Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Wasn't this a case from the beginning of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' though? I see this as event as one of both gains and losses, regardless of the choice made.

I understand your position, it originates from one of grand strategy at a political level, but I have a different take from the naval centric perspective. I see this test very much in line with the Maritime Strategy. The Naval deterrent capacity for major conflict is the enabling context for the Navy's shift to expand its capabilities for connecting the nonintegrated gaps. Successful Ballistic missile defense is very much apart of that process.

I also see the success combined with the media attention as beneficial to the naval deterrent capacity at the high end, because it supports the theory that massive development and investment for those means aren't necessary, as the existing system appears quite capable. In my opinion, the results further enable the argument that within the context of a ‘strategy of the means,’ the means (program development) that needs attention within the Navy is at the low end, which lacks flexibility, not the high end which just demonstrated an amazing degree of flexibility.

You once said the Navy needs to transition to more ferry than warship in the future. This test, with its publicity and success, supports that argument as the way ahead by validating the warship is prepared for all challenges, and it is now time to bring the ferry up to speed.

Good point... but I'm a realist and I look at it and say:

China did it, bad for us 'cause they're not on our team.

The USA did it, good for us.

I think in polite circles you get the reaction you described but when you get folks guard down they'll say what I said above.

More fun having toys when the other kids see you playing with them.

The USA shot down a satellite that was falling and was going to fall, and which therefore presented a genuine safety hazard coming down in one piece. No doubt there were other reasons, such as preventing others from getting the wreck to examine, and testing our ASAT capability. But we did have a plausible, public-spirited reason for doing it.

China's satellite kill was of a satellite that was not a hazard to anybody, and they did it in a way that put fragments in orbit that are now a hazard to others. It was just bad form the way the Chinese did. It showed poor stewardship of the orbital zone where everyone has to put their satellites and made them look irresponsible.

The Chinese are often tone-deaf to these kinds of concerns of others. The USA is far from perfect in that regard, but we have vigorous political and journalistic scrutiny and most major steps get decent vetting. (The large matter of planning the Iraq postwar shows how a secret process, which does not get this scrutiny, can generate a similarly bad outcome ... .) Nonetheless, the Chinese sometimes demonstrate a seeming randomness in their behavior that suggests that the various bureaucracies are pursuing their own agendas and not talking to each other and not even considering the consequences of what they are doing or how it will look to others.

That is the difference.

We have better spin!

It was only a matter of time. The Navy does not operate a "Space Warfare" center for nothing. War will inevitably come to space. I understand the Chinese motive. If the worst case scenario occurs, they would want to knock out some of our spy satellites and GPS capability. A lot of nuclear weapons were tested after WWII but none were used in anger. I don't see any cause for alarm. Interesting though....Chicken Little was trying to tell us that the "Sky is falling".

The space hazard issue is big, no doubt.

Then again, maybe that was China's signal after they and Russia asked for treaty on space weapons and we said we weren't interested discussing.

Perhaps NASA should have contracted with China for their anti-satellite capability. Avoided perceptions that USA is testing a weapon system, give the Chinese chance to do what we were calling a form of space sys-admin work, and for us see what capability they have.

One thing that seems to be forgotten/overlooked/not mentioned is that the US hit a satellite at an alltitude of 133 nautical miles, at the very limitation of the SM-3 missile. Whereas China's ASAT shot was at an altitude of 537 nautical miles, way beyond the range of a SM-3.
So in the end, the political spin people want to attach to this is limited by the fact that most of China's or anyone else's satellites orbit at an altitude beyond the reach of the SM-3.

One potential audience for this demonstration might be Pakistan. I don't know what sort of discussions are going on among the highest levels of the Pakistani military during these tumultuous days, but one thing that this demonstration shows is that the United States could pick winners in a nuclear missile exchange between Pakistan and India. One or more SM-3 equipped Aegis destroyers in the Indian Ocean could shoot down most or all of the nuclear missiles fired by India and Pakistan against each other or we could choose to only shoot down the missiles fired by one side or the other.

The lesson being that it is better to be our friend than to piss us off too much. We can protect either nation from the worst consequences of bad decisions by its neighbor. This ought to lower the level of paranoia that each nation's military needs to feel towards each other. We can shield both nations from the folly of either or we can neutralize the nuclear missile arsenal of only one.