ARTICLE: Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon, By Craig Covault, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 01/17/2007
A shocking surprise to some, but to me this is part and parcel of China's modernization effort designed to threaten our high-tech ability to threaten their somewhat lower-tech ability to threaten Taiwan's lower-tech ability to make good on their threat to declare independence.
But people have to remember that America regularly "attacks" (really, is it an "attack" to blow up your own targets?) missiles with other missiles, and that capability says to China, "we think we can do dangerous stuff to you and NOT be subject to your missile threats."
You can say, "But America only makes such tests to prepare for true bad guys!" And China will say the same thing.
But this is routine hypocrisy for us: all our "tests" are to preserve "peace" (meaning our ability to project power militarily anywhere in the world without effective resistance from anybody), while all their "attacks" are clearly designed to threaten global stability.
This is the essence of the primacy argument of the neocons: America must not only have the biggest gun, but the only gun worth mentioning. If anyone reaches for one, they are automatically bad unless they're already in bed with us (meaning we sell it to them).
Is this a grown-up attitude WRT China? No, strategically it's infantile, given the everything else going on in China, the world, America, and between us and China.
But the hawks want their war calculations held strictly within the context of war and nuttin' else. That way, our "requirement" to weaponize space can proceed apace, with our side trusting the Chinese space hawks to continually return the favor tit for tat.
Yet another implicit U.S.- Chinese strategic partnership that keeps the mil-industrial complex on both sides happy.
Thanks to Eric Hansen for sending this.
| Permalink |
Comments (7)
I'll tell you, it's good to be able to come over here and get a clear-eyed perspective on the stuff that's hyperbolically presented on the front page of most newspapers. I believe pointing out the shortcomings of the emperor's wardrobe is a necessary, but not specific, condition for changing the way we think of ourselves and our position in the new world. The cowboy narrative just doesn't work anymore. Thanks.
Posted by Tom Guarriello | January 18, 2007 9:56 PM
Wait a minute, I thought we (the USA) were the only ones in the world allowed to do stuff like this??!!
Posted by Minor Ripper | January 19, 2007 9:15 AM
We've long extended our nuclear protection umbrella to our satellites. You take out GPS or missile detection satellites, and our nukes fly. That is a bipartisan bit of foreign policy. Now that the PRC is upgrading their ASAT threat, it would be absurd to think it wouldn't make us a bit more nervous. But other than the mil/ind complex mau mauing the Congress into increasing satellite defense and 1st stage ABM budgets I don't think that the capability is going to have much impact on Sino-US relations.
Posted by TM Lutas![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 19, 2007 12:53 PM
While US strategy on China may be "infantile," I'm not sure how you got that assessment from this particular incident. US govt spokespersons have been very measured in their public responses. (No need to paste them here, but see responses by State Dept. and White House spokespersons.)
However, I can understand how one might get that assessment from media accounts, most of which have already projected such an attitude onto the US govt -- despite all evidence (as of now) to the contrary.
Posted by GE Anderson | January 20, 2007 12:51 PM
Couple of other points I'd like to bring up:
1. Critique of the Chinese side: Can you please announce the intent to test before you test? Everyone in the world hates a surprise. Sure, there is risk of embarassment if test fails after you announce it, but make intent clear so actions speak louder.
2. Even absent a Taiwan threat, the Chinese will go for this capability. I think if Taiwan didn't exist, Chinese planners will invent it. It makes their job easy because all they have to do is to copy their force on the US model. We have become their Soviet Union.
3. On the Chinese silence after the test, I think it is payback for US snub during its own missile defense testing. Remember when this administration went to Moscow to ask permission to withdraw from ABM but didn't even talk to the Chinese? Well, we are finding out the Chinese can play this game too.
Posted by LC | January 20, 2007 2:10 PM
LC,
On your point #3, did you even consider that the Chinese were not consulted on our withdrawal from the ABM treaty because they weren't signatory to it?
The treaty was between, and only signed by, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. The U.S. gave six months notice of intent to withdraw, and after the time was up, they did. China had nothing to do with the treaty.
Posted by steveH | January 21, 2007 5:21 PM
steveH:
What you said would be true if we only went to Moscow to justify the missile defense tests. I remember the administration sent diplomats to all over place in Europe and Japan in addition to Moscow. They went every where but Beijing. I think the Chinese were not pleased with the message.
Posted by LC | January 22, 2007 4:14 PM