Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » China destroys orbiting satelite (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: China destroys orbiting satelite
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

I guess we're about to embark on a Space-based arms race now, and China "fired the first shot."

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
at their own satalleit as a test hardly the "first shot".

The CNN article is full of double standards by their definition no country is allowed to possess any capabilities able to challenge them, this is bull **** it, its part of the Pre-Emptive strike policy/doctrine came up during the bush administration and it is doomed to bring nothing but heart ache, head aches, broken land scapes and tens of thousands of dead.

Its their own weather satalleit and one would think a country is allowed to dispose of their own junk, if the means to do so just happen to have military applications in a possible future conclift so what? Russia, Pakistan, India, China, France, England and a number of former Soviet republics all possess nuclear weapons and the means for them to reach continental USA should the USA begin unilaterally destroy every "potential" adversaries ability to launch missiles? Its ludicrus.

China and every other responsible nation in the world have every soverign right to develop military capabilities designed to protect their nation from harm the article QUOTES that the US's biggest concern is that in a "future war the first thing China will use this for is to knock out our spy satalleits..." The US even awknoledges that this capability is for the defence of the motherland and has no offencive capability.

The reason why America complains if because they know that they are being caught up on, I doubt they would complain if this was easily countered.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or it could, ya know, be because once we start something we typically don't go back. Think arms races. Once we begin building weapons meant to hit satelites, we'll start making weapons to defend satelites, and than the satelites will have bombs on them and than we've just escalated from defensive to offensive.

Not that this is a bad thing. One sure way to get us off this hideous little planet would be to have our military advance it. Than it will eventually be a public thing [Smile]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly...and as a big fan of Ender's game and other sf, I'd like to see space weapons...

But really, what can the U.S. do?
Look, as nice as it may be, ignoring it is not an option. Fine, discredit the pre-emptive strike philosophy, but what happens if China starts shooting down U.S. satellites (very unlikely now, but who knows?) Do you realize how much we and the world depend on satellites now? TV, some phones, and awesome stuff like Google Earth. Not to mention the space program that we self-centered Americans are ignoring...
And furthermore, our intelligence gathering capabilites as well as military would be severely handicapped by the loss of satellites.
Obviously we shouldn't attack China. But doing nothing is a recipe for them becoming the pre-eminent power in the world, able to push us and anyone else around.
I like to see my country win. And Blayne, even though you're not American, you should like to see us win more than the Chinese. (They're not nearly as nice).

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please don't get him started, martel.

I'll sum it up so we don't get into a fight.

"China isn't very good right now, but they are getting better."


I don't really understand why the Chinese would do that, though...

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually for the sake of realpolitik I prefer China to "win" a defencive war with the US, there Tmust always be a balance of power, always.

The thing is though is that there is an awesome essay that goes into the Chinese long term strategy and compares it rather easily to previous Chinese Dynasties, I'm fairly sure its the Ming I'ld have to check but the Chinese strategy is long term, peaceful and mutually benefitial to all involved, they are not the USSR.

link http://www.sinodefence.com/research/default.asp

Also knocking out a satalleit belonging to another ocuntry is testimount to an act of war, the Chinese know this there are perfectly capable of blinding spy satalleits somewhat currently passing over China as it is, knocking out satalleits is more of a wartime thing meant to permanantly disable an enemys capability to retrieve information and to disrupt the USA's ability to use GPS guided weaponry.

They would never attack first, Tom Clancy is an idiot who did no research. China likes the status quo they like not having missiles and bombs flying around they like the peaceful reintegration of Taiwan and they like setting up free trade zones in east asia which massively favor them AND add benefits to the other asian nations.

Read my above link and youll understand better why the idea of an aggressive China is ridiculas in the extreme.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But as a threat?

"We can screw your military if we want to," and meanwhile they've got a 10 million man army that likes but doesn't need the technology we would die without.

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
moodi
Member
Member # 3020

 - posted      Profile for moodi   Email moodi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not trying to be the smart one around here, but I was thinking (long before the Chinese experiment) about the possibility of someone destroying satellites to blind the enemy.

