It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
chinadaily
"China first (intends to) pursue an arms control agreement to ban space weaponization, as it is advocating now," Zhang said. However, "If this effort fails, and if what China perceives as its legitimate security concerns are ignored, China would very likely develop responses to neutralize such a threat."
These responses would depend on the specific infrastructure of the U.S. missile defense and space weaponization programs, Zhang said. But they could include producing as many as 14 or 15 times as many ICBMs with a range of more than 7,800 miles that are able to threaten the United States, he said.
--snip--
China could also react to boost-phase interceptors by seeking to overwhelm them through the tactic of simultaneously launching several ICBMs from a compact area, Zhang said.
Another option would be to protect the missile's body with reflective or ablative coatings. Or the missile could also be rotated in flight, he said.
"Given the inherent vulnerability of space-based weapons systems (such as space-based interceptors or space-based lasers) to more cost-effective anti-satellite, or ASAT, attacks, China could resort to ASAT weapons as an asymmetrical (defense) measure," Zhang said.
Another option would be to develop ground-based kinetic-energy weapons such as miniature homing vehicles or pellet clouds," he said.
"China should be able to develop these low-cost and relatively low-technology ASATs," he said.
However, Zhang emphasized that China would only adopt these more aggressive counter-measures if the United States pushed ahead with its own ambitious missile defense and space weaponization plans first.
Russia urges US to avoid space arms race (NATO running Amok)
Originally posted by djohnsto77
Russia whining because they'd like to get in a new arms race but can't afford it is pathetic. We will put weapons in space if it makes sense for us to do. There's nothing Russia would be able to do about it unless they want a full-on hot war with the United States.
Russia urges US to avoid space arms race (NATO running Amok)
Originally posted by American Mad Man
The only reason everyone else is against weapons in space is THEY CAN'T DO IT.
No one else has the money to do it.
No one else has the technology to do it.
If Russia could put 'Rods from God' up there, or put lasers up there, they would. Same with China and France and everyone else. They can't, so they don't want to fall behind.
Screw the rest of the world - the US needs to push the envolope, and get as far ahead of everyone else as possable. We need to INCREASE the gap, not let it dwindle away.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
As if this is anything new?
The US it's self has been saying that global powers such as Russia and China are not threatened by US space based weapons. They are, much like our anti missle systems, a threat only to small powers such as North Korea which would have very small numbers of nuclear missles.
The reason no one else wants the US to have weapons in space is because they can't do it themselves. Thus, they fall farther behind in military technology. It has nothing to do with a threat posed by SBW's.
Does worry one though that nations are spendining more and more on death instruments than life saving one.
Originally posted by apc
Saving lives is precisely what M.A.D. is for.
Technology and military advancement can never be avoided, but balance of power is essential.
Originally posted by devilwasp
I am saying how its scary we spend milllions on tools of death but not the same on tools of healing.
No its preventing, not saveing.
... we are made to kill...
Originally posted by apc
Is there a difference between preventing death and saving lives? I don't see one...
It would be nice if all our species focused on was developing cures for cancer and limitless food supplies, but... well... "yeah, right" comes to mind. Rather idealistic.
Not quite but we are naturally violent creatures. It's hardwired into our brains.
Originally posted by devilwasp
If we banned drinking it prevents death, saveing lives involves the casualty to be IN danger.
Why "yeah right" , as mad man says, we're not poor countries.
We CAN afford to spend more money on medicine.
Yeah and its also natural for males to take control of women but we have changed, its not hard wired, its just something we can get over.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Does worry one though that nations are spendining more and more on death instruments than life saving one.
Originally posted by apc
If people were to die because of an action, and other actions are taken before hand to prevent those deaths, is that not saving lives?
"Yeah right," as in... when was the last time you heard of a nation abandon its military budget in favor of building better hospitals?
Yeah, right.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Military technology saves lives all the time. The coast guard alone saves people at sea frequently.
The US and NATO saved thousands of lives after the Tsunami. If it weren't for US carriers, there would have been no way to get all of the medical suplies and clean water on site in time.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
I hope you realise that if nukes were ever invented, there would have been a WWIII directly following WWII. Russia would have attacked Western Europe, and the US and Europe would have gone to war.
So, in my estimation, nuclear weapons have probably saved close to 20 million lives thus far in history.
Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
The missiles are given the coordinates of the incoming dumby nukes and they still miss, how pathetic.
Saving lives is precisely what M.A.D. is for.