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 ASAT(Anti-Satelite device) Test? Troubling Debris

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by stumason
China just appears to concentrate on shooting them down, so technically, they are not weaponising space, but rather, de-weaponising.


Exploding a weather satellite has actually created several thousand bullet sized fragments whizzing around at 17,000 mph, so this idea de-weaponizing space is a bit much.

In any event, this missile fired into space will be used as an excuse to arm it.



Well, it can join the rest of the bullet sized fragments hurtling around space anyway! It's hardly a cast iron reason to deny the Chinese a method for which to defend themselves....




posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I realize that, but still doesn't make it right to trash more space just cause there is already space junk in it. I don't buy into the philosophy just cause someone else is an idiot, that gives me a reason act like one too.

That and when does the current crop of kooks in charge of the world's military forces need ironclad reasons to escalate wars and build more weapons?



[edit on 19-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Well, they don't


I agree with you though. Space should not be weaponised, at least by individual states. Maybe when we go out into space as a planet and encounter evil bug-eyed aliens, then maybe a few Battlecruisers would be handy....

But, my posts where mainly aimed at those posters who, for quite obviously nationalistic reasons, have pulled their hair out screaming about how China has stabbed the US in the back blah blah, when the US is the World leader in filling space with military gadgets and is planning on some pretty deadly weapons to boot....



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Noted space writer James Oberg has an article on MSNBC with an interesting take on this test: he feels the point is to force the US to come to the table on a treaty the Russians and Chinese have been proposing to ban space weaponry, which the US has been resisting.

I suspect he is correct, this test was bound to draw more attention to the issue, and Chinese progress in this area is bounnd to cause some US domestic pressure to adopt this treaty.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by stumason
Why is it perfectly ok for the US to weaponise space and do as it likes, but now China is doing it (or, to be exact, countering the potential US threat from space), it's "bad"?? Huh? Come on, someone give me an answer....


Wrong is still wrong regardless of who, what, when, or where.

No one should weaponize space, but since we can't all agree on that idea then space will become weaponized. That and I have yet to see anyone convince our esteemed military industrial complex that war and destruction is not a solution, because it still is "he who has the most guns makes the most rules" aka law of the jungle.

So what's the answer? Give everyone a free pass to go nuts, cause our leaders are nuts too? Yeah we did it, so it's okay drop nukes on Japan too?




[edit on 19-1-2007 by Regenmacher]


honestly you need to look at what you said about China. You say how China is wrong for doing everything and blowing up a sat. and how it will affect real estate. Well good ole USA has done the exact same thing and blew up sat. in space before and you didnt have a hissy fit about real estate then. So why now that China has the ability to get rid of weapons in space and we the USA are trying to put weapons in space why are they wrong. Remeber to every story thers 2 sides well i think you need to look at the other side man.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Let China do what it wishes. As long as it is not attacking other peoples assets, it is fine by me. China is one of the biggest links in the global supply chain, and it would be quite unfortunate for the world, and China itself if we conemned them for something as trivial as this IMO. I say we blow something up in space also just for funsies.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Noted space writer James Oberg has an article on MSNBC with an interesting take on this test: he feels the point is to force the US to come to the table on a treaty the Russians and Chinese have been proposing to ban space weaponry, which the US has been resisting.

I suspect he is correct, this test was bound to draw more attention to the issue, and Chinese progress in this area is bounnd to cause some US domestic pressure to adopt this treaty.


Great post xmotex,
I hope this is the case, that Russia and China both want to ban space weaponry. However, if this is the case, we should also ban Nuclear Weapons once and for all as well. Only by addressing a ban on space weapons while also confronting Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and other weapons will we begin to make this world a more peaceful world. If the three countries could come to this conclusion they would have much more money for their people and their civilian space programs, while at the same time the world would become drastically safer. It's a win/win situation, isn't it?



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by cav01c14
Well good ole USA has done the exact same thing and blew up sat. in space before and you didnt have a hissy fit about real estate then.

That was 20 years ago, you have no idea what I said then, there are currently no US space-based weapons, and you have yet to see a hissy fit...so enough of your making crap up.


