Space Race
03.05.2008 - 10:08 AMWhen China unexpectedly demonstrated its anti-satellite capability in January 2007, shattering a communications satellite with a missile from the ground, quite a few observers in this country worked overtime to explain away its conduct, in effect justifying the Chinese action as a reaction to the U.S. refusal to negotiate a ban on the use of anti-satellite weapons.
This was the view of the editorial page of the New York Times, which cited unnamed “experts” who contended “that China’s latest test is intended to prod the United States to join serious negotiations.” The way to counter China, the Times continued, “is through an arms control treaty, not a new arms race in space.”
Now that the United States has shot down a satellite of its own — in this case not to test an anti-satellite system but to avert the danger of it falling in a populated area with its fuel tank spewing poison gas — many of the same observers are working overtime to paint the United States in the worst possible light. They are describing the shoot-down as a provocation, an unnecessary effort to test an anti-satellite capability under the guise of protecting public safety.
Fortunately, James Oberg has been on the case. He is one of this country’s most knowledgeable experts on space and he has authored an indispensable piece, Five Myths About the Satellite Smash-Up. One such myth is that “Falling satellites aren’t really hazardous, and since they’ve never hurt anybody before, they were unlikely to hurt anybody this time. Hence, there must have been a secret ‘real reason’ for the missile mission.” Oberg convincingly explains why this logic is wrong.
Not that his explanations have stopped the Times editorial page from again leaning on unnamed “experts” who believe that the primary reason for the shoot-down is that the “United States is eager to trump China, which shot down one of its own satellites last year.”
Though the Times notes that American officials deny such speculations, it goes on to say that the “administration would have a lot more credibility if it wasn’t also planning to oppose the latest Russian-Chinese draft treaty to ban weapons in space.”
But the Times would have a lot more credibility if, no matter what aggressive actions are taken by the Chinese, it didn’t sing the same old refrain about the necessity of arms control, while simultaneously pointing a finger of blame at the United States.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
March 5th, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Clausewitz observed that the guy who proposes to defend himself against attack can always be accused by the attacker of being at fault for the war. The attacker wants only peace; if the attacked would just give in, he would have it.
So it is with NYT, WaPo, etc, and the militarization of space. US policy is to defend our assets in space, and defend ourselves, and our interests and assets, against attacks launched from or through space. We intend explicitly to prevent any other earthly power from denying space to unfettered, peaceful use by all. The threat of this concern is there, and has been, from both the former USSR and China. As one would expect of our prominent Western news organs, Russia and China, who have developed the capabilities we want to defend against, get a pass from US editorialists.
For your bookmarking pleasure, the following:
http://www.nautilus.org/~rmit/forum-reports/0714s-ball/ — A superb 2007 summary by the always excellent Australian, Desmond Ball, of the history of Russian, Chinese, and US antisatellite programs.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/policy/national/us-space-policy_060831.htm — Bush’s 2006 National Space Policy
http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/78679.htm — 2007 remarks by DOS official Robert Joseph (a good friend of John Bolton) on the 2006 National Space Policy
March 6th, 2008 at 8:44 AM
To an unschooled observer such as myself, the given reason for our missile shot was completely acceptable. God knows what the leftist would have said if the toxic fuel had actually done any harm to anyone, worse still if it was a poor person, a minority or a female.
But the secondary purpose was admirable and necessary. If the Chinese are spending money like water on their military, certainly they should see with their own eyes what we’re capable of, before they get reckless on some assumption or other.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Dave - I too think our missile shot was a reasonable action, but your assertion that China is “spending money like water on their military” is a bit over the top. Based on a quick find on google China appears to be spending something like twice what Japan spends, tow or three times what India spends and about the same amount as Russia. Given that the three countries I’ve named surround China and are bulwarked by considerable US military assets in the region the relative spending amounts don’t seem to support your assertion.
China is a coming power, assuming it weathers the internal political issues it will face as the population becomes more urban and more educated, but I think some folks have gone over the top concerning its potential.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Sully,
What I said about the Chinese military spending was not an assertion. It was a premise for a conclusion. The word “if” began it, as in “if this premise is valid then it leads to this conclusion”.
The premise was based on my having read the Chinese were increasing their military budget more than 20% year on year in 2008.
This was a news story and I cannot link it, but I’m fairly sure that’s what I read.
If there are other news stories which assert that such spending increases are not fit for similes such as “like water”, I have not read them.
I realize they are in the midst of a sort of economic boom over there and in light of that, then 20% expansion might not be such a big deal. But on the surface, it seems so.
I do not believe the Chinese are at present deployed in a full scale war effort, and as it is peacetime for them, I think 20% expansions of the military are worth a few exaggerations for effect.
Encirclement by the allies of a potential future enemy is defensible as a reason for spending more on military matters (though whether this is excessive is open to the sort of debate you’ve introduced), but that is not actually pertinent to my conclusion– that it is good for us that they saw what we can do, in order to avoid future false assumptions to the contrary on their part.
And this, I’m sure, was the actual primary intention of the missile shot.
“Star Wars”, indeed. Thank you Ronaldus Magnus.