China ASAT Hits Its Target . . . And it's on West 43rd Street.

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

Two weeks ago, high above eastern Asia, a Chinese missile unerringly
hunted down and struck its target. The precision was impressive-and
frightening in its strategic cunning.

No, the target wasn't the derelict weather satellite that happened to get
blown to smithereens by the missile's impact. More important, the space shot
hit home in the editorial offices of the New York Times. 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.

Not that the Times fully comprehended what China had done. The editorial
claimed it had destroyed a retired "communications satellite." But the
explosion in space destroyed something else, too. 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. In the aftermath of the secretive Chinese test and official
obfuscation at all levels of the Beijing regime, any such hope is as
shattered as the ill-fated Fengyun weather satellite.

Russia, too, stepped in to demonstrate bluntly the vanity of hopes that
transparency and honesty could provide a firm basis for a credible
anti-space weapons treaty. V-Putin, visiting India, sniped that China "is
not the first country which has conducted such trials. . . . As far as I
know, the first such tests were carried out back in the 1980s," by the U-S.
The Russian defense minister, Sergey Ivanov, declared his doubts the
"alleged test" even occurred. If the Russian pres and top officials cannot
speak the truth about decades-old Soviet space weapons or the current
Chinese test, how trustworthy have they shown themselves to be about
less-verifiable space plans in the future?

In its January 20 editorial, the Times adopted a tone of sweet reason:
"Surely it would make military and diplomatic sense," the editors urged, "to
seek to ban all tests and any use of antisatellite weapons. . . . The way to
counter China is through an arms control treaty." Rep. Edward Markey
(D-Mass.) agreed: "It is urgent that President Bush move to guarantee
protection [of American satellites] by initiating an international agreement
to ban the development, testing, and deployment of space weapons and
anti-satellite systems." Gary Samore of the Council on Foreign Relations
told the Times, "It puts pressure on the U.S. to negotiate agreements not to
weaponize space." And the Boston Globe celebrated the Chinese strike because
"it could lead to something positive" since it might persuade the Bush
administration to talk about a treaty.

Indeed, China (and Russia), along with other nations, have for years been
pushing for what they call a "treaty to prevent the deployment of weapons in
space." But just as with Abraham Lincoln's famous five-legged dog ("If I
call a tail a leg, does a dog have five legs?") this so-called treaty has no
prospect of delivering on its grandiose title.

First of all, there is no accepted definition of what is to be banned.
The warhead flown on January 12 had no explosives and its guidance package
probably shared many-if not all-of its components with the rendezvous
control hardware being developed for Shenzhou manned spaceships, which
clearly would not be banned. A dozen projects around the world are
developing robots to fly to targets in space to inspect and manipulate them
(for repair and resupply). Would adding a pair of wire cutters be all that
is needed to transform them into "space weapons"? Such a robot could destroy
a satellite every bit as effectively as an explosive would.

In a May 26, 2006, working paper at the Conference on Disarmament, Russia
and China observed that "no consensus has been reached so far on the
definition of 'space weapon' or even of 'outer space.'" The paper advanced
various views, including one that "suggests that there is no need for
definitions, on the ground that formulating them is both very difficult and
unnecessary. . . . Lengthy discussions on the definition issue might impede
reaching a political consensus on the prevention of the weaponization of and
an arms race in outer space."

Various definitions are nonetheless suggested for discussion, including
one with this curious loophole: "except those devices needed by cosmonauts
for self-defense." This clause is intended to "grandfather" the one true
weapon known to be deployed today in outer space, the survival pistol
carried aboard every Russian manned spaceship that docks to the
International Space Station. It's a trivial but telling exception-the
Russians have a weapon in space, and their proposed definition simply dodges
the issue by calling the pistol a "non-weapon."

Worse, a slippery slope between military and civilian applications of
dual-use technology means that reliable verification of a non-weapons space
mission would mean intimate inspection of the hardware and flight plans for
every launch. At a recent disarmament conference, Chinese representatives
admitted that verification of a space treaty would be "extremely difficult
to negotiate." Their recommendation: "For the time being, to put on hold the
verification issue until conditions are ripe, and to negotiate a treaty
without verification provisions could be a practical alternative." Russian
negotiators concurred. "Elaborating the treaty without verification
measures, which could be added at a later stage, might be a preferable
option," they said.

So the treaty being promoted by the New York Times and others-at the
instigation of a Chinese missile fired up their backsides-would mean only
what each signatory thought it meant. The glaring exception would be in the
United States, where a ratified treaty would be subject to federal court
enforcement and thus would mean whatever any crusading judge responding to
any political pressure group's lawsuits wanted it to mean. A wide range of
space projects by NASA, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies
could easily be accused of weapons "intentions" and thereby be subjected to
delays, disclosures, and legal harassment.

That's not a bad long-range goal from the Chinese strategic point of
view. The manipulation of Western media and political forces in that
direction, at the point of a space gun, is not a bad payoff for blowing up
one surplus space satellite.

"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

[...]

Not that the Times fully comprehended what China had done. The editorial
claimed it had destroyed a retired "communications satellite." But the
explosion in space destroyed something else, too.

This may be nit-picking, but was it "an explosion in space"? It was a
kinetic kill, more like being hit by a rock than a bomb. It certainly
completely destroyed the target, whatever it's called.

[...]

Russia, too, stepped in to demonstrate bluntly the vanity of hopes that
transparency and honesty could provide a firm basis for a credible
anti-space weapons treaty. V-Putin, visiting India, sniped that China "is
not the first country which has conducted such trials. . . . As far as I
know, the first such tests were carried out back in the 1980s," by the U-S.

Which, again, is technically the truth since the US was the first to
demonstrate a kinetic kill by a ballistic missile. The Soviet Union's
ASAT weapon was of a different design, an orbitting satellite that
rendezvoused with its target and destroyed it by exploding in close
proximity. I agree that it's a difference that doesn't matter much, and
the Soviets were the first to demonstrate (and deploy) an ASAT weapon.

Chris Jones wrote:

:"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
:
:[...]
:
: Not that the Times fully comprehended what China had done. The editorial
: claimed it had destroyed a retired "communications satellite." But the
: explosion in space destroyed something else, too.
:
:This may be nit-picking, but was it "an explosion in space"? It was a
:kinetic kill, more like being hit by a rock than a bomb. It certainly
:completely destroyed the target, whatever it's called.

Energy on target is energy on target. Calculate the kinetic energy of
the impact. Convert to kilograms of the explosive of your choice.

Explosion is the right word.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:57:00 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Chris Jones wrote:

:"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
:
:[...]
:
: Not that the Times fully comprehended what China had done. The editorial
: claimed it had destroyed a retired "communications satellite." But the
: explosion in space destroyed something else, too.
:
:This may be nit-picking, but was it "an explosion in space"? It was a
:kinetic kill, more like being hit by a rock than a bomb. It certainly
:completely destroyed the target, whatever it's called.

Energy on target is energy on target. Calculate the kinetic energy of
the impact. Convert to kilograms of the explosive of your choice.

Explosion is the right word.

nods And more importantly it did its job. i.e. taking out he
target.

Christopher writes:

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:57:00 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Chris Jones wrote:

:"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
:
:[...]
:
: Not that the Times fully comprehended what China had done. The editorial
: claimed it had destroyed a retired "communications satellite." But the
: explosion in space destroyed something else, too.
:
:This may be nit-picking, but was it "an explosion in space"? It was a
:kinetic kill, more like being hit by a rock than a bomb. It certainly
:completely destroyed the target, whatever it's called.

Energy on target is energy on target. Calculate the kinetic energy of
the impact. Convert to kilograms of the explosive of your choice.

Explosion is the right word.

Sigh. I SAID I was possibly nit-picking, but since you dismissed my
point by hand-waving and fuzzy thinking, I offer the following:

explosion (noun) 1. a violent release of energy caused by a chemical or
nuclear reaction

WordNet® 2.1. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explosion

explosion: A violent blowing apart or bursting caused by energy released
from a very fast chemical reaction, a nuclear reaction, or the escape of
gases under pressure.

explosion. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Retrieved
January 28, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explosion

Neither of those definitions apply to this case, regardless of the
kinetic energy of the impact. So I say again, explosion is NOT the
right word.

nods And more importantly it did its job. i.e. taking out he
target.

Which I pointed out (see my last sentence in the first posting quoted
above). Taking out the target has nothing to do with an explosion. If
someone is shot and killed, that qualifies as taking out the target, but
no way were they exploded.

Sheesh!