A good response to that would be to load those satellites with radioactive materials. Once it is rammed, it drops a nice birthday present on the shooter.

But then China can wait till the satellite is over Japan and then hit two birds with one missle.

[ January 19, 2007, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: moodi ]

Posts: 134 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 3319

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Certainly China is allowed to develop this capability. The US has had it for the last 19 years or so. And you can bet that in those 19 years we've been working up a way to counter it.

I'm not really worried. The prospect of war with China is slim, and will be so far in the future that who can and can't shoot down satellites with kinetic force won't even be an issue anymore. Besides, if we really were going to attack China first, the first thing we'd do is find out where they keep those missiles, or the facilities that blind our satellites and we'd have Nighthawks and Spirits in there with the first wave to knock them out. To say nothing of the blanket of UAVs we'd cover China with.

I'm not worried. We had to know that this would happen eventually, and the ravenous need to be number one from the US military has me fairly comfortable in the knowledge that we have a way to counteract this either already in use, or near production. R&D in the US Military is nothing if not productive.

Posts: 729 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Chinese with the exception of their older hardened bunker ICBMs keep they're Strategic Rocket Forces mobile, they'res no "set" location for Anti Sat weaps and "finding out" where they are is something I could bet 1000$ that the US would NEVER be able to find. I could name at least 2-3 sources that China is listed as a "hard" target in espianauge terminology meaning that A) the US has virtually no spying operations currently in China, B) that the Chinese language makes the infiltration of agents difficult, C) that it has been extremely difficult to recreuit double agents from within the Chinese power structure. D) etc.

Also remember China is not a 3rd world power, they have theyre own UAV's, AWAACs, AEGIS cruisers, and stealth ships. They're newest generation of ICBMs courtesy of Clinton are MIRV capable, can I believe make minor course adjustments in mid flight and reach the continental USA to put nuclear waste within a satalleit is equivilent to using a nuclear weapons do you really want the US to be the first country to resort to nuclear weapons again? Also its rather stupid, what happens if the rocket laucnhing it goes boom on take off can you imagine the mess?

Martel, China has a 2.1 million man army with about 1 million paramilitary they have been making theyre army smaller more modern and making able to fight a high tech war under local conditions even going so far as to hire civilian hackers to operate with the military on a reserve basis.

China has millions of engineers and top notch scientists graduating each year theyre education system while free for everyone ends when you leave high school then it becomes very competitive in the college/university level with around 6,000,000 students applying for college annually do not doubt that China has they're own best and the brightest to which to catch up to the US, sure America might come up with a way to counter theyre sats being shot down during wartime but then by the time you utilize it and make it wide spread China would have been able to copy it and adapt to it at a fraction of the cost.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Moodi: sounds like a fun(but not necessarily humane) idea: but I don't think that would work, for two reasons. 1: Satellites are in outer space. The radioactive material could very easily go into orbit (I don't know enough of the physics, but that's what it seems would happen). Failing that, there's absolutely no guarantee it would fall on China. Because (try to bear with me): China shoots their missile essentially straight up, timed perfectly to hit the American satellite. It does. Now even if the radioactive material falls down, the Earth has been turning. So when it finally falls (oh, and it would probably burn up in the atmosphere) it will hit somewhere in Europe or something, if it doesn't get completely blown off course by wind and end up in, gee, California.

Interesting point I saw on the NY Times article about this: The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. already did successful tests on shooting down a satellite in the '80s. SO China doesn't have anything earth-shattering, they're just trying to get back into the game.
Hm.

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
moodi
Member
Member # 3020

 - posted      Profile for moodi   Email moodi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was just trying to be funny about the whole ordeal. Actually satellites have the capability of adjusting their orbit using solar power. Moreover, the satellite that was shot was also orbiting in the lower atmosphere (not exactly in outer space) so maybe we can do something with both factors (the altitude of the satellite and its mobility) to avoid the Chinese threat. But we really don't want to arm space objects like many of you guys have already pointed out.

My main concern is about the missile defense system MDS that we have in place (not sure if it's 100% operational). If our satellites are shut down, would our MDS be doomed? Do we only use radars to pinpoint incoming missiles? I just hope all the money we (The Bush administration) spent on that doesn't go to waste.

Posts: 134 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by moodi:
My main concern is about the missile defense system MDS that we have in place (not sure if it's 100% operational). If our satellites are shut down, would our MDS be doomed? Do we only use radars to pinpoint incoming missiles? I just hope all the money we (The Bush administration) spent on that doesn't go to waste.

It would potentially shorten the amount of warning time we have to respond to an ICBM launch, assuming they knocked out the stuff that we use to detect launches.

We would still pick up tracking of them long before they were flying over the USA courtesy of ground based RADAR facilities, some of which have extremely long ranges.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm not worried. We had to know that this would happen eventually, and the ravenous need to be number one from the US military has me fairly comfortable in the knowledge that we have a way to counteract this either already in use, or near production. R&D in the US Military is nothing if not productive.

Thing is, Satelites are very expensive, and cost a lot of time and manpower to assemble. There is also the "technology curve" that factors in. You don't exactly want to keep a "set of spares" lying around in case 4 of your satelites get knocked out of commision in the span of a week.

It is hardware you just just dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into that will quite likely be obsolete long before the need to use them arises(asusming the satelites in use fail to more natural causes).

So the "safest game" to play in this respect is to make sure the satelite doesn't get taken out of commision in the first place.

From stuff I've read in previous newspaper articles, I am given to understand the US Military satelites(and presumeably the Inteligence ones as well) have some kind of means to avoid/counter some of the more basic kinds of attacks that they could imagine(I imagine the satelites are more mobile than advertised, as that would be the simplest counter to implement). Thing is, they're not tested, as we would actually have to develop and use weapons with that kind of general capability to properly test them.

However, the best way to make sure a satelite doesn't get attacked is make sure there is something up there that is able to prevent the attacker from approaching its target in the first place. Which means putting weapon systems into orbit.

[ January 19, 2007, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
moodi
Member
Member # 3020

 - posted      Profile for moodi   Email moodi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

the best way to make sure a satelite doesn't get attacked is make sure there is something up there that is able to prevent the attacker from approaching its target in the first place. Which means putting weapon systems into orbit.


TheDeamon,

Can you put a "laser" system on the satellite to heat and blow up incoming missiles? The satellite can definitely detect incoming missiles on its own (since they were all made for detection). "The laser" beam can heat the tip of the missile and cause it to blow.

If "laser" beams can be used to destroy Katusha rockets in mid air, I am sure they can do the same thing to the more gigantic Chinese missiles.

This way we can safely say that we aren't the first ones to introduce weapons into space.

Posts: 134 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One problem with such tests is that they create clouds of debris which can damage other satellites.

Satellites belonging to other countries or even corporations could possibly be damaged by the "leftovers" from the target vehicle. I'm sure we'd all hate to lose TV broadcasts, phone calls, or credit card transtactions because of China's military buildup.

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe that was one of the reasons for the U.S. moratorium on such tests after those two tests back in the 1980's. I read somewhere that it took over 17 years for the last trackable debris from those tests to deorbit and they were at a considerably lower orbit.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If "laser" beams can be used to destroy Katusha rockets in mid air, I am sure they can do the same thing to the more gigantic Chinese missiles."

Question: Has any nation/defense contrator demonstrated this capability? I really don't know.

I've heard somewhere that "Phalanx-type" weapons--those with rapid-fire Gatling guns at various calibers might have the potential to interdict battlefield rockets.

I can conceive of lasers possibly defeating single rockets/missiles, but I have trouble believing laser technology has reached the point at which it can engage multiple targets essentailly simultaneously. After all, Katyushas, MRLs (multiple rocket launchers, or the US/NATO MLRS are designed to fire nummerous rockets in a relatively short amount of time--sometimes as many as 40 rockets.

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
China is currently getting how much of their oil from Iran?
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
not much in comparison. China gets mopst of their oil from former soviet republics, veneuzela, canada, etc etc China diversifies its oil imports. As to which extent they dependant on any single source I lack sources to say to what extent.

AFAIK its oil imports from the middle east arent that big theyre are alot fo contracts being negotiated yes to the rights to develope virgin oil fields (as was the case with for a post saddam iraq until the US invaded it) and is currently the case with Iran. but AFAIK I lack the sources to verify their imports.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
moodi
Member
Member # 3020

 - posted      Profile for moodi   Email moodi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The laser technology is being developed right now to be used on commercial jets to combat the possibility of terrorist attacks from the ground.

In the Katusha case, the technology is not there yet but some private companies are making progress in that field.

Note that the laser system that is being developed for commercial jets should be capable of engaging many threats at the same time.

Posts: 134 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by moodi:
TheDeamon,

Can you put a "laser" system on the satellite to heat and blow up incoming missiles? The satellite can definitely detect incoming missiles on its own (since they were all made for detection). "The laser" beam can heat the tip of the missile and cause it to blow.

If "laser" beams can be used to destroy Katusha rockets in mid air, I am sure they can do the same thing to the more gigantic Chinese missiles.

This way we can safely say that we aren't the first ones to introduce weapons into space.

The Navy has been doing considerable R&D into progressing technology for certain things to the point that they minimize the amount of material, and space, they have to dedicate to them.

IE, they like the idea of a rail gun because they just need to store/transport the projectile, which can be inert. Which eliminates the need for the explosives currently required to fire off a 5" gun, which due to their explosive nature, have special handling/storage needs.

Likewise they'd like to move away from the gatling gun present in the Close In Weapons System(CIWS) that is in use today, and create a varient that uses Lasers instead.

The problem that they have been running into there is rate of fire, and power density considerations. (Which isn't to mention size/weight)

The technology, at least as of 3 years ago when I last read up on it, just wasn't there yet. They could create lasers with the theoretical ability to perform the role, but they were very big, and consumed so much energy that they were impractical for any shipboard application for any ship that exists in reality, or on the drawing board. I imagine satelites would run into the same general problem, those solar panels may have access to a lot of solar radiation, but the power requirements to operate such a satelite based laser would be immense, and would likewise likely suffer from a low rate of fire. (Which isn't to mention how much of the satelite would actualy consist of being the satelite instead of the laser that is there to "protect it")

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hey if we can make stealth bomber jets shouldn't we be able to do the same with satellites? Meaning make it radar-invisible or at least not very noticable, make it non-reflective, and put it in high and/or non-equatorial orbits so they are harder to find?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the thing is in space theres alot of eitty bitty particles that because of grvity and the vacuum are excellerated to pretty high speeds meaning that there is a slight chance that a particle the size of your pinky nail can get it and make a 3 inch hole. Basically our current meothds for making non reflective satalliets would not be particularily space worthy for very long.

Next the US military is dependant on GPS, meaning that because theyre used for civilian usages (and by the PLA for their own Laser guided bombs (and they use the Russian version sometimes) ) meaning that because GPS is also civilian/corporate signals will sitll bounce to it and away from it so unless your sending up a satalleit that sends and recieves absolutely nothing its not particularily useful for its intended purpose then?

Also theyres the issue of power aside form trying to give it a fission core (which can fall our of orbit and land somewhere unpleasant say somewhere in Iran giving them enough material for 2-3 bombs) you'll still need it to be able to collect solar enegery. Either you can beam energy via microwaves or have it collect solar energy both require large and not particularily efficient solar panels which even if you paint them pitch black and try to make them our of materials even less efficient for energy gathering your not going to achieve anywhere the same results for stealthing them.

And while the US is trying to futilely figure out defence systems for low orbit objects the Chinese keep perfecting and by that time widely apply the new capability beyond any reasonable ability to counter them.

