Thinking about Chinese strategic thinking about milspace

Some interesting, though fairly obvious, things are discussed in

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...ina_space1.pdf

On 25 Sep, 19:45, Allen Thomson wrote:
Some interesting, though fairly obvious, things are discussed in

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...ina_space1.pdf

Just one question. Is Ares purely to "go back to the Moon", or is it
related to space based laser systems (possibly at MEO) which could act
as counter counterspace weapons?


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:Just one question. Is Ares purely to "go back to the Moon", or is it
:related to space based laser systems (possibly at MEO) which could act
:as counter counterspace weapons?
:

Neither.


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

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:20:38 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On 25 Sep, 19:45, Allen Thomson wrote:
Some interesting, though fairly obvious, things are discussed in

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...ina_space1.pdf

Just one question. Is Ares purely to "go back to the Moon", or is it
related to space based laser systems (possibly at MEO) which could act
as counter counterspace weapons?

Neither.

Allen Thomson wrote:
Some interesting, though fairly obvious, things are discussed in

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...ina_space1.pdf

Hello, I fully agree. Quite clear that the Chinese are developing
space based capabilities. Indeed, USA is disproportionally vulnerable
to an attack against its space based resources. In the future, due to
the share importance of the space based assets it would frankly be
madness for any would be adversary to ignore theyr share importance
and not to develope strategies in which theyr destruction can at least
be realistically threathened.

Cheers, Einar

On 27 Sep, 12:23, Einar wrote:
Allen Thomson wrote:
Some interesting, though fairly obvious, things are discussed in

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...ina_space1.pdf

Hello, I fully agree. Quite clear that the Chinese are developing
space based capabilities. Indeed, USA is disproportionally vulnerable
to an attack against its space based resources. In the future, due to
the share importance of the space based assets it would frankly be
madness for any would be adversary to ignore theyr share importance
and not to develope strategies in which theyr destruction can at least
be realistically threathened.

I believe we should be looking at this at a deeper level. One
important question to ask is what is the purpose of military force?
This is the most fundamental question of all. If the purpose of
military force is to deter an adversary from them using military
force, and to provide a protection for the country should deterrence
fail you do not need "superiotity". You need something more like
parity. If you are using military force as an instrument of policy
against countries that may or may not have threatened you (Iraq never
"threatened" the US) then you need superiority.

If you are aiming for superiotity and not parity you are in a very
dangerous area for two reasons.

1) Countries deduce that the quest for superiority is a quest for
premptive war Iraqi style and take the appropiate steps. An ASAT
weapon is very much an appropiate step.

2) Your military is going to keep telling you that a war can be won.
The fact of the matter is that winning wars, rather than battles, is
as much about hearts and minds as actual weaponry. The US lost in
Vietnam and Iraq despite having overwhelming superiority.

Wars are inherently unpredicatable. The danger of a war with China,
made more likely by a disparity of force levels, is that it could at
some point go nuclear. Wars escalate. Let us look at a war with Iran.
This will have arisen, not because of the nuclear issue (Pakistan has
acquired nuclear weapons without all this hoha) but because of the
failure in Iraq.

Iran is winning the war. When Al Qaeda blew up the mosque in Samora
they set in chain a series of events which culminated in a civil war
which the Shiites are certain to win. What will the US response be? -
We will escalate the war by bombing Iran. The actions of AQ are all
part of the inherent uncerainty of war.

Let us look at what the issue with China is, other than of course the
issue of force itself. The only real outstanding issue is Taiwan. The
US and China have agreed de facto to allow Taiwan the freedom it at
present enjoys provided independence is not declared.

Does military superiority underwrite a declaration of independence? If
it does we should be told about it. Parity would in fact underline the
status quo.

There is one other potential area of conflict, this time with Russia
rather than China. The plans for escalating the Iraq war (Iran)
envisage "leaving the anthill to sort itself out". This might involve
the intervention of Russia, in the shape of the Central Asian
Federation. China has agreed that Russia is the senior patener in
Central Asia but agrees with Russian policy.

I have strssed the uncertainty of war. Often the victors in any war
are not participants on either side. In the "War on Terror" a term
which I know you don't like Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Sunnis are facing
defeat. So too are the Americans. The victor is Iran and the victor of
an escalated war will (probably) be Russia.


- Ian Parker

On Sep 25, 11:45 am, Allen Thomson wrote:
Some interesting, though fairly obvious, things are discussed in

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...ina_space1.pdf

Of whomever holds the most high ground, that being the moon's L1, is
pretty much in charge of whatever goes to/from our moon.

If that 'Clarke Station' or tethered LSE-CM/ISS were to be SBL
outfitted is where those in charge of such laser cannons would be able
to divert or terminate whatever is headed their way, or merely passing
by as NEOs would in fact do from time to time.
- Brad Guth -

Ian Parker wrote:
On 27 Sep, 12:23, Einar wrote:
Allen Thomson wrote:
Some interesting, though fairly obvious, things are discussed in

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...ina_space1.pdf

Hello, I fully agree. Quite clear that the Chinese are developing
space based capabilities. Indeed, USA is disproportionally vulnerable
to an attack against its space based resources. In the future, due to
the share importance of the space based assets it would frankly be
madness for any would be adversary to ignore theyr share importance
and not to develope strategies in which theyr destruction can at least
be realistically threathened.

I believe we should be looking at this at a deeper level. One
important question to ask is what is the purpose of military force?
This is the most fundamental question of all. If the purpose of
military force is to deter an adversary from them using military
force, and to provide a protection for the country should deterrence
fail you do not need "superiotity". You need something more like
parity. If you are using military force as an instrument of policy
against countries that may or may not have threatened you (Iraq never
"threatened" the US) then you need superiority.

If you are aiming for superiotity and not parity you are in a very
dangerous area for two reasons.

1) Countries deduce that the quest for superiority is a quest for
premptive war Iraqi style and take the appropiate steps. An ASAT
weapon is very much an appropiate step.

2) Your military is going to keep telling you that a war can be won.
The fact of the matter is that winning wars, rather than battles, is
as much about hearts and minds as actual weaponry. The US lost in
Vietnam and Iraq despite having overwhelming superiority.

Wars are inherently unpredicatable. The danger of a war with China,
made more likely by a disparity of force levels, is that it could at
some point go nuclear. Wars escalate. Let us look at a war with Iran.
This will have arisen, not because of the nuclear issue (Pakistan has
acquired nuclear weapons without all this hoha) but because of the
failure in Iraq.

Iran is winning the war. When Al Qaeda blew up the mosque in Samora
they set in chain a series of events which culminated in a civil war
which the Shiites are certain to win. What will the US response be? -
We will escalate the war by bombing Iran. The actions of AQ are all
part of the inherent uncerainty of war.

Let us look at what the issue with China is, other than of course the
issue of force itself. The only real outstanding issue is Taiwan. The
US and China have agreed de facto to allow Taiwan the freedom it at
present enjoys provided independence is not declared.

Does military superiority underwrite a declaration of independence? If
it does we should be told about it. Parity would in fact underline the
status quo.

There is one other potential area of conflict, this time with Russia
rather than China. The plans for escalating the Iraq war (Iran)
envisage "leaving the anthill to sort itself out". This might involve
the intervention of Russia, in the shape of the Central Asian
Federation. China has agreed that Russia is the senior patener in
Central Asia but agrees with Russian policy.

I have strssed the uncertainty of war. Often the victors in any war
are not participants on either side. In the "War on Terror" a term
which I know you don't like Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Sunnis are facing
defeat. So too are the Americans. The victor is Iran and the victor of
an escalated war will (probably) be Russia.


- Ian Parker

I´m only going to extrapolate on the realistic threat aspect of China
vs. USA.

In the long term China may seek dominance. However, in the interim and
the shorter term China will I expect focus on narroving the lead that
USA currently maintains, in the military sphere. I really don´t expect
war, or that China will see war with USA to be in its interest at any
point in the future.

However, that China is developing clear means to realistically
threathen an important aspect of US means to vage war, means that USA
will to make that part in its overall calculations. So, even though
there may never be a shot actually fired in anger, both superpowers
will I seek to develope fresh means in which to alter each other
calculations for a hypothetical war.

The more successful China will be in altering the hypothetical war
calculation in Pentagon, the more cauthious will they become which
will cause theyr powerrelationship to change in China´s favour. That
will also alter theyr respective spheres of power on the planet.

So, one can picture couble of bulls feinting, testing each other
strength, without actually blodying the other - the one who gains
therefore gathers more of the cows

Cheers, Einar

On Sep 27, 2:35 pm, Einar wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
On 27 Sep, 12:23, Einar wrote:
Allen Thomson wrote:
Some interesting, though fairly obvious, things are discussed in

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...ina_space1.pdf

Hello, I fully agree. Quite clear that the Chinese are developing
space based capabilities. Indeed, USA is disproportionally vulnerable
to an attack against its space based resources. In the future, due to
the share importance of the space based assets it would frankly be
madness for any would be adversary to ignore theyr share importance
and not to develope strategies in which theyr destruction can at least
be realistically threathened.

I believe we should be looking at this at a deeper level. One
important question to ask is what is the purpose of military force?
This is the most fundamental question of all. If the purpose of
military force is to deter an adversary from them using military
force, and to provide a protection for the country should deterrence
fail you do not need "superiotity". You need something more like
parity. If you are using military force as an instrument of policy
against countries that may or may not have threatened you (Iraq never
"threatened" the US) then you need superiority.

If you are aiming for superiotity and not parity you are in a very
dangerous area for two reasons.

1) Countries deduce that the quest for superiority is a quest for
premptive war Iraqi style and take the appropiate steps. An ASAT
weapon is very much an appropiate step.

2) Your military is going to keep telling you that a war can be won.
The fact of the matter is that winning wars, rather than battles, is
as much about hearts and minds as actual weaponry. The US lost in
Vietnam and Iraq despite having overwhelming superiority.

Wars are inherently unpredicatable. The danger of a war with China,
made more likely by a disparity of force levels, is that it could at
some point go nuclear. Wars escalate. Let us look at a war with Iran.
This will have arisen, not because of the nuclear issue (Pakistan has
acquired nuclear weapons without all this hoha) but because of the
failure in Iraq.

Iran is winning the war. When Al Qaeda blew up the mosque in Samora
they set in chain a series of events which culminated in a civil war
which the Shiites are certain to win. What will the US response be? -
We will escalate the war by bombing Iran. The actions of AQ are all
part of the inherent uncerainty of war.

Let us look at what the issue with China is, other than of course the
issue of force itself. The only real outstanding issue is Taiwan. The
US and China have agreed de facto to allow Taiwan the freedom it at
present enjoys provided independence is not declared.

Does military superiority underwrite a declaration of independence? If
it does we should be told about it. Parity would in fact underline the
status quo.

There is one other potential area of conflict, this time with Russia
rather than China. The plans for escalating the Iraq war (Iran)
envisage "leaving the anthill to sort itself out". This might involve
the intervention of Russia, in the shape of the Central Asian
Federation. China has agreed that Russia is the senior patener in
Central Asia but agrees with Russian policy.

I have strssed the uncertainty of war. Often the victors in any war
are not participants on either side. In the "War on Terror" a term
which I know you don't like Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Sunnis are facing
defeat. So too are the Americans. The victor is Iran and the victor of
an escalated war will (probably) be Russia.

- Ian Parker

I´m only going to extrapolate on the realistic threat aspect of China
vs. USA.

In the long term China may seek dominance. However, in the interim and
the shorter term China will I expect focus on narroving the lead that
USA currently maintains, in the military sphere. I really don´t expect
war, or that China will see war with USA to be in its interest at any
point in the future.

However, that China is developing clear means to realistically
threathen an important aspect of US means to vage war, means that USA
will have to make that part in its overall calculations. So, even
though
there may never be a shot actually fired in anger, both superpowers
will I expect seek to develope fresh means in which to alter each
other
calculations for a hypothetical war.

The more successful China will be in altering the hypothetical war
calculation in Pentagon, the more cauthious will they become which
will cause theyr powerrelationship to change in China´s favour. That
will also alter theyr respective spheres of power on the planet.

So, one can picture couble of bulls feinting, testing each other
strength, without actually blodying the other - the one who gains
therefore gathers more of the cows

Cheers, Einar

On 27 Sep, 19:35, Einar wrote:
I´m only going to extrapolate on the realistic threat aspect of China
vs. USA.

In the long term China may seek dominance. However, in the interim and
the shorter term China will I expect focus on narroving the lead that
USA currently maintains, in the military sphere. I really don´t expect
war, or that China will see war with USA to be in its interest at any
point in the future.

It clearly isn't, if it isn't one asks the question - Is it worth the
candle?

However, that China is developing clear means to realistically
threathen an important aspect of US means to vage war, means that USA
will to make that part in its overall calculations. So, even though
there may never be a shot actually fired in anger, both superpowers
will I seek to develope fresh means in which to alter each other
calculations for a hypothetical war.

The more successful China will be in altering the hypothetical war
calculation in Pentagon, the more cauthious will they become which
will cause theyr powerrelationship to change in China´s favour. That
will also alter theyr respective spheres of power on the planet.

So, one can picture couble of bulls feinting, testing each other
strength, without actually blodying the other - the one who gains
therefore gathers more of the cows

This is something that I would disagree with. By "cows" what exactly
do you mean? If you mean resources, the answer clearly is that it will
not make a scrap of difference. The left talks about oil. The fact of
the matter is that oil and other commodities are sold in Rotterdam (in
the case of oil) at a global price.

Defense is not a cost effective way of obtaining resources (if that is
your aim). It would be far better to develop (peaceful) nuclear power,
solar energy - even William Mook's lasers. Develop the tar sands of
Alberta, research genetic engineering for exracting the remaining oil.
Pumping in fact extracts a low proportion of the oil in a reserve.
Develop means of using methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean.

The Israelis claim to have developed algae which will take pure CO2
(could have been sequestered from a coal fired power station) water
and produce oil.

Clearly that is the way forward. In England the Severn Barrage will
generate 5% of the power requirements of the UK. How to finance it?
Cut defense spending.

However what the US is after probably is not resources. It is
something a little bit more nebulous - Influence. The US is
paradoxical in its aims. It enshews open imperialism - that is to say
grabbing resources and subjecting other countries to a scheme of
preferences. China has not yet produced a preference scheme.

- Ian Parker