Originally posted by cav01c14
honestly you need to look at what you said about China.


I think you need to read what I said, because I have clearly pointed out that if someone does a wrong, that is not a reason or excuse to do more wrong.

No one gets a pass.
No one should weaponize space.
No one should blow objects up in space.
Is that clear enough?

Britain, Japan and Australia say it's wrong:
Three Nations Join China Test Protest Los Angeles Chronicle

Or we can condone and make excuses for such lunacy to continue, like in this historical example:
Hatfield-McCoy feud




[edit on 19-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Didn't GWB recently lay claim to Outer Space being the property of USA and that anyone placing a satellite without his permission that was deemed hostile would be taken out of Space? Well I guess this is China's way of saying HI and we can do that too.




Yes, PieMan... last Oct, according to Muckraker and Reuters:


The capability demonstrated by China was no surprise to the Bush administration, which revised U.S. national space policy in October to assert a right to deny space access to anyone hostile to U.S. interests.

source



Something's not right with this scenario. They're shooting themselves in the foot???

Just last month Chinese telecommunication companies were plugging their new products. With all that junk ready to destroy their own equipment and equipment needed for their products?


"Informatization" and "Harmony" in Chinese Telecommunications

By Drew Clark

HONG KONG, December 8, 2006 — There are six big telecommunications carriers in China, and each of them sought to sell themselves at the International Telecommunications Union Telecom World conference here.

China's telecommunications sector leaders viewed this conference — the first held outside of Geneva, Switzerland, where the ITU is based — as the opportunity to showcase their nation's rising technological prowess.

China is now the world's largest market for telephone service with 482 million cellular users and for 470 million traditional land-line users, according to ministry statistics.



Everybody loves their cell phones and newest technology for our computers. I just won't believe there are Chinese scientists stupid enough to pull such a move.

Something just doesn't seem right. Who told the NYTs about this? Judy Miller? Bob Novak? What are the sources?

[edit on 19-1-2007 by psyopswatcher]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I suspect he is correct, this test was bound to draw more attention to the issue, and Chinese progress in this area is bounnd to cause some US domestic pressure to adopt this treaty.


Unlikely for that to happen, the US saw this coming which is why we revised out Space Policy last year. The cat is now out of the bag, the US wont trust Russia or China (or anyone for that matter) to uphold some treaty when we know damn well how vulnerable they are with our space assets operational.

IMO, this will backfire on China, instead of forcing the US to sign a international treaty it will only give use more of an excuse to proceed with our future plans. Policy makers can be influenced and scared by this, so can the public (how wonderful it is to have a "space shield" to stop those bad ChiComs). Furthermore military leaders will be compelled to act. US ABM missiles can hit MIRVs in space already, they can easily be configured to target satellites...



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Destroying that satellite created a lot of space debris with many different orbital parameters. That debris could very well represent a hazzard to the Intl Space Station. Just a few pieces of it hitting the station could really do a lot of damage and potentially cost lives.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Most of Americans in this thread seems to be peace lover
but why you always choose warmongers as your presidents?
After WWII, every president of USA waged war in the world.
That is why other countries must try their best to resist you.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   


Unlikely for that to happen, the US saw this coming which is why we revised out Space Policy last year. The cat is now out of the bag, the US wont trust Russia or China (or anyone for that matter) to uphold some treaty when we know damn well how vulnerable they are with our space assets operational.


I suspect the thinking is that all parties involved see a space arms race coming.

The Chinese think that by pulling off a test that makes news, they can potentially create a public furor, and get a treaty signed that saves them the money required to catch up to the US.

Yeah the GBI's can probably target satellites, the US has had ASAT capabilities since at least 1985 anyway.

We're ahead, but they're making it clear that they're not sanding still.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The only reason China and Russia want the US to sign a treaty banning space weapons is because they have been left in the dust in this area, and if you are supreme in space you are supreme. Space weapons is the new navy and airforce.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by gs001
Most of Americans in this thread seems to be peace lover
but why you always choose warmongers as your presidents?
After WWII, every president of USA waged war in the world.
That is why other countries must try their best to resist you.


You make it sound like since World War II the rest of the world has been putting flowers in their hair and singing "Kum by ya", or whatever, which is hardly the case. The world is full of wars that have nothing to do with the U.S. It is also full of countries and groups that have carried out attacks on Americans and their interests both at home and abroad.

I think if all countries started minding their own business, the U.S. military would be only too happy to go home and stay home.

I for one, would love to see U.S. defensive weapons perfected and then just sit back and watch the rest of this "peaceful" world grind itself into dust.

[edit on 1/23/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by gs001
Most of Americans in this thread seems to be peace lover
but why you always choose warmongers as your presidents?
After WWII, every president of USA waged war in the world.
That is why other countries must try their best to resist you.


Americans engage in war because we are the one's with the money and the power and we aren't afraid to use it. People always like to "resist" those with money and power, it's called jealousy. If the rest of the world wasn't indifferent to global politics they might realize that the US often doesn't only do what is best for the US but what is best for the world.

Europeans, or at least my experiences with them have a very difficult time grasping the concept of the "greater good." That is an action that is not done to benefit yourself(that would be a selfish action) but an action that is done to benefit others as well and it might include yourself. The reason why the action is done is not selfish but instead selfless.

An example of this can be seen everyday when one of our American Soldiers die. Europeans who don't understand this sacrifice see this as a tragedy. Since those troops appeared to have died for nothing, since they physically didn't gain anything. However Americans see this as the ultimate sacrifice and since it is the ultimate sacrifice it is the ultimate gain.

Christianity understands this concept maybe that is why Europe doesn't.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
:dn
uke...Everyone in this world knows that the reason that U.S waged war is because of oil and resource. Even 3 years old child knows it

Originally posted by Low Orbit

Originally posted by gs001
Most of Americans in this thread seems to be peace lover
but why you always choose warmongers as your presidents?
After WWII, every president of USA waged war in the world.
That is why other countries must try their best to resist you.


Americans engage in war because we are the one's with the money and the power and we aren't afraid to use it. People always like to "resist" those with money and power, it's called jealousy. If the rest of the world wasn't indifferent to global politics they might realize that the US often doesn't only do what is best for the US but what is best for the world.

Europeans, or at least my experiences with them have a very difficult time grasping the concept of the "greater good." That is an action that is not done to benefit yourself(that would be a selfish action) but an action that is done to benefit others as well and it might include yourself. The reason why the action is done is not selfish but instead selfless.

An example of this can be seen everyday when one of our American Soldiers die. Europeans who don't understand this sacrifice see this as a tragedy. Since those troops appeared to have died for nothing, since they physically didn't gain anything. However Americans see this as the ultimate sacrifice and since it is the ultimate sacrifice it is the ultimate gain.

Christianity understands this concept maybe that is why Europe doesn't.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by xmotex
I suspect he is correct, this test was bound to draw more attention to the issue, and Chinese progress in this area is bounnd to cause some US domestic pressure to adopt this treaty.


Unlikely for that to happen, the US saw this coming which is why we revised out Space Policy last year. The cat is now out of the bag, the US wont trust Russia or China (or anyone for that matter) to uphold some treaty when we know damn well how vulnerable they are with our space assets operational.

IMO, this will backfire on China, instead of forcing the US to sign a international treaty it will only give use more of an excuse to proceed with our future plans. Policy makers can be influenced and scared by this, so can the public (how wonderful it is to have a "space shield" to stop those bad ChiComs). Furthermore military leaders will be compelled to act. US ABM missiles can hit MIRVs in space already, they can easily be configured to target satellites...


Where do you think this will lead West Point if we do decide to have a Space Race. It looks like the US would rule for the next 30 years or so but after that who takes over India or China? Does population make for the greatest super power? Can the world operate like this, or will we blow ourselves up?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
A country wants to save the world,
but get hatred from the world in return.
people in that country try to chicanery in stead of
self-examinate for their behavior.
That is USA



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
That was beautiful gs. was that a haiku?

So what is your advice for the US haiku? what should we of done and what should we do?

*Please answer in haiku format, thank you!

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Low Orbit]




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join