.S. official: Chinese test missile obliterates satellite

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Aug 5, 2004
2,279
48
48
41
www.myspace.com
#1
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- China last week successfully used a missile to destroy an orbiting satellite, U.S. government officials told CNN on Thursday, in a test that could undermine relations with the West and pose a threat to satellites important to the U.S. military.

According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by ramming it.

The test took place on January 11. (Watch why the U.S. has protested the missile strike )

Aviation Week and Space Technology first reported the test: "Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat (anti-satellite) system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center."

A U.S. official, who would not agree to be identified, said the event was the first successful test of the missile after three failures.

The official said that U.S. "space tracking sensors" confirmed that the satellite is no longer in orbit and that the collision produced "hundreds of pieces of debris," that also are being tracked.

The United States logged a formal diplomatic protest.

"We are aware of it and we are concerned, and we made it known," said White House spokesman Tony Snow.

Several U.S. allies, including Canada and Australia, also have registered protests.

Under a space policy authorized by President Bush in August, the United States asserts a right to "freedom of action in space" and says it will "deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so."

The policy includes the right to "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

Low Earth-orbit satellites have become indispensable for U.S. military communications, GPS navigation for smart bombs and troops, and for real-time surveillance. The Chinese test highlights the satellites' vulnerability.

"If we, for instance, got into a conflict over Taiwan, one of the first things they'd probably do would be to shoot down all of our lower Earth-orbit spy satellites, putting out our eyes," said John Pike of globalsecurity.org, a Web site that compiles information on worldwide security issues.

"The thing that is surprising and disturbing is that [the Chinese] have chosen this moment to demonstrate a military capability that can only be aimed at the United States," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html
 

Ry

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
6,425
633
113
50
#3
  • Ry

    Ry

speedy gonzalez said:
"If we, for instance, got into a conflict over Taiwan, one of the first things they'd probably do would be to shoot down all of our lower Earth-orbit spy satellites, putting out our eyes," said John Pike of globalsecurity.org, a Web site that compiles information on worldwide security issues.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

They sound like a bunch of babies, isnt the point of war to destroy your enemy? How is the US gonna be mad that the Chinese have one upped them?
 

DubbC415

Mickey Fallon
Sep 10, 2002
22,620
6,984
0
39
Tomato Alley
#4
^^^because the US is the world's biggest hypocrite. this country feels they have the right to do whatever they want, but no one else can. And we'll dismiss any efforts that other countries try to compete with us as "threats to US interest"
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
45
#5
DubbC415 said:
^^^because the US is the world's biggest hypocrite. this country feels they have the right to do whatever they want, but no one else can. And we'll dismiss any efforts that other countries try to compete with us as "threats to US interest"
Well said. I fucking hate America when it comes to this topic. How dare they presume that they own space? They think they have the right to "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests." Fuck them (notice I don't use the words you, because none of you are not power hungry politicians hell-bent on world domination). Things like this make me ashamed to be Australian too - 'Australia' protested because 'we' just can't seem to get off the U.S's cock - John Howards arsehole would be so fucking loose from Bush having his dick stuck up there for so long. Yet we still voted him in, just like you voted in Bush (Australian liberals are as bad as American republicans, the world would be a much better place without them).
 
Jun 15, 2005
4,591
14
0
#9
Siiiick!!! The US "owns" outer space? That's grand!

I find it hilarious to be so full of yourself that you think you own space. BALLIN!
 

drewski.kalonji

Shark Finning & Grinning
May 17, 2002
5,083
344
0
40
Murky Bay Waters, CA
#10
Good to know about. It's not like they hit our satellite or some other countries for that matter. I think its probally a good thing to develop technology like this for the future (asteroids, illegial satellites, etc)

But if the chinese started taking out multiple US satellites with these missles then it would instantly turn into a huge problem, and I garuntee the USA and their allies would do more than just protest China's actions!
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#11
this is another chess move made by china whether you believe you are a part of the game or not, who has the rights to outer space is irrelevant, in episodes of conflict and struggle for power rights have little to do with anything.
 
Nov 1, 2005
8,178
820
0
#12
WASHINGTON — The Chinese military shot down one of its own aging satellites with a ground-based ballistic missile last week, demonstrating a new technological capability at a time of growing Bush administration concern over Beijing's military modernization and its intentions in space.

The shoot-down, which U.S. officials said occurred on the evening of Jan. 11, prompted a formal protest from Washington that was joined by allies including Canada and Australia, U.S. officials said Thursday. Japan has demanded an explanation, and Britain and South Korea are also expected to file formal objections.

"The United States believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area," said Gordon D. Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council. "We and other countries have expressed our concern to the Chinese."

A spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry said today that he could not comment on the anti-satellite test.

The U.S. and the Soviet Union each conducted similar tests of anti-satellite weapons in the 1980s, but abandoned the practice when the strikes led to widespread debris fields in space that threatened other satellites. The last U.S. test was in 1985. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...9jan19,1,214195.story?coll=la-headlines-world
 
Jul 10, 2002
2,180
18
0
46
#15
Could China's actions actually have been a response to Bush's new space policy which was developed in october of 06?

I think so!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484_pf.html
Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority
U.S. Says Shift Is Not A Step Toward Arms; Experts Say It Could Be

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; A01



President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."

The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space, and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy.

"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction.

National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said in written comments that an update was needed to "reflect the fact that space has become an even more important component of U.S. economic, national and homeland security." The military has become increasingly dependent on satellite communication and navigation, as have providers of cellphones, personal navigation devices and even ATMs.

The administration said the policy revisions are not a prelude to introducing weapons systems into Earth orbit. "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Nevertheless, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank that follows the space-weaponry issue, said the policy changes will reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons. The concerns are amplified, he said, by the administration's refusal to enter negotiations or even less formal discussions on the subject.

"The Clinton policy opened the door to developing space weapons, but that administration never did anything about it," Krepon said. "The Bush policy now goes further."

Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information in Washington, said that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."

The administration official strongly disagreed with that characterization, saying the policy encourages international diplomacy and cooperation. But he said the document also makes clear the U.S. position: that no new arms-control agreements are needed because there is no space arms race.

The official also said the administration has briefed members of Congress as well as a number of governments, including Russia, on the new policy. The public, however, has not learned much about it: The policy was released at 5 p.m. on the Friday before Columbus Day, with no public announcement.

The National Space Policy follows other administration statements that appeared to advocate greater military use of space.

In 2004, the Air Force published a Counterspace Operations Doctrine that called for a more active military posture in space and said that protecting U.S. satellites and spacecraft may require "deception, disruption, denial, degradation and destruction." Four years earlier, a congressionally chartered panel led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld recommended developing space weapons to protect military and civilian satellites.

Because of the political sensitivities, several analysts said, the Pentagon probably will not move forward quickly with space weapons but rather will work on dual-use technology that can serve military and civilian interests. But because many space initiatives are classified, Krepon and others said, it is difficult to know what is being developed and deployed.

Some of the potential space weapons most frequently discussed are lasers that can "blind" or shut down adversary satellites and small, maneuverable satellites that could ram another satellite.

The new Bush policy calls on the defense secretary to provide "space capabilities" to support missile-warning systems as well as "multi-layered and integrated missile defenses," an apparent nod toward placing some components of the system in space.

The new document grew out of Bush's 2002 order to the National Security Council, with support from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to assess the nation's military and civilian space policies. The review has already led to a major shift in emphasis at NASA, away from research and unmanned exploration to returning Americans to the moon and then sending them on to Mars.

Some sections of the 1996 Clinton policy and the Bush revision are classified. There are many similarities in the unclassified portions, and the NSC and the Defense Department emphasized that continuity. But there is a significant divergence apparent in the first two goals of each document.

Bush's top goals are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there."

Clinton's top goals were to "enhance knowledge of the Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic exploration" and to "strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States."

The Clinton policy also said that the United States would develop and operate "space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space" only when such steps would be "consistent with treaty obligations." The Bush policy accepts current international agreements but states: "The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space."

A number of nations have pushed for talks to ban space weapons, and the United States has long been one of a handful of nations opposed to the idea. Although it had abstained in the past when proposals to ban space weapons came up in the United Nations, last October the United States voted for the first time against a call for negotiations -- the only "no" against 160 "yes" votes.

The U.S. position flows in part from the fact that so many key weapons systems are now dependent on information and communications from orbiting satellites, analysts said. The U.S. military has developed and deployed far more space-based technology than any other nation, giving it great strategic advantages. But with the superior technology has come a perceived vulnerability to attacks on essential satellites.

The new policy was applauded by defense analyst Baker Spring of the conservative Heritage Foundation. He said that he supported the policy's rejection of international agreements or treaties, as well as its emphasis on protecting military assets and placing missile defense components in space. He also said that he liked the policy's promotion of commercial enterprises in space and its apparent recognition that private satellites will need military protection as well.

The issue of possible hostilities in space became more real last month when National Reconnaissance Office Director Donald M. Kerr told reporters that a U.S. satellite had recently been "painted," or illuminated, by a laser in China. Gen. James E. Cartwright, the top U.S. military officer in charge of operations in space, told the newsletter Inside the Pentagon last week that it remained unclear whether China had tried to disrupt the satellite.




http://www.space.com/news/061007_bush_spacepolicy.html

New Bush Space Policy Unveiled, Stresses U.S. Freedom of Action
By Leonard David

Senior Space Writer
posted: 07 October 2006
02:45 pm ET



U.S. President George W. Bush has authorized a sweeping new national space policy, green-lighting an overarching national policy that governs the conduct of America’s space activities.


The new policy supports not only a Moon, Mars and beyond exploration agenda, but also responds to a post 9/11 world of terrorist actions, such as the need for intelligence-gathering internal and external to the United States.


U.S. assets must be unhindered in carrying out their space duties, the Bush space policy says, stressing that “freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.”


Without fanfare, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) rolled out the National Space Policy on October 6—a document that supersedes a September 1996 version of the directive. President Bush signed off on the new space policy on August 31.


A 10-page unclassified version of the U.S. National Space Policy was posted Friday on the OSTP web site.


Across the solar system


The White House document spells out U.S. space policy goals, including the implementation of a sustained “innovative human and robotic exploration program” geared to extending human presence across the solar system.


As a civil space guideline, the policy calls upon NASA to “execute a sustained and affordable human and robotic program of space exploration and develop, acquire, and use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe.”


The Bush space policy supports use of space nuclear power systems to “enable or significantly enhance space exploration or operational capabilities.” The document adds that utilization of nuclear power systems “shall be consistent with U.S. national and homeland security, and foreign policy interests, and take into account the potential risks.”


The policy highlights an interagency approval process for space launch and in-space use of nuclear power sources.


Risk from orbital debris


Among a wide range of topics – including commercial space policy and international cooperation—the Bush space policy includes an orbital debris section. It labels human-made space junk as posing a risk to continued reliable use of space-based services and operations, including the safety of space travelers and property in space and on Earth.


“The United States shall seek to minimize the creation of orbital debris by government and non-government operations in space in order to preserve the space environment for future generations,” the space policy explains.


In regards to curbing space debris, the document encourages foreign nations and international organizations to also take steps toward debris minimization.


Freedom of action


For 50 years, the U.S. has led the world in space exploration, developing “a solid civil, commercial, and national security space foundation,” the document notes.


“Space has become a place that is increasingly used by a host of nations, consortia, businesses, and entrepreneurs,” the space policy states. “In this new century, those who effectively utilize space will enjoy added prosperity and security and will hold a substantial advantage over those who do not.”


Additionally, the Bush space policy is designed to “ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives.” Moreover, a fundamental goal of the policy is to “enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there.”


The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to “develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries.”


Overhead intelligence


In a section called “Space-related Security Classification,” the new space policy lists several unclassified facts, such as: The U.S. government conducts satellite photoreconnaissance that includes a near real-time capability, as well as overhead signals intelligence collection.


Among a number of tasks, U.S. government photoreconnaissance is used to “image the United States and its territories and possessions, consistent with applicable laws, for purposes including, but not limited to, homeland security.”


The Director of National Intelligence is charged by the policy to “provide a robust foreign space intelligence collection and analysis capability that provides timely information and data to support national and homeland security.”
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,001
86
48
#17
mrraskal666 said:
The US needs to build missiles into them satellites just in case of this type of shit
The US needs to chill the fuck out and not worry about bombing other people FOR ONCE.

Big fucking deal if they have a missile, our lives aren't going to be over because they can knock out a fucking satellite. What, you guys worried about not having cable TV or satellite TV? LOL....or maybe you're worried about the US not being able to SPY on people anymore?
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,328
173
63
48
#19
Yeah... even if China took out a US satellite, I doubt the US would do shit...

Look at all the fun the US is having in Iraq... now imagine them tryin' to do that to a country wit over a billion people... and nukes?

..:chinese: but the Chinese too smart for that mess; if they adhere to the ancient ways of the art of war, they gonna wait till they think the US is too weak (50-100yrs from now) and swoop in on Taiwan.. then after the US don't do nutin' they gonna git Japan & collect 'em all!

.
 

Hemp

Sicc OG
Sep 5, 2005
1,248
2
0
#20
more like 3-5 years from now

good shit the arabs are putting up this fight well enough to weaken the us military with only one of the US's intended wars.Think of what happens when they mess with iran, or syria, then russia n china with russia knowing where the US's nukes are and blows them up on our own soil.

just a thought