Star Wars was a futile attempt that didnt even work at making a ABM defence net, Star Wars too is just as futile due to the impracticalities of the various laser technologies being implemented and frankly an over whelming responce in figuring out new defencew systems and spending billions of dollars outfitting our orbiting objects with new defencive capabilities is frankly out of the USA's current abilities.

An Arms race is actually possibly could presumably benefit China more as the USA's financial military reosurces are far more strained now then China's is, the US is bogged down in 2 countries while China however is secure. Any escalation of the issue is not in the USA's best interest since your now ever so closer to a position not too disimilar to the position of the Soviet Union.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Times of India has an interesting beginning to its account of the Chinese confirmation of this missile test:
quote:
BEIJING: China had finally admitted that it had shot down a satellite as part of a scientific "experiment". However, the authorities claim China had actually informed certain counties, including US and Japan, about the "experiment" of knocking out an aging Chinese satellite using a ground-to-air missile.
At first glance, it would seem someone is lying here, as the protests by U.S. leaders have included no admission they were informed beforehand. But what is more likely is that the Chinese military made a routine report to the national government that they planned to destroy an old satellite in space, and the report raised no red flags. But it did get passed on among other information to representatives of various embassies in further routine briefings, and raised no red flags among them either. As it was presented, it certainly did not look like Chinese preparations for World War III; and nobody hearing the news had the technical education to realize that the debris from the explosion would threaten satellites of many other nations. Most likely the Chinese military did not know that either; they only worried the test might be seen as a military provocation.

The important point is that China uses satellites also, and that debris is as much a threat to them as to anyone else. Moreover the Chinese have been generally obliging on such issues in the past, so they are unlikely to continue a practice which annoys all their trading partners. The Soviet Union used to be exasperating to negotiate with because its representatives would go out of their way to be unreasonable to gain a reputation for toughness which would help their careers domestically; but so far as I know, the Chinese power structure does not work that way. Rather than knock out their own satellites and injure their neighbors, the sensible thing to do is to stop; and I shall go out on a limb to predict that will happen.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doesn't the Chinese government do something like this every once in awhile, though?

Remember (was it 2001?) when they captured a US spy plane and held it and the pilots for a couple days.

Perhaps they are subtly asking us to back off a little.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
well considering it was a spy plane and considering what the USSR and the USA used to do to spies during the Cold war ild think simply holding the crew prisoners and pouring over the wrechage in the meantime as supposedly subdued.
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
well considering it was a spy plane and considering what the USSR and the USA used to do to spies during the Cold war ild think simply holding the crew prisoners and pouring over the wrechage in the meantime as supposedly subdued.

That was a Maritime Surveilance aircraft, different mission than a Spy place. Granted, they have a lot of equipment in common, as the means of performing their roles is effectively the same. However, their functional role is different.
Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As it was presented, it certainly did not look like Chinese preparations for World War III; and nobody hearing the news had the technical education to realize that the debris from the explosion would threaten satellites of many other nations. Most likely the Chinese military did not know that either; they only worried the test might be seen as a military provocation.

The important point is that China uses satellites also, and that debris is as much a threat to them as to anyone else. Moreover the Chinese have been generally obliging on such issues in the past, so they are unlikely to continue a practice which annoys all their trading partners."

Was China preparing for WWIII? Not directly, but antisatellite weapons might be employed in such a conflict.

And although China uses satellites for certain applications, they are not remotely as dependent of satellites as the US and other western countries. Their military is not stupid. They know and knew that their test might endanger other satellites. They chose to proceed. Fortunately, no ill-affects have been noted and hopefully none will occur.

While the Chinese did not kill the crew of the P3 Orion several years ago, their stupidity and provocations brought the plane down and almost killed the crew. There was no doubt that their interception of the plane occurred over international waters. My thought is they were angry over our bombing of their Embassy in Belgrade.

And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch over that, I will tell you that the US certainly DID bomb the Chines Embassy. I'm ashamed to admit that the bombing was truly an accident, but I'll bet many of you can cite hundreds of reports that indicate it was a deliberate attack.

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given the long history of similar procations (do you know what "tophatting" is?) by the USA...

