Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Chinese space weapons....

  1. #1
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,294

    Chinese space weapons....

    After reading this article, does anyone wonder why China wants a space station on the Moon?.....

    [url]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1188[/url]

    Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon
    By Craig Covault, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Cape Canaveral
    Wednesday, January 17, 2007





    Courtesy of Aviation Week & Space Technology and Aviationnow.com

    U. S. intelligence agencies believe China performed a successful anti-satellite (asat) weapons test at more than 500 mi. altitude Jan. 11 destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile.

    The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA and other government organizations have a full court press underway to obtain data on the alleged test, Aviation Week & Space Technology reports on its web site Aviationnow.com.

    If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military capability.

    Neither the Office of the U. S. Secretary of Defense nor Air Force Space Command would comment on the attack, which followed by several months the alleged illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser.

    China's growing military space capability is one major reason the Bush Administration last year formed the nation's first new National Space Policy in ten years, Aviation Week will report in its Jan. 22 issue.

    "The policy is designed to ensure that our space capabilities are protected in a time of increasing challenges and threats," says Robert G. Joseph, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the U. S. State Dept.

    "This is imperative because space capabilities are vital to our national security and to our economic well being," Joseph said in an address on the new space policy at the National Press Club in Washington D. C.

    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 system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center.

    The attack is believed to have occurred as the weather satellite flew at 530 mi. altitude 4 deg. west of Xichang located in Sichuan province. Xichang is a major Chinese space launch center.

    Although intelligence agencies must complete confirmation of the test, the attack is believed to have occurred at about 5:28 p.m. EST Jan. 11. U. S. intelligence agencies had been expecting some sort of test that day, sources said.

    U. S. Air Force Defense Support Program missile warning satellites in geosynchronous orbit would have detected the Xichang launch of the asat kill vehicle and U. S. Air Force Space Command monitored the FY-1C orbit both before and after the exercise.

    The test, if it occurred as envisioned by intelligence source, could also have left considerable space debris in an orbit used by many different satellites.

    USAF radar reports on the Chinese FY-1C spacecraft have been posted once or twice daily for years, but those reports jumped to about 4 times per day just before the alleged test.

    The USAF radar reports then ceased Jan. 11, but then appeared for a day showing "signs of orbital distress". The reports were then halted again. The Air Force radars may well be busy cataloging many pieces of debris, sources said.

    Although more of a "policy weapon" at this time, the test shows that the Chinese military can threaten the imaging reconnaissance satellites operated by the U. S., Japan, Russia, Israel and Europe.

    The Republic of China also operates a small imaging spacecraft that can photograph objects as small as about 10 ft. in size, a capability good enough to count cruise missiles pointed at Taiwan from the Chinese mainland. The Taiwanese in the past have also leased capability on an Israeli reconnaissance satellite.

  2. #2
    Remember that spy plane in China a few years ago?

  3. #3
    China's ASAT weapons are Russian based, first generation weapons, which were very inferior to our weapons which due to the ASAT treaty with the Soviets and international law were either destroyed or stored.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Equilibrium]China's ASAT weapons are Russian based, first generation weapons, which were very inferior to our weapons which due to the ASAT treaty with the Soviets and international law were either destroyed or stored.[/QUOTE]

    The USA has over 400 satellites in space. We have a lot to lose here if they continue down this road. We are very vulnerable.

    Thank you Mr.Bush, this is another fine mess you got us into.

  5. #5
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,294
    ok, I'm convinced... :rolleyes:

    [url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2556823,00.html[/url]

    China tries to reassure the world on space missile 'aimed at peace'
    Jane Macartney, Richard Beeston and Tim Reid

    Strike raises fear of Star Wars race
    'Soft underbelly' of US exposed




    China signalled yesterday that its first missile strike against an orbiting satellite was intended to force the US into talks aimed at abolishing weapons in space.
    As it faced an international chorus of protest against its test — the first such launch for 20 years — its officials insisted that they wanted space to be free of weapons.



    “As the Chinese Government, our principle stand is to promote the peaceful use of space,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman said. “We oppose the militarisation of space. In the past, in the present and in the future, we are opposed to any arms race in space. Of this everyone can be confident.”

    The reassurances failed to placate jittery Asian neighbours and Western powers, which fear that the surprise Chinese muscle-flexing is part of a campaign to raise its global military posture while raising the spectre of a space arms race.

    China is the first country since 1985 to destroy a satellite in space and only the third — after America and the former Soviet Union — to master so-called Star Wars technology. The clear message is that if China can shoot down its own orbiter it could also attack satellites operated by other nations.

    Beijing has increased defence spending by 10 per cent every year since 1990. Last year spending rose nearly 15 per cent to $35.5 billion (£18 billion). Experts believe that the true figure is far higher, in part because the official budget does not include military development costs.

    Yesterday Britain and Japan added their voices to the growing criticism, which has included the US, Australia, South Korea and Canada. A Downing Street spokesman said that Britain was concerned about the impact of debris caused by the destruction of the satellite and the secretive manner in which the test had been carried out. A formal protest was made this week to the Chinese by the British Embassy in Beijing.

    Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Minister, said that China’s new-found capacity to shoot down satellites was “not consistent with ... the traditional Chinese position of opposition to the militarisation of outer space”.

    Washington’s response will be crucial in determining what happens next: an arms race in space or an agreement to limit the use of Star Wars technology. American analysts said that the test had exposed the “soft underbelly” of America’s national security apparatus, because most of the Pentagon’s spy satellites orbit at a similar height to the weather satellite destroyed by the Chinese test.

    White House critics said that the Chinese test was a result of President Bush’s aggressive unilateralism, this time in his space policy. Last year the US expressly ignored Chinese and Russian calls for a global ban on the development of space weapons. Instead, a new policy preserved America’s right to develop military space technology, while “dissuading” others.

    Edward Markey, a Democrat congressman, said that President Bush should initiate an international agreement “to ban the development, testing and deployment of space weapons and anti-satellite systems”.

    But Jeffrey Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, said that the Chinese move should spur the Bush Administration to develop new space defence systems.

    “We now know for certain that China has the direct capability to destroy satellites in space and the indirect capability to deny their use,” he said.

    Chinese analysts said that they doubted the action would damage China’s relations with the US. Shi Yinhong, of the School of International Studies, said: “Every big power, if it wants to maintain its status as a big power, will get into the field of space.”

  6. #6
    [I][B]Chinese analysts said that they doubted the action would damage China’s relations with the US. Shi Yinhong, of the School of International Studies, said: “Every big power, if it wants to maintain its status as a big power, will get into the field of space.”[/B][/I]

    And at the rate that India and China are educating it's people in engineering, it won't be long till we are not the only superpower again.

    We continue to outsource jobs, providing those countries with much needed capital to get an advantage on US. Check out some of those hi-tech firms from SV.

    A lot of them outsource jobs....

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]

    We continue to outsource jobs, providing those countries with much needed capital to get an advantage on US. Check out some of those hi-tech firms from SV.

    A lot of them outsource jobs....[/QUOTE]

    I agree with you 100%.

    Greedy western manufacturers are providing China with the capital needed to build up their military power.

    I believe it was Khrushchev who said capitalists would sell you the rope to hang them with....

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan]I agree with you 100%.

    Greedy western manufacturers are providing China with the capital needed to build up their military power.

    I believe it was Khrushchev who said capitalists would sell you the rope to hang them with....[/QUOTE]

    They are using that capital to build an infrastructure (trained engineers) also.

    If this is not a political issue, then what can be? Maybe they won't fire at their own next time...

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg][I][B]Chinese analysts said that they doubted the action would damage China’s relations with the US. Shi Yinhong, of the School of International Studies, said: “Every big power, if it wants to maintain its status as a big power, will get into the field of space.”[/B][/I]

    And at the rate that India and China are educating it's people in engineering, it won't be long till we are not the only superpower again.

    We continue to outsource jobs, providing those countries with much needed capital to get an advantage on US. Check out some of those hi-tech firms from SV.

    A lot of them outsource jobs....[/QUOTE]

    Generally, the jobs we outsource are the low-skills jobs because it benefits us to not pay above-market wages for manual labor. For knowledge-type jobs, we're still #1. Although we're not producing as many knowledge-based workers as I would like, we still "in-source" many of them from other nations.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound]Generally, the jobs we outsource are the low-skills jobs because it benefits us to not pay above-market wages for manual labor. For knowledge-type jobs, we're still #1. Although we're not producing as many knowledge-based workers as I would like, we still "in-source" many of them from other nations.[/QUOTE]


    Call the help desk of some of these deep pocketed SV firms. You will see that they have not only outsourced the low paying jobs.

    The "in-sourcing" is also dangerous. These folks send money back from the US to the other country from whence they came.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Call the help desk of some of these deep pocketed SV firms. You will see that they have not only outsourced the low paying jobs.

    The "in-sourcing" is also dangerous. These folks send money back from the US to the other country from whence they came.[/QUOTE]

    A help desk is generally a low-skill job. Read a few manuals and policies of the company and talk to customers about it.

    The highly technical call centers are finding that it's not working in foreign countries so some of them are moving back to the US. But the basic call centers are in India, etc. for good reason.

    Hiring engineers or scientists who are Americans instead of the best and brightest is much more dangerous than foreigners sending money back home.

    So out-sourcing is bad, and in-sourcing is bad. Good grief, Jetdawg.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound]A help desk is generally a low-skill job. Read a few manuals and policies of the company and talk to customers about it.

    The highly technical call centers are finding that it's not working in foreign countries so some of them are moving back to the US. But the basic call centers are in India, etc. for good reason.

    Hiring engineers or scientists who are Americans instead of the best and brightest is much more dangerous than foreigners sending money back home.

    So out-sourcing is bad, and in-sourcing is bad. Good grief, Jetdawg.[/QUOTE]

    I am not talking about "reboot your computer" type of help desk personnel.

