"Jim Oberg" writes:

China Hits Its Target . . . And it's on West 43rd Street.
by James Oberg // Weekly Standard // 1/27/2007, Volume 012, Issue 20

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Check....=13219&r=eztbj

[...]

Responding exactly
as could have been expected, the Times editors first accused the Bush
administration of having "bellicose attitudes" of its own, then urged the
administration to sign on to "an arms control treaty for space," which would
ban what China had just done.

Saying that the Bush administration has bellicose attitudes of its own
is a defensible position, given the totality of its statements and
actions. Note that they dismissed out of hand the idea of negotiations
with China on such a treaty.

[...]

An international treaty
"banning" space weapons, as the Times advocates, would depend crucially on
the expectation that, absent effective verification procedures, the parties
would be able to trust each other because of a track record of openness and
candor.

Which is why it's a bad idea to negotiate such a treaty without
effective verification procedures. Just because that's been advocated,
as you point out later on, is no reason for us to accept it. It's not
surprising that China and Russia are putting forward this idea; it's a
negotiating position, and they always start out asking for ridiculously
advantageous terms. We've shown in the past that if we don't back down,
suitable treaties can be negotiated (we've also shown what can happen
when we don't insist on verification and clear language, which is why we
can't do that).

[...]

First of all, there is no accepted definition of what is to be banned.

Coming up with an accepted definition is something that would have to be
negotiated.

What the Chinese demonstrated is not yet a functional ASAT. It took
them four tries to destroy a cooperating target. Without further
development and testing, it's not a threat to our satellites, and that
testing cannot be carried out in secret, and it should undoubtedly be
forbidden under any anti-space weapon treaty.

In short, I don't think we have anything to lose, and potentially
something to gain, by engaging in negotiations. Dismissing them out of
hand cedes the moral high ground to our adversaries and gives them the
green light to develop weapons that could pose a threat to our space
assets. If we negotiate and they hold to their initial positions, the
rest of the world sees that they, not we, are not serious about banning
weapons in space. If a verifiable agreement is reached with suitable
provisions on what is banned and what is allowed, our security is
enhanced.
,