One wonders at the protrayal of the accidental collision as a provocation...

While the flight of spy planes off their coasts is not seen as relevant to the issue.

If Chinese planes spyed on us like that, I suspect we would "tophat" and otherwise harass them at best.

[ January 23, 2007, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
One wonders at the protrayal of the accidental collision as a provocation...

While the flight of spy planes off their coasts is not seen as relevant to the issue.

Based on stories I've heard from people I've worked with while in the Navy. "Reckless driving" of Chinese military assets in/into the vicinty of American military assets is far more common than people are made aware of. It isn't just their airforce pilots who do it, and it isn't restricted to "unwanted visitors getting too close to the motherland."

quote:
If Chinese planes spyed on us like that, I suspect we would "tophat" and otherwise harass them at best.
You do know that Russian Spy Planes do routinely fly over/through American Airspace on a fairly regular basis?
Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given the long history of similar procations (do you know what "tophatting" is?) by the USA...

"One wonders at the protrayal of the accidental collision as a provocation...

While the flight of spy planes off their coasts is not seen as relevant to the issue.

If Chinese planes spyed on us like that, I suspect we would "tophat" and otherwise harass them at best."

Lefty:

Just so I can better gauge where you might be "coming from," could you list five types of intelligence gathering operations undertaken by the USA that you find acceptable?

Do you see the USA as a force for good or evil in the world?

What country(ies) other than the USA do you perceive as doing more good than evil?

If the term "evil" is too strong, substitute "harm."

I enjoyed reading your post. Welcome to Ornery.

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Big C, I might be tempted to answer your unrelated qustions...

But ask you, if another nation treated us as we treat China, would you consider it a good thing?

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The D, did you read your link?

1) Certified and agreed observation for purpose of arms control is not "spying."
2) a few times a year is not "all the time"
3) I dont see where it says the Russians do this, that is how many times.

Back in the day, they used to run recon flights down our coast occasionaly, a small percentage of the flights we ran around (and illegally inside) their airspace.

One of the things our pilots who intercepted them (in international airspace) liked to do was "tophat"

This involved overtaking the aircraft, usually a Bear-D prop driven aircraft, from below and behind.

As close as possible our fighter would pull up, rocking the Russian aircraft with turbulance.

Great fun. Illegal as hell.

In the case of the collision, the Chinese pilot tried something like this and flubbed it. He is dead.

The Bush admin, looking to stir up trouble, tried to use it as an incident to increase world tension.

Remember, they were looking for enemies. A blast from the past, looking for justification for militarism and parnoia.

Course, found that didn't they?

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In short answer, BigC, I think the US creates both good and evil in this world-

But I think that it's current status as an Empire is harmful, both to the world and to our own short and long term interests.

Our record since the end of the second world war has been, at best, problematic.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But ask you, if another nation treated us as we treat China, would you consider it a good thing? "

Lefty, in terms of quid pro quo, I grant that I asked you questions without supplying my own stands on issues. One could make the case that I was offering you a unguided tour through a minefield. So, I guess I have to admit your circumspect response was both fair and prudent.

In an effort to show good faith, I'll attempt to answer:

If I were Chinese, and I believed the US deliberately attacked my Embassy in Serbia. I'd be pissed off. If I were Chinese and knew the US can pretty much hit whatever it wants in the world at will--with bombs or just about anything else--I might realize the US was telling the truth about their effing up bombing my Embassy--after all it's an act of war. The US allows the Chinese pretty much unfettered access to its markets (which the Chinese don't reciprocate), the US tolerates Chines monetary policies which exacerbates the imbalance in trade between both countries, the US allows Chinese nationals virtually free access to its educational systems and territory (another unreciprocated privilege), and the US (under the Clinton administration) provided the Chinese with the technological wherewithal to develop multiple-independently targeted-reentry vehicles (MIRVs) for their missile forces and the space tracking technologies needed to achieve the satellite intercept we're talking about.

So Lefty, if I were a Chinese counterpart to you--would my name be "Lighty," sorry.. I meant "Righty," might it be fair to ask my question: "Just so I can better gauge where you might be "coming from," could you list five types of intelligence gathering operations undertaken by the USA that you find acceptable? "

So Lefty, now that I've been so forthcoming...
Let me ask you how you feel being an American:

Do you feel like a German might have felt after Kritallnacht? Do you feel like a Chinese might have felt after the 1989 Tienamen Square festivities? Do you feel like a Franciscan might have felt after Jesuit depredations during Torquemada's Inquisition? Do you feel like Maxim Gorki upon learning of Stalin's "extreme measures," do you feel like a Frenchman after the Vichy government turned Jewish children over to the Gestapo, or do you feel like Jimmy Carter after the Soviet's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan when he got his first inkling that they didn't believe in his God?

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You did not answer the question.

If a nation treated us like we treated China (and has the history with them we do. Gunboats, extraterritoriality, exloitation, support of dictators-mixed with belated support against the Chinese, followed by constant spying, military threats, etc) would you think that spy plane flights off the coast of California are a good thing?

I have no intention of researching five different spy operations to vette as good for you. If you have specific ones, please ask.

I do say that all our subversions of foreign countries internal affairs (say, putting the shah on the throne of Iran...and the attempted Coup in Venuezuella for two) are wrong.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that I have an inkling what a non-Nazi German felt as his country slid into tyranny, yes actually.

As to your others, the thing about Carter is hillarious-considering he set up the invasian to begin with.

You know, when the USA fnded the first Islamofascists to destabilize Afghanistan, and bring the Sovs in so they could have their "Vietnam?"

Hmm, wonder how that trned out in the end...
(cut to a plane flying into the WTC)

Yup, overall have to disaproove of the backlash.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
errrrrm BigC, the Chinese would love nothing better then to allow the US unlimited access into their markets and try several times a year indirecly to allow them to do so.

Think of the trade decifit i this way:

You import a massive about of stuff from China but complain that the Chinese tarrifs prevent them from doing similar and thus "balancing" the deficit.

Now ignorig the fact that the Chinese run similar deficits except its the Chinese who owe money to say India, we have to understand that whatexactly do we have that the Chinese would want?

Do you honestly think they want our cars? no they have enough Japanese and German cars already they want to have their own domestic car industry.

Toys? Heck no! They make the world supply of toys why would they want the "newest" American toy?

They'res only ONE group of "toys" the Chinee wish to import that actually has a chance of balancing the trade deficit.

Electronics. Hardware, super computers, stuff that America is sorta ahead with but not for long kind of stuff.

If America loosened its advanced electronics industry trade controls to allow exports to China the deficit would do a complete 180.

Next, tonnes of Western nationals can go to China, study there etc etc. Ever hear of the Beijing Language and Culture University?


http://www.blcu.edu.cn/english/index.asp

My Macau friend who studies there sees tonnes of foreigners.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
hey if we can make stealth bomber jets shouldn't we be able to do the same with satellites? Meaning make it radar-invisible or at least not very noticable, make it non-reflective, and put it in high and/or non-equatorial orbits so they are harder to find?

Stealthing satellites might be a tad tricky, since they're usually festooned with satellite dishes and solar panels and are constantly transmitting radio signals. And your options for using radar-invisible materials are limited since the sensitive electronics need to be shielded from solar radiation that could mess them up, and that insulation traditionally comes in the form of a layer of nice shiny gold foil.

And meanwhile, high orbit means more expense. It dramatically increases the amount of fuel needed to get something up there, and you need more sophisticated tracking and suchlike for it to do its job because it's a long way further out. Plus there's a reason so much stuff is in low orbit that has nothing to do with cost: there's only one altitude you can do geostationary orbit at, and that altitude is the prime real estate of orbital space.

Probably the only satellite you'd be able to stealth would be some sort of sneaky military satellite where expense isn't an option. The only problem of course is that it's more or less completely impossible to hide a space shuttle mission, so you'd need some sort of fiendishly cunning excuse for parking a space shuttle in an obscure part of high earth orbit for a couple of days.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1