    How about training Americans to do the job right? How about a major investment in education at home here?

    These other countries are not fighting and losing stupid wars. They are putting their money to use in education for the countrymen and women.

    They are producing engineers while we are killing and jailing our potential engineers. It is a problem for the DOE that the folks who run it are foreigners.

    Bet you did not know that? Go look at the plant locations and see who runs those plants.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]I am not talking about "reboot your computer" type of help desk personnel.

    How about training Americans to do the job right? How about a major investment in education at home here?

    These other countries are not fighting and losing stupid wars. They are putting their money to use in education for the countrymen and women.

    They are producing engineers while we are killing and jailing our potential engineers. It is a problem for the DOE that the folks who run it are foreigners.

    Bet you did not know that? Go look at the plant locations and see who runs those plants.[/QUOTE]

    Companies will do what's in their best interests. And that's what they should do. That's our how economic system has prospered so long.

    If a company believes it is more beneficial to out-source it's help centers, then fine. You don't hurt the company just because the employee would be American. That's absurd.

    And let's be honest here, there are plenty of American engineers and scientists who are not dying in wars. Scare tactics much? How many have we lost in Iraq? 3,000? I'm not triviliaizing that amount, but how many have were engineers and scientists? What % of those make up all of the American engineers and scientists? Please, Jetdawgg. Don't reach.

    Jetdawg says: Don't out-source. Don't in-source. You can't win. Either way, America is wrong!!

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound]Companies will do what's in their best interests. And that's what they should do. That's our how economic system has prospered so long.

    If a company believes it is more beneficial to out-source it's help centers, then fine. You don't hurt the company just because the employee would be American. That's absurd.

    And let's be honest here, there are plenty of American engineers and scientists who are not dying in wars. Scare tactics much? How many have we lost in Iraq? 3,000? I'm not triviliaizing that amount, but how many have were engineers and scientists? What % of those make up all of the American engineers and scientists? Please, Jetdawgg. Don't reach.

    [B]Jetdawg says: Don't out-source. Don't in-source. You can't win. Either way, America is wrong!![/[/B]QUOTE]


    [COLOR=Blue][B]I say America first, America second, America third.....[/B][/COLOR]

    We have plenty of people in the rural/ineer city areas of the country that can be trained at the same costs if not lower than outsourcing.

    The companies that outsource do this with gov't subsidies. If they were removed or incented to do otherwise, I bet they would do the other.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg][QUOTE=BrooklynBound]Companies will do what's in their best interests. And that's what they should do. That's our how economic system has prospered so long.

    If a company believes it is more beneficial to out-source it's help centers, then fine. You don't hurt the company just because the employee would be American. That's absurd.

    And let's be honest here, there are plenty of American engineers and scientists who are not dying in wars. Scare tactics much? How many have we lost in Iraq? 3,000? I'm not triviliaizing that amount, but how many have were engineers and scientists? What % of those make up all of the American engineers and scientists? Please, Jetdawgg. Don't reach.

    [B]Jetdawg says: Don't out-source. Don't in-source. You can't win. Either way, America is wrong!![/[/B]QUOTE]


    [COLOR=Blue][B]I say America first, America second, America third.....[/B][/COLOR]

    We have plenty of people in the rural/ineer city areas of the country that can be trained at the same costs if not lower than outsourcing.

    The companies that outsource do this with gov't subsidies. If they were removed or incented to do otherwise, I bet they would do the other.[/QUOTE]

    GM ran it's business according to "America first" and now they are practically going out of business. That hurts America much more.

    Companies have a responsibility to be "Company first" Going out of business helps no one. You pick the best people for the job. Period.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound][QUOTE=Jetdawgg]

    GM ran it's business according to "America first" and now they are practically going out of business. That hurts America much more.

    Companies have a responsibility to be "Company first" Going out of business helps no one. You pick the best people for the job. Period.[/QUOTE]

    I agree. But don't take my tax dollars over seas and get it done.

  17. #17
    America first? What did GM do?

    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound][QUOTE=Jetdawgg]

    GM ran it's business according to "America first" and now they are practically going out of business. That hurts America much more.

    Companies have a responsibility to be "Company first" Going out of business helps no one. You pick the best people for the job. Period.[/QUOTE]

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=cr726]America first? What did GM do?

    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound][/QUOTE]

    Succumb to the unions to keep the jobs in America instead of outsourcing some of the jobs to remain competitive. Now, they will likely go out of business if not bailed out by the government and everyone will lose their jobs.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg][QUOTE=BrooklynBound]

    I agree. But don't take my tax dollars over seas and get it done.[/QUOTE]

    The business world is competitive. You've got to adopt your policies to the changing world to survive.

  20. #20
    Those horrible unions. They destroy the world.



    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound][QUOTE=cr726]America first? What did GM do?
    Succumb to the unions to keep the jobs in America instead of outsourcing some of the jobs to remain competitive. Now, they will likely go out of business if not bailed out by the government and everyone will lose their jobs.[/QUOTE]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us