
A Long March-3A carrier rocket blasts off from Xichang, Sichuan Province, December 8, 2006.
Recently—exactly when is unclear —China fired a missile into space and destroyed a derelict Chinese weather satellite. The satellite was orbiting 500 miles above the earth, the same approximate orbit as US spy satellites. The result is a cloud of scrap metal in orbit that will pose a threat to spacecraft for hundreds of years to come, and despite calls of protest from the US, Japan, Australia, Korea, and plenty of other countries, China has yet to answer for the test or even acknowledge it took place.
Color me shocked that TIME has perhaps the best analysis:
While Western intelligence agencies have long been aware that the People’s Liberation Army was attempting to develop an anti-satellite system, the successful targeting of a single satellite in high orbit marks a significant milestone. When the Pentagon issued its annual report to Congress on China’s Military Power last summer it stated that “China can currently destroy or disable satellites only by launching a ballistic missile or space-launch vehicle armed with a nuclear weapon.” All that has now changed… It was reported last September that China had “painted” a U.S. satellite using a ground-based laser.
What does this say about institutional separation and checks-and-balances in China? Mike Green, former Bush Asia adviser:
“It shows that the Peoples Liberation Army has considerable leeway — a great deal of influence if not autonomy — to increase their capacity even at considerable diplomatic cost.” …Green notes that there have been occasions in the past when the PLA has appeared to directly breach a diplomatic agreement reached by China’s Foreign Ministry, notably over the passage of Chinese submarines through Japanese home waters. And because U.S. officials fear that one scenario in which a conflict between the U.S. and China over Taiwan could occur involves an independent or rogue action by disgruntled generals, any sign of independent action by the military brass is cause for concern, says Green. In fact, behind the scenes, tensions have already been rising over what U.S. officials say has been a steady build-up of Chinese forces on the coast opposite Taiwan in the last year. Washington has already expressed concern about the build-up to Beijing. The anti-satellite missile test may prompt renewed diplomatic discussion. But it’s not clear what effect such expressions of concern will have on Beijing’s decision-making.
And here’s the honest truth about America’s military: we are highly vulnerable without the high-tech edge. The article also notes that in a recent joint exercise held with the Indian Air Force, less technologically advanced Russian Sukhoi jets defeated American F-15s when the latter were deprived of support from satellite and AWACs systems. America’s military dominance may not be as secure as we thought.

Comments to this entry
Chief Wiggum
January 20, 2007
6:01 pm
_The electromagnetic pulse was first observed during high altitude nuclear weapon detonations. An electromagnetic pulse lasts for less than a nanosecond, and travels outward in every direction as an electromagnetic shock wave. This shock wave will induce heavy currents in all electronic equipment that mainly contains semiconducting and conducting materials. This produces immense heat that melts the circuitry inside. As such, while not being directly responsible for the loss of lives, these weapons are capable of disabling electronic systems on which industrialized nations are highly dependent._
Back in the cold war years, I read an article stating that the latest Russian MIGS used primitive electronics, compared to US planes, expressly to make them less vulnerable to disabling electromagnetic pulse attack. Presumably, there is, or will be countermeasures taken to reduce this risk, but at the time I had an image of US jets, after an EMP attack, dropping from the sky like bricks.
Thomas P.M. Barnett was recently interviewed on the "Hugh Hewitt Show":http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/ecb812eb-0724-4f81-9c52-11bb15c47c60.
_HH: Dr. Barnett, when we went to break, we were talking about China and the American Navy. We have these 10 Nimitz-class carriers out there, which are really our force projection power. If China develops the ability to attack from land via cruise missiles, could that not vanish overnight, though?_
_TB: Well, you know, frankly, my gut reaction is that, to that scenario, is to say the age of the carriers is really gone, because of cruise missiles, and because of other capabilities. I think we've held onto the myth that carriers are the sine qua non of our ability to project power, simply because nobody's building them. And it seems like such an obvious advantage, and because we have control of the seas, park our airports right next door to something and fly at will. But with long range"¦the ability to refuel, and with the fact that we don't seem to have any trouble finding bases around the world"¦we worry about a lot, but when we lose one, we get another. And it's usually one closer to the fight we're interested in. The truth is, we don't need carriers in the way that the Navy will tell you that we do. And so the perceived threat of could the Chinese blow them up with cruise missiles? Sure, I think they could. But would it make a difference? No._
"Would it make a difference? No." Hmmmm. Let's ask Eddie about that one.
But Curzon is right. America's military is likely not as secure as we thought.
Eddie
January 21, 2007
1:55 am
Excellent point about the EMP blast, there seems to be some disagreement among scientists and engineers about the extent of the damage, but there have been a number of reports commissioned by the government in the past 20 years that have highlighted the threat and measures to defend US infrastructure against it.
Re: the end of the age of carriers; while obviously there is some danger of a cruise missile, bomb or weapon that could "blow up" an aircraft carrier, the larger concern (and much easier weakness to exploit) is that's it quite easy to disable it with a few (or perhaps even one with a huge payload) missile hits to the bow of the carrier, rendering flight ops impossible until major repairs could be made.
An aircraft carrier is useless then.
Dave Schuler
January 21, 2007
2:41 pm
Destroying the satellite was (IMO a rather ill-considered) demonstration of ability and little more. If the Chinese were to destroy a U. S. satellite without provocation, it would be an overt, obvious act of war. Aircraft carriers would be the least thing that the Chinese would have to worry about.
Peter
January 21, 2007
7:06 pm
Here's a link that sets this missile test in context:
www.kotare.typepad.com/thestrategist/2007/01/satellite_kille.html
Eddie
January 21, 2007
8:05 pm
Your dose of reality about the PLA is warranted, though the willingness of elements within the PLA to share weapons technology with others (i.e. North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan) is disturbing.
The US obsession with defending Taiwan at all costs also should give one pause when considering the PLA as a threat; because we can never (especially during our current drought of intelligent leadership and preemptive diplomacy) underestimate the potential for disasterous misunderstandings and misreadings of intent between Taiwan and China.
Lastly, with the apparent unfortunate increased chances of Bush pursuing misguided adventures in Iran, the threat to aircraft carrier groups in the region should now be a paramount concern with the types of missile and mine technologies Iran has at its disposal. Not that they're state of the art, but they are deliberately crafted and positioned to wreak maximum havoc on the US Navy and Gulf oil facilities. Our narrow-minded obsession with the best and brightest technology is going to cost us dearly sooner than later. Iran would seem to be the most likely theater of this painful lesson.
I also remain doubtful the US could even dream of winning a short war against China in the future or even now, short of using nukes or targeting Chinese dams.
Joe
January 21, 2007
10:05 pm
Shingen
January 22, 2007
1:29 pm
So much hinges on satellites, yet the Chinese have used a crude weapon (by SDI-style standards) to threaten existing military technology. The way ahead is redundancy or defence... or more likely: both.
Fragglerocker
January 24, 2007
10:37 am
Add to that the current US rapid delivery satellite program (which is both a military supported program and a program which will now be accelerated) involving the building of solid-fuel single-stage-to-orbit sattelite launch vehicles which can be left on long-term standby, and you have a situation where the PLA could shoot down a satellite every 12 months, which is then replaced by 10 US satellites the next day.
Don't underestimate the power of having the world's most advanced space program tied to the world's largest economy.
And no I'm not an American.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
January 24, 2007
4:53 pm
from "Space and Sea-Lane Control in Chinese Strategy"
By George Friedman
For Washington, the idea of an ASAT treaty is not the issue; the United States would love anything that blocks space capabilities for other nations. Rather, it is about building its own space strategy around the recognition that China and others are working toward denying space to the United States.
... The real problem, however, is not just money, but current military dogma. The U.S. military is now enthralled by the doctrine of asymmetric warfare, in which nonstate actors are more important than states. Forever faithful to the assumption that all wars in the future will look like the one currently being fought, the strategic urgency and intellectual bandwidth needed to prepare for space warfare does not currently exist within the U.S. military...
For the United States, one of the greatest prices of the Iraq war is not simply the ongoing conflict, but also the fact that it makes it impossible for the U.S. military to allocate resources for emerging threats... U.S. leaders might, in 10 years, look back on 2007 and wonder what their predecessors were thinking about.