But not to worry

ASAT? Oh, that.


http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080213_transcript.pdf

HEARING OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
GLOBAL SECURITY ASSESSMENT
WITNESSES:
DR. THOMAS FINGAR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR
ANALYSIS & CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL; MR. ROBERT T.
CARDILLO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ANALYSIS, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY;
MR. JOHN A. KRINGEN, DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE IKE SKELTON (D-MO)
LOCATION: 2118 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TIME: 10:00 A.M. EST
DATE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008


REP. HUNTER: Okay. Second question, quickly, is this. Obviously, we've
seen the Chinese at least demonstrate at least a threshold capability
to take a satellite down because they've done that. What would be the
-- could you give us a description of how difficult you think it would
be for them to basically -- if they wanted to -- to disrupt our
satellite capability? Could it be done fairly easily within a day or
two?


MR. FINGAR: I think demonstrated a capability, as the Russians have
demonstrated this capability several years ago, given our dependence
on that overhead architecture, that it would not be that difficult to
inflict significant, serious damage to our capabilities over the
couple-of-day period that you specify.

On Feb 20, 7:22 am, Allen Thomson wrote:
ASAT? Oh, that.

http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080213_transcript.pdf

HEARING OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
GLOBAL SECURITY ASSESSMENT
WITNESSES:
DR. THOMAS FINGAR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR
ANALYSIS & CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL; MR. ROBERT T.
CARDILLO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ANALYSIS, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY;
MR. JOHN A. KRINGEN, DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE IKE SKELTON (D-MO)
LOCATION: 2118 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TIME: 10:00 A.M. EST
DATE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008

REP. HUNTER: Okay. Second question, quickly, is this. Obviously, we've
seen the Chinese at least demonstrate at least a threshold capability
to take a satellite down because they've done that. What would be the
-- could you give us a description of how difficult you think it would
be for them to basically -- if they wanted to -- to disrupt our
satellite capability? Could it be done fairly easily within a day or
two?

MR. FINGAR: I think demonstrated a capability, as the Russians have
demonstrated this capability several years ago, given our dependence
on that overhead architecture, that it would not be that difficult to
inflict significant, serious damage to our capabilities over the
couple-of-day period that you specify.

The likes of Russia, China or India could make the vast majority of
our cloak and dagger satellite stuff useless if not damaged beyond any
practical use, and this would have to be the first phase of any
intervention or WWIII.
.. - Brad Guth

Allen Thomson wrote:

given our dependence
on that overhead architecture, that it would not be that difficult to
inflict significant, serious damage to our capabilities over the
couple-of-day period that you specify.

And if that dependence is widely mission-critical -- i.e., if we
haven't maintained adequate (if somewhat degraded) fallback procedures
to operate without the satellites -- we're pretty stupid.

And if we choose to foam and froth about maybe-couldbes (or play with
Powerpoints about elaborate Nth-generation orbital weapons or
defenses) instead of working diligently on enough ORS capability to
quickly replace the satellites we need most, we'll deserve the
consequences.

Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com/

On Feb 21, 4:26 pm, Monte Davis wrote:

And if that dependence is widely mission-critical -- i.e., if we haven't maintained adequate (if somewhat degraded) fallback procedures to operate without the satellites -- we're pretty stupid.

Alas, I wouldn't discount that possibility.

instead of working diligently on enough ORS capability to quickly replace the satellites we need most, we'll deserve the consequences.

See the above comment.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:31:30 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Allen Thomson made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Feb 21, 4:26 pm, Monte Davis wrote:

And if that dependence is widely mission-critical -- i.e., if we haven't maintained adequate (if somewhat degraded) fallback procedures to operate without the satellites -- we're pretty stupid.

Alas, I wouldn't discount that possibility.

instead of working diligently on enough ORS capability to quickly replace the satellites we need most, we'll deserve the consequences.

See the above comment.

Sadly, there is a sigificant (read: currently dominating) contingent
of the DoD that doesn't give a damn about ORS as most of us understand
it. That includes the ORS office in Albuquerque...

Allen Thomson wrote:

On Feb 21, 4:26 pm, Monte Davis wrote:

And if that dependence is widely mission-critical -- i.e., if we
haven't maintained adequate (if somewhat degraded) fallback procedures
to operate without the satellites -- we're pretty stupid.

Alas, I wouldn't discount that possibility.

Sure. In the same way we haven't any capability to maintain adequate
(if somewhat degraded) combat capabilities if all of (for example) our
CVN's are sunk or stuck in drydock mid-overhaul.

For some things, there simply isn't a reasonable way to maintain a
graceful fallback.

instead of working diligently on enough ORS capability to quickly replace
the satellites we need most, we'll deserve the consequences.

See the above comment.

See the above comment.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:43:23 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Allen Thomson wrote:

On Feb 21, 4:26 pm, Monte Davis wrote:

And if that dependence is widely mission-critical -- i.e., if we
haven't maintained adequate (if somewhat degraded) fallback procedures
to operate without the satellites -- we're pretty stupid.

Alas, I wouldn't discount that possibility.

Sure. In the same way we haven't any capability to maintain adequate
(if somewhat degraded) combat capabilities if all of (for example) our
CVN's are sunk or stuck in drydock mid-overhaul.

For some things, there simply isn't a reasonable way to maintain a
graceful fallback.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one for *this* thing.

On Feb 21, 6:43 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:31:30 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Allen Thomson made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Feb 21, 4:26 pm, Monte Davis wrote:

And if that dependence is widely mission-critical -- i.e., if we haven't maintained adequate (if somewhat degraded) fallback procedures to operate without the satellites -- we're pretty stupid.

Alas, I wouldn't discount that possibility.

instead of working diligently on enough ORS capability to quickly replace the satellites we need most, we'll deserve the consequences.

See the above comment.

Sadly, there is a sigificant (read: currently dominating) contingent
of the DoD that doesn't give a damn about ORS as most of us understand
it. That includes the ORS office in Albuquerque...

The fallacy of ORS is that it doesn't help in these situations. It is
similar to the "tactical" satellite fallacy

On Feb 21, 6:43 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:31:30 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Allen Thomson made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Feb 21, 4:26 pm, Monte Davis wrote:

And if that dependence is widely mission-critical -- i.e., if we haven't maintained adequate (if somewhat degraded) fallback procedures to operate without the satellites -- we're pretty stupid.


UAV's can fill in for the most part.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:43:23 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Allen Thomson wrote:

On Feb 21, 4:26 pm, Monte Davis wrote:

And if that dependence is widely mission-critical -- i.e., if we
haven't maintained adequate (if somewhat degraded) fallback procedures
to operate without the satellites -- we're pretty stupid.

Alas, I wouldn't discount that possibility.

Sure. In the same way we haven't any capability to maintain adequate
(if somewhat degraded) combat capabilities if all of (for example) our
CVN's are sunk or stuck in drydock mid-overhaul.

For some things, there simply isn't a reasonable way to maintain a
graceful fallback.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one for *this* thing.

On the gripping hand - it hasn't been demonstrated that there _is_ one
for this thing. It's a hellishly complicated problem.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL