"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 1 May 2007 08:16:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Allen Thomson
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On May 1, 9:16 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

I would have thought it obvious. In terms of cost and value for some
of NRO's battlestar galactica, it's like sinking an aircraft carrier.

Since it's a bit hard to imagine zapping someone else's satellite
outside of an already warlike context, the question is probably
somewhat moot.


Capabilities are not moot at all. This particular Chinese
capability could change the course of our space
program and cost us boatloads of money.




However, aircraft carriers and aircraft have people in them and most
satellites that are candidates for zapping don't. Add to that the
fact that zapping could well occur over the national territory of the
zapper, and the parallel with the aircraft carriers isn't, IMHO, all
that close.


"Over the national territory" hasn't had any meaning for space objects
since October, 1957. LEO is like the high seas, from a territorial
standpoint.

Are you saying that if an aircraft carrier was uncrewed (a theoretical
possibility) that sinking it wouldn't be an act of war?

And even if it is declared to be an act of war, there remains the
question of what to do about it.

That's always the case. When Iran took the embassy hostages, it was
an act of war (and in retrospect, had it been responded to as such, we
might have saved ourselves a lot of trouble since). When the Iranians
committed their piracy against the UK a few weeks ago, it was also an
act of war. It doesn't really matter if one doesn't want to have a
war.



This is an interesting topic, what actions are acts of war, where
exactly are the lines? In keeping with my universal problem
solving equation, the answer would lie in the union of
opposite extremes for the given system.

At the transition between the two opposites, or when
an act is outside the rule of law, and forces the
rules of war to be applied.

In the Cuban missile crisis, for instance, which side first
committed an act of war if any? I think the Soviets
committed an act of war by placing the missiles
there. Since the threat was so large, we couldn't
wait for international law to take its course.
So the only option left is military.
They forced the situation to escalate to
military rules, so they are at fault.

Or what about Taiwan? China considers
Taiwan independence an act of war.
I don't think we should accept that definition.
Rule by the consent of the governed is an
inalienable right imo.

Or a long running humanitarian crisis
like in Darfur? If people are dying and
we can't wait for a lengthly UN legal
process to happen. We're forced to
use a military response.

Kind of a shame we're tied up in Iraq.
A shame for the people of Darfur, that is.


s