Chris Jones wrote:

:Christopher writes:
:
: On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:57:00 GMT, Fred J. McCall
: wrote:
:
: Chris Jones wrote:
:
: :"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
: :
: :[...]
: :
: : Not that the Times fully comprehended what China had done. The editorial
: : claimed it had destroyed a retired "communications satellite." But the
: : explosion in space destroyed something else, too.
: :
: :This may be nit-picking, but was it "an explosion in space"? It was a
: :kinetic kill, more like being hit by a rock than a bomb. It certainly
: :completely destroyed the target, whatever it's called.
:
: Energy on target is energy on target. Calculate the kinetic energy of
: the impact. Convert to kilograms of the explosive of your choice.
:
: Explosion is the right word.
:
:Sigh. I SAID I was possibly nit-picking, but since you dismissed my
oint by hand-waving and fuzzy thinking,

Telling you to go look at the facts is neither "hand-waving" nor
"fuzzy thinking". You seem to be the one engaging in those.

:I offer the following:
:
:explosion (noun) 1. a violent release of energy caused by a chemical or
:nuclear reaction
:
:WordNet® 2.1. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:
:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explosion
:
:explosion: A violent blowing apart or bursting caused by energy released
:from a very fast chemical reaction, a nuclear reaction, or the escape of
:gases under pressure.
:
:explosion. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Retrieved
:January 28, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:
:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explosion
:
:Neither of those definitions apply to this case, regardless of the
:kinetic energy of the impact. So I say again, explosion is NOT the
:right word.

Well, it's certainly not the right word when you start from that
assumption and then cherry pick your definitions.

What, pray tell, is the difference in source of energy release with
regard to whether something is or is not an explosion?

: nods And more importantly it did its job. i.e. taking out he
: target.
:
:Which I pointed out (see my last sentence in the first posting quoted
:above). Taking out the target has nothing to do with an explosion. If
:someone is shot and killed, that qualifies as taking out the target, but
:no way were they exploded.

They were if they are hit by a bullet doing 15,000 MPH that gives up a
significant quantity of its kinetic energy in the impact. In point of
fact, they'd be VAPORIZED.

:Sheesh!

Sheesh, indeed!

But you hold on to your ignorance. You appear to need it.

--
"Just consider me your friend. I am until the end.
Can I guarantee you life? I don't think I can.
This isn't the life for me. This isn't the way I want to be.
And let me tell you, Death will come when I'm good and ready."
-- Godsmack, "I Am"

On 28 Jan 2007 13:32:17 -0500, Chris Jones wrote:

Christopher writes:

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:57:00 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Chris Jones wrote:

:"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
:
:[...]
:
: Not that the Times fully comprehended what China had done. The editorial
: claimed it had destroyed a retired "communications satellite." But the
: explosion in space destroyed something else, too.
:
:This may be nit-picking, but was it "an explosion in space"? It was a
:kinetic kill, more like being hit by a rock than a bomb. It certainly
:completely destroyed the target, whatever it's called.

Energy on target is energy on target. Calculate the kinetic energy of
the impact. Convert to kilograms of the explosive of your choice.

Explosion is the right word.

Sigh. I SAID I was possibly nit-picking, but since you dismissed my
point by hand-waving and fuzzy thinking, I offer the following:

explosion (noun) 1. a violent release of energy caused by a chemical or
nuclear reaction

WordNet® 2.1. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explosion

explosion: A violent blowing apart or bursting caused by energy released
from a very fast chemical reaction, a nuclear reaction, or the escape of
gases under pressure.

explosion. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Retrieved
January 28, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explosion

Neither of those definitions apply to this case, regardless of the
kinetic energy of the impact. So I say again, explosion is NOT the
right word.

nods And more importantly it did its job. i.e. taking out he
target.

Which I pointed out (see my last sentence in the first posting quoted
above). Taking out the target has nothing to do with an explosion. If
someone is shot and killed, that qualifies as taking out the target, but
no way were they exploded.

Sheesh!

I never mentioned an explosion, that was from another poster.

On Jan 28, 6:57 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Energy on target is energy on target. Calculate the kinetic energy of
the impact. Convert to kilograms of the explosive of your choice.

Explosion is the right word.

Shatering is better, as there was a shock wave through the hull of the
satellite, that caused it to break into pieces.

"Raghar" wrote:

:On Jan 28, 6:57 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Energy on target is energy on target. Calculate the kinetic energy of
: the impact. Convert to kilograms of the explosive of your choice.
:
: Explosion is the right word.
:
:Shatering is better, ...

"Shatering" is not a word.

:... as there was a shock wave through the hull of the
:satellite, that caused it to break into pieces.

And what do you think the damaging mechanism of an explosion is again?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"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.
,