Comments on: Assessing the Chinese space threat http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/05/assessing-the-chinese-space-threat/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=assessing-the-chinese-space-threat Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Space Politics » Feeney: target #1 in Florida http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/05/assessing-the-chinese-space-threat/#comment-45911 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:40:24 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/05/assessing-the-chinese-space-threat/#comment-45911 […] article notes. However, claims that China was developing “parasitic microsatellites” were debunked a few years ago after people traced the source of the intelligence to a source with little credibility. (Perhaps […]

]]> By: realist http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/05/assessing-the-chinese-space-threat/#comment-40488 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:54:24 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/05/assessing-the-chinese-space-threat/#comment-40488 I’m sure that the PLA keeps their most advanced military-related technological development activity behind firmly closed doors. And well-meaning civilian analysts here in the U.S. can probably only scratch at the surface of those doors. So one has to be careful not to jump to the conclusion that China isn’t working on more sophisticated space weapons. However, mulitlateral efforts to reduce the further weaponization of space are certainly worthwhile, in my mind, if only for the savings in scarce engineering and financial resources that results from it. Cooperation in the civilian arena also seems like a worthwhile endeavor, as long as technology transfers are strictly limited.

]]> By: Kevin Parkin http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/05/assessing-the-chinese-space-threat/#comment-40402 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:17:16 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/05/assessing-the-chinese-space-threat/#comment-40402 And the nuclear powered airplane is an excellent case in point: The Americans do it because the Russians might, the Americans cancel the program, the Russians are reported to build such an aircraft it in AW&ST and the program is revived at high priority, but the story is later debunked. Then, 30 years later (in the 1990s), we find out the Russians actually did bulid and operate a nuclear powered aircraft all along, and they did so because they thought the Americans would.

To get an opponent to occupy their science and engineering base in producing a strategically obsolete solution I would call a success if they spend more than we do (unclear in the example above).

]]> By: Charles in Houston http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/05/assessing-the-chinese-space-threat/#comment-40356 Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:14:43 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/05/assessing-the-chinese-space-threat/#comment-40356 It is always handy to have a bogeyman to help justify spending, and perhaps this is an example. The military has a long history of overheated claims about adversaries – sometimes it creates doubt rather than justifying programs.

In the space exploration area – hopefully we will spend more effort on cooperation than competition – for all of it’s failings it has helped establish some working relationships.

Charles

]]>