Chinese Lasers Blind US Satelites 739
SniperClops writes, "China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources." The article mentions the reluctance of the U.S. administration to talk about this "asymmetric" effort by the Chinese military.
blind my eyes too (Score:5, Funny)
An interesting difