Slashdot Log In
Chinese Lasers Blind US Satelites
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Sep 28, 2006 07:10 AM
from the do-not-look-directly-into-laser-beam-with-your-remaining-eye dept.
from the do-not-look-directly-into-laser-beam-with-your-remaining-eye dept.
SniperClops writes, "China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources." The article mentions the reluctance of the U.S. administration to talk about this "asymmetric" effort by the Chinese military.
Related Stories
[+]
U.S. Announces New Space Security Policy 475 comments
hey! writes "The Bush administration has announced a new space security policy, which includes the statement that 'Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.'" More from the article: "Eisendrath, co-author of a forthcoming book, 'War in Heaven: Stopping an Arms Race in Outer Space Before It Is Too Late,' says the United States is wasting its time. 'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says we need to protect against a 'space Pearl Harbor,'' he says. 'But we're still the dominant power there.'"
[+]
Science: China Tests Anti-Satellite Laser Weapon 552 comments
schnippy writes "U.S. intelligence agencies believe that China has successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon by destroying one of their old weather satellites. The test, if confirmed, would be an order of magnitude more provocative than earlier reports of Chinese blinding lasers being tested. Arms Control Wonk has a good writeup on what this will mean for U.S. policy."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
blind my eyes too (Score:5, Funny)
An interesting difference in article vs blurb (Score:5, Informative)
Re:blind my eyes too (Score:5, Funny)
Seeing Red (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just keep telling yourself that. (Score:4, Funny)
What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
It surely may sound ironic in the case of China, but : a sovereign nation has a right to privacy.
I'll remember that the next time they try to steal nuclear technology from us.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:4, Insightful)
International law (you know, the thing that applies to the US but no one else) says that a nation owns only 100 miles up, and beyond that they can lay no claims. So, if this is to be believed, a the Chinese military just attacked the US military while the US military was in international waters. That is an act of war. If the US acknowleges it, we have to acknowlege it as an act of war.
My guess is that this was some Chinese general stroking his manhood, and that the US is going to use back channels to force China to remove that general. Better than admitting that we are at war with one of our largest trading partners...
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:4, Interesting)
While a common practice, spying of another country is a gray zone. A caught spy is usually condemned by the spyied country unless he/she has a diplomatic status.
International law (you know, the thing that applies to the US but no one else) says that a nation owns only 100 miles up, and beyond that they can lay no claims. So, if this is to be believed, a the Chinese military just attacked the US military while the US military was in international waters. That is an act of war. If the US acknowleges it, we have to acknowlege it as an act of war.
The same treaty makes space a military-free zone. So tell me, what was a US milmitary item doing in orbit ?
I don't like the chinese govt and such news give me a cold feeling in the back but I would consider that, regarding current laws and treaties, it is only fair game. They treat the spy satelite more gently than a spy : they didn't destroyed, didn't ask for it to be removed, they just blinded it temporarily.
How is this interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, reading my own definition, this would justify Afghans and Iraqis seeking to expel the Americans and the British, just as it justified the French Resistance in WW2, and the American Colonists in the 1770s.
At what point is the present US administration going to face up the fact that it is the self-appointed global hegemon and that five and a half billion people disagree with that?
Re:How is this interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)
So does this mean that the US has the right to disable Chinese "fishing" vessels outside the 12 mile limit on the open seas if the "fishing" vessels are covered with anttenae? No, because that would be an act of war or piracy because nations have a right to sail on the open seas, just as nations have a right to have satellites in space. You are justifying a violation of treaties governing the neutrality of space.
Spy satellites != American arrogance (Score:4, Informative)
The old Soviet Union maintained heavy orbital surveillance of the US.
This was and is a Good Thing. US scaremongers shouting "missile gap!" were overruled by satellite intelligence. Soviet paranoia was limited to what was actually going on. Arms control treaties specifically and explicitly required both sides to submit to "national technical means" of verification.
>someone else has the right to disable it with proportionate force
As close as the Cold War came to ultimate horror, and as much as spy satellites stabilized it, that's an idea you do not want people to adopt.
>self-appointed global hegemon
Spy satellites are not a reason to believe that, unless the US starts shooting down other nations's satellites while maintaining their own.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia article on the Outer Space Treaty [wikipedia.org]
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the problem with the chinese shining their lasers at space that nobody owns anyway?
China Is a Potential Trade Partner (Score:5, Informative)
Read the rest of it. It's an interesting article, but some of these statements come off as revenue generating news (and considering this is Defense News, it's no surprise).
They forget to mention that we would probably do the same (if not worse) to deter spy satellites over our own country. They also don't address the concept of whether or not a country has a righ to its own privacy here. I think we would want privacy for our country and should not be surprised or angered to find our attempts thwarted when spying on other countries. Well, that jamming station must not have worked well and I highly doubt it was put there by the Russians. I cannot think of a clear motive for it. Probably sold as surplus or exchanged for payment by a disgruntled soldier and found its way to Iraq.
So we'll either change our standards or give the military a special encrypted standard. The cat and mouse game will begin between the US wanting to see what China's doing and China not wanting the US to see what they're doing. Frankly, I don't really give a damn. China has some bad leaders and some severe problems but they're more internal than anything.
You'll find at the bottom of the article: That's right, they do. So this isn't really news so much as "Country X Defends Itself Against Country Y" except that Country Y is the only country that thinks it's hot shit and that the world must reveal all and revolve around Country Y. Also, our leader has stated that non-compliance means you are with the terrorists and you're against us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Umm... because space is free according to UN? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Informative)
The Russians operated a multitude of surveillance satellites over the US in the 1960s-1980s. They still do I believe. As do the Chinese. As do, I believe, others. Almost all reconisiance sattelites should be able to "spy" on the US should their owners be so inclined.
If anyone cares enough to try to figure out exactly how many surveillence satellites are in orbit, here's a link to the Union Of Concerned Scientists sattelite database [ucsusa.org]
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Funny)
I cannot tell if that was really deep, or really dumb.
Finkployd
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but Iran and North Korea are run in the wrong way. Iran for instance has organised religion controlling politics and North Korea is run by the spoiled, incompetant son of a former President.
But seriously, no matter how much I might bag out America o
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Funny)
A theocracy that needs nukes certainly has a faith problem. (Not to mention that whole witches in ponds handing out swords thing.)
Why Iran and Korea can't have nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why Iran and Korea can't have nukes (Score:4, Informative)
If Saddam was trying to show he didn't have WMDs and that he wasn't lying, he was going a godawful job of doing it.
Re:Why Iran and Korea can't have nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not entirely convinced they were looking very hard at all for WMDs, as I suspect their goal was the rehabilitation of iraq on the international scene rather than the aparantly unromantic task of thorough confirmation of treaty compliance. Their lack of information was a prime driver in the development of the war.
Of course the price of the war was terrible, but it could've been averted if the UN had at tried to at least appear willing to extract it. Diplomacy only works if the threat of a non-diplomatic resolution is real.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't say much for North Korea's mindset (maybe they are just their own special brand of insane?) but for the militant islamist countries, they would certainly prefer everyone dead over both they and the "infidels" being alive.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Funny)
That's just a side effect of our agenda.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
The last thing one wants is to have nuclear weapons in the possession of unstable regimes either unable to control the devices or demonstratively irrational. But do either North Korea or Iran really meet those conditions? I personally don't think so. It is also somewhat understandable why these states are intersted in possessing them given the sort of armchair militarism that passes for IR analysis in much Western punditry.
The invasion of Iraq was a huge disaster, if only for destroying the credibility of international organizations like the United Nations as a restraint on the unilateral militarism of its members. The proliferation of nuclear weapons through the Middle East may be the only thing capable of stabilizing the region at this point.
This isn't an easy case to argue either way.
Temporary blindness (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
So its a bit like saturating a camera with light so it can't take good pictures, but once it moves on it should be OK.
so China hired Dr. Evil (Score:4, Funny)
Where's Austin Powers when you need him?
What would we expect them to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, good for them....I guess. I would imagine that the US would do the same to Chinese spy satellites (if they had any - which I don't know and don't feel like googling), so why be surprised when the Chinese do it? It seems to me that this is just a case of the Chinese government acting in the interests of it's own national security. This may be news, but it should not be surprising.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What would we expect them to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet you don't see us blinding their satellites and claiming "it's not aggressive, it's just common sense."
Satellites, outside of a state of war, are like transoceanic cables. You're supposed to leave each other's alone because it starts a chain of retaliations that ends up with very little accomplished aside from a disastrous collapse of certain types of infrastructure.
So yes, China going and doing this is an openly aggressive act. It's not as aggressive as cutting a cable would be, or landing soldiers in Hawaii, but don't think it's somehow innocent.
Re:What would we expect them to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would imagine that the US would do the same to Chinese spy satellites (if they had any - which I don't know and don't feel like googling)
They do, and they pass over the US. So do Russia, India, France, Spain, the UK, Germany, Turkey, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Iran, Algeria... in short, pretty much everybody (Note that I'm considering any satellites capable of earth observation as "spy satellites" -- most of them aren't intended for that purpose, but most of them can, and probably are, used for intelligence-gathering). Though the US has various anti-satellite weapons, including both lasers to blind them and experimental systems intended to destroy them, all testing of US anti-satellite weapons is done on US satellites and drones, in order to avoid provoking incidents with other nations.
Perhaps the US should change this policy with respect to Chinese satellites? I don't think so, but I can see where others might disagree.
Did you ever (Score:5, Funny)
Did you ever see a friggin' shark in a Google Earth picture? No?
Now you know why.
Humour (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing that new here (Score:3, Interesting)
The big deal here is that this is yet another message to the folks who want to spend hundreds of billions on satellite weapons. Put 'em up there, and someone will spend a lot less money to disable them when the need arrises.
Space based weapons systems are not "siezing the high ground". They are more like climbing a tree with a sack full of rocks. They have some advantages, but overall against a serious opponent, they are a poor and expensive strategy.
Um, they can hit the ones they can see... (Score:5, Interesting)
The $500 billion dollar annual defense budget is being spent somewhere. I would hope some of it was put into spy satellites that are awful easy to overlook.
Re:Um, they can hit the ones they can see... (Score:5, Insightful)
BFD (Score:3, Interesting)
If anything, your reaction to this story should tell you where you stand with respect to the US.
More power to China, I know this will force the US to improve/upgrade it's space efforts. And that, to me, is a good thing.
could this be a bluff? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was in the US spying game and I know that someone was trying to blind my satellites, I'd say "Oh no, you've stopped me photographing your secret installations" even if the attempts were unsuccessful. That way the target thinks they've stopped the spy satellites, whereas in practice, the lasers may be completely ineffectual.
Until the Chinese spies can get hold of genuine, spoiled, satellite photos (that weren't staged/planted) they cannot be sure they have suceeded.
New Spy Satellite (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Eventually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, did the world just begin for many of you people in 2000? Look I'm no fan of Bush, but it is not like prior to 2000 the Chinese held none of our assets, the Islamic extremists loved us, and the federal government held civil liberties in high regard. You know, EVERYTHING is not Bush's fault.
Finkployd
Re:Eventually... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, without calling me an American hater, please; what would be so wrong with the chinese launching satelites, putting men into orbit and having nuclear weapons? Oh, and by the way, whos' fault is that chinese are financing USAs balances?
As someone said it before, this is no news at all. The novelity here is that China used laser to disable satelites, but i bet a lot of countries have done similar (if not worst) in the past.
Re:Is this an attack? (Score:4, Interesting)
After all, I'm just disabling your eye -- temporarily at that.
I'm pretty sure the authorities would disagree with me when they hauled me off to the pokey as I screamed, "It wasn't an attack! I was just disabling him, or perhaps blinding would be more fitting!"
Re:Is this an attack? (Score:4, Interesting)
What if I was looking through your bedroom window from a public sidewalk as you and your boyfriend made sweet love. Then to prevent me from seeing this lovefest you shined a laser in my eye.
Now if China shot a rocket into space and blew up the satilite or damaged it, then that's an attack. Otherwise you could call what the US is doing to China an attack.
Re:Is this an attack? (Score:5)