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.

 

China ready to counter US space weaponization plans

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
It looks like China is already working on ways to circumvent a US space-based weapons system should the US ever choose to pursue it.

They sound like they would be able to circumvent it with low cost methods.



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.


There are some interesting comments in the thread below to Russia's objection to the US weapons system.
I wonder if they still feel the same way.



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.


[edit on 23-5-2005 by AceOfBase]




posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

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.


apc

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Does worry one though that nations are spendining more and more on death instruments than life saving one.

Saving lives is precisely what M.A.D. is for.
Technology and military advancement can never be avoided, but balance of power is essential.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Saving lives is precisely what M.A.D. is for.

No its preventing, not saveing.


Technology and military advancement can never be avoided, but balance of power is essential.

I am saying how its scary we spend milllions on tools of death but not the same on tools of healing.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   

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.


because that's what we humans do, we are made to kill, well kind of, sooner or later we going to blow ourselfs up, the MAD is only preventing it for now, but can't last forever, sooner or later so small nation pop our of no where with nukes and lunch it, it will cost confusion and everybody lunch theirs too lol


apc

posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

No its preventing, not saveing.

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.


... we are made to kill...

Not quite but we are naturally violent creatures. It's hardwired into our brains.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
maybe the US should focus on more important issues such as environmental degradation or researching on alternative fuels instead of producing WMD like weaponry system. the panic is incipient ( few nations already voiced out, many more will follow ) and it might actually cause a war ( this subject has brought in many bellicose comments, especially from *cough* US *cough* posters ).



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Is there a difference between preventing death and saving lives? I don't see one...

If we banned drinking it prevents death, saveing lives involves the casualty to be IN danger.


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.

Why "yeah right" , as mad man says, we're not poor countries.
We CAN afford to spend more money on medicine.


Not quite but we are naturally violent creatures. It's hardwired into our brains.

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.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Our congress can be manipulated to force war on any country as long as you have a group, in power at the top, that can stage world events and produce a one sided tale of pending doom. We have that, and the tide is now turning against even the assumption that anyone other than an elite few should have any say at all, [the threat of the Presidents core, republican, neo-con senators to change how the senate is run--fillabusters, another first step to ending d4emocracy]. So why should any country in it's right mind wait around for the US to develope Space based weaponry before starting a program of it's own.
Kid yourself all you want but China and Russia can, and will be capable of destroying the US whenever they feel threatened, or whenever they too, are ready to be destroyed, wheather they have Space weaponary or not.
Space based weapons are just more corporate welfare and do nothing to make the world or the US a better place to do our time.


apc

posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
If we banned drinking it prevents death, saveing lives involves the casualty to be IN danger.

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?



Why "yeah right" , as mad man says, we're not poor countries.
We CAN afford to spend more money on medicine.

"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.



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.

Yes chemically and consciously we can override our natural violent design. Seratonin is mostly responsible for our diminished tendencies. Without it, we are ruthless violent vicious animals. This is not debatable. It is fact.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Does worry one though that nations are spendining more and more on death instruments than life saving one.


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.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

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?

And if MORE people could die because of that "life saveing" action that would negate the action.




"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.

Who was talking about abandoning the military budget, I sadi it was shocking we spend more on death than life.



Originally posted by American Mad Man
Military technology saves lives all the time. The coast guard alone saves people at sea frequently.

The coast guard doesnt use a nuke to save lives now does it?
Most of the tech developed for the coast guard is made by civilians not military.



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.

Yes, but a carrier is diffrent from a nuclear bomb or J-dam bomb, I am not saying military tech doesnt save lives. Its the type of military tech that matters.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

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.

No in estimation, nuclear wepons HAD NOT been invented so therefore DIDNT save lives.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
We better stay ahead of them or we're up # creak. If our economy declines or something major happens we will be in trouble. I'm telling you, watch your back because China is becoming a power house faster than you can blink...



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   
No nuclear country will allow any other nuclear country to put in place a possible first strike capability. If the US implements this tech and if it works (big if) then that will mean that they could blow up any country on earth without having to worry about people retaliating.

This is a big danger for our safety because if the US goes ahead and ignores their warnings they will nuke us. This is just a waste of money and will never work, we can't even get our land based missiles to shoot anything down. They even cancled a test because some clouds apeared, aahhh clouds they are so evil. The missiles are given the coordinates of the incoming dumby nukes and they still miss, how pathetic.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
The missiles are given the coordinates of the incoming dumby nukes and they still miss, how pathetic.



It's really amazing how you say "how pathetic"; as if you ccould design something ten times better. Chances are you (and most of the other people on this board), couldn't even fathom the formulas, and equations involved in designing a system that would intercept missiles allready en route to their destination.

If you can design something better, don't hold out any longer. We need minds like yours, to help us design these VERY complex, and intricate machines.

if you can't then don't knock it. The people who design these machines have a very thankless job as it is allready.

It's like calling Derek Jeter pathetic for striking out all night. How many home runs could you hit, put up against a major league pitcher?

How many missile defense systems have you designed?

[edit on 6/18/05 by microcosm]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Saving lives is precisely what M.A.D. is for.


M.A.D in my opinion, was the single dumbest idea in the history of mankind.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Seems to me China can be forgot dealing with space-based weapons. However, if China teamed up with Moscow well, that's a little more worrysome.

Kind of a siberian union? No, the best that can happen I feel is that wait till Mr Bush is out of Office and let Laura Bush (if she runs and wins), do what has to be done to bring back the world as was prior to Me Bush's election vitories.

Dallas



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join