test, roughly corresponding to the first two posters in this thread. I tend to go closer to the first poster as at worst case, this proof of principle provides to both the civilian and military leadership of China an expanded set of options for any operation that they may have in regard to Taiwan in the future. The question that many will have, especially if we retreat from Iraq, is “Will the U.S. sacrifice a fleet carrier and satellite assets to come to the aid of Taiwan”. This is a legitimate question to ask.
The biggest weakness that this exposes is in the U.S. industrial base’s capability to recover from such a strike, should it occur by anyone. The industrial base is simply not organized in such a way as to minimize the negative effect of such a strike. It is not like WWII where within 24 months we had not only replaced but outpaced the losses in high value military assets. A complete reorganization of our industrial base is necessary, and at this time it is not happening, things are proceeding business as usual.
Dennis Wingo wrote @ May 8th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Dennis.
I would agree completly on the industrial base. There are a variaty of factors that are pushing acquisition and replacement cycles into periods to long to nourish sustained high asset loss combat. A variety of efforts (including some I think or recall that you have been a part of) are attempting to redress that…but doing so will in the end require a major change in DoD oplicy
As for your carrier/sat point.
The PRC is unique in our world right now in its relationship with the US. We have achieved with them a sort of (at least temprorary) MAD like standoff with our two ecnoomies forming a sort of force/counterforce doctrine in terms of any massive type of diplomacy by other means.
Right now economic forces would preclude any serious “batting” between the two countries, including I believe a fight over Taiwan. They may want the island, they perceive that we would be unwilling to see our economy go into a tailspin for it; and we percieve that they would be unwilling to see their ecnoomy go into a tailspin for it…so we are both reduced to some sabre rattling in terms of “that event”.
This may be temporary (10-30 years) but it is certianly current. It is hard for me to see how FedEx and UPS planes would fly back and forth between teh US and Americans would buy Walmart products while a Carrier battle group and elements of the PLA are engaged in a teeth and tail fight over Formosa.
Losing a CV or CVN would I believe be a singular event in this country that would dramatically affect the “retreat” options by politicians of both sides (ours and theirs).
On the other hand there are assets down the scale that we might have negated or negate where both sides would repond with “less”. This administration which is arguably the most hawkish in sometime…never gave any thought to military action when the EP-3 was essentially shot down. They still have the equipment from it.
There probably is a level of “Pain” that both sides would stomach and still go forward with economic co prosperity but which could drastically affect the others efforts on an international scale.
This is particularly interesting since this administration with its doctrtine of “preventive war” has more or less lowered the internaitional level that another nation can find itself “threatened” and respond quite aggressivly.
The ASAT test for low earth orbit objects can be viewed really in one way. “We can take out your KH’s and Lacrosse…how much do you love them”. Probably not enough to bring our economy into ruin.
Engaging geosynch targets might be noly a matter of physics as a USAF general recently said, but it is also a matter of politics. They know that if we felt our geo assets threatened we would read that in quite another way.
Nice comments on your part.
Robert
Dennis,
I believe I heard account of same meeting.
1) It is not in the interest of this superpower to allow the world to realize how vulnerable carrier battle groups are in this day and age.
2) China is wise to use mobile launchers.
3) There is now a single unconfirmed report of a Chinese responsive space effort.
What worries me is that the space bureaucracies (jobs programs) now exert controlling political influence on military and civil space. If the worst happens, congress may not overcome its own internal demons enough to field a credible response to China in a time frame where it matters.
“this proof of principle provides to both the civilian and military leadership of China an expanded set of options for any operation that they may have in regard to Taiwan in the future. The question that many will have, especially if we retreat from Iraq, is “Will the U.S. sacrifice a fleet carrier and satellite assets to come to the aid of Taiwanâ€.”
FWIW, I don’t see much logic for China to employ ASATs as part of an conventional offensive against Taiwan or any other target. To involve U.S. strategic assets would needlessly escalate the conflict to a level that China could not hope to win. As others have pointed out, China has better (if not great) tools, mainly economic, with which to threaten and hold the U.S. at bay.
I think China’s ASAT is primarily a defensive capability, aimed at offsetting our massive strategic and missile defense advantages, and has little to do with any of China’s regional aspirations. The one exception might be the recent emergence of Japanese reconnaissance satellites.
My 2 cents.
Kevin Parkin wrote @ May 8th, 2007 at 10:35 am
“1) It is not in the interest of this superpower to allow the world to realize how vulnerable carrier battle groups are in this day and age.”
Not so much.
IF CVBG’s are vunerable then it would not be “us” that says they are or not. It would be on OPFOR that would be demonstrating the tactics and weapons that would make them vunerable.
And if that were demonstrated the CVBG’s would loose their strategic and tactical value immediatly. It would be obvious.
If the USN really thought that the Iranians had demonstrated that a CVBG is vunerable, we would not sail the flattops where we sail the flattops in the mideast. Same with the Chinese.
There are a zillion demonstrations of this in history. By Dec of 41 almost “everyone” in uniform with stars on their shoulders West of SFran thought the “US FLEET” (the battleships) were vunerable and had limited strategic value. That is precisly why they were inside “safe” Pearl Harbor on 7 December.
I am sure the CVBG’s are engagable…vunerable in a strategic sense…that is far from being demonstrated by anyone. The new Hawkeye is directed at those vunerabilities.
Robert
As we all know, Chinese military hardware gets sold and I do expect that once they’ve optimized their asat system, they might just mention to the US that if we sell weapons they don’t like to Taiwan(anything remotely military) or Japan(F-22), they’ll begin a marketing campaign to sell the worlds only proven mobile ASAT system. Might even show it off at AirShow China something in 2008.
Of course they might not bother with the threat and simply sell it.
We in the US should recognize that the Chinese won’t stop demonstrating their technical and military capabilities. What’s next, an ABM demonstration? Non kinematic weapons as the US is slowly fielding? Naval/Air show of force off Japan, Philippines, Guam?
I read recently that Chinese missile testing is similar to what the US & Russia did during the 60’s prior to our own vast expansion of missile capabilities. We all have read about the Chinese economic miracle, we’ve seen it all over the world. Now the Chinese are preparing the world for a substantial expansion of Chinese political and military influence.
Foreign Affairs has an interesting take on the Chinese ASAT launch. Summarizing, it was the PLA flexing its muscles. Clearly, the PLA was not “off the reservation” but still did not tell the Foreign Ministry that it was about to launch an ASAT. The President, Hu Jintao who sits on the military committee as its head, knew about the test, but also failed to tell his own foreign minister. And that the Chinese could not get their story straight, just as they had trouble doing after the E-3 aircraft was forced down, points to a lack of coordination between branches of the Chinese gov’t and the PLA.
What this means for us is that one hand may choose to act without consulting the other. And that opens the door to miscalculation. If this were to happen concerning Taiwan, over which the PLA get very exercised even though China hasn’t controlled Taiwan for more than 55 years in the last 157 years.
This makes it much more likely that the F-22 will be a part of the Japenese F-X contest, as the Japanese have requested. That might piss the Chinese off. The Chinese have implied recently that they do not want Japan to have that sort of technology. So what. Japan is the first bastion in containing China and her “peaceful” ambitions.
I honestly worry sometimes that the Chinese are not as rational as the Russians, even under Stalin, were during the Cold War. This ASAT test does not encourage me.
HILLHOUSE: What this means for us is that one hand may choose to act without consulting the other. And that opens the door to miscalculation.
Actually, the head (the President) knows what both hands are doing, and the right hand (national security) knows what their foreign ministry (left hand) is doing. It is just that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The odd thing is that the head allows this to happen.
Obviously, the head (the President) would prevent a gross miscalculation. But, why would they do this?
I believe they want to keep us guessing. To place doubt & uncertainty into the minds of the opposition. In the face of uncertainty about Chinese intentions, we will be much more cautious.
HILLHOUSE: I honestly worry sometimes that the Chinese are not as rational as the Russians, even under Stalin, were during the Cold War. This ASAT test does not encourage me.
I suggest they are acting completely rationally, and are intentionally NON-transparent. The fact that many of us are guessing about their intentions is a good thing in their mind.
I discussed at length my analysis of their thinking at:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/01/23/china-fesses-up/
Where I summarized:
If the U.S. is really worried about asymmetric attacks from China, then the U.S. will be much more careful about taking aggressive action against China.
Any war with China, that is contemplated by the U.S., now will be projected to be much more messy, with huge numbers of potential casualties (this will not be a war of watching videos of smart bombs), and the outcome will be much more doubtful.
China wants us to have this doubt.
As Sun Tzu writes “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fightingâ€.
– Anon
Why hasn’t anyone considered the possibility the test was part of *normal technology development*, no more, no less? China wanted this ability, just as the Soviet developed it in the 60’s, the USA followed in the 80’s. China would use its latest skills to develop the best possible version of this weapon (mobile launcher, direct ascent). There is no “message” to anyone, no more than buying F-22’s stirs a world-wide commotion.
It’s a weapon. It’s useful. We can build it. WHAT ELSE do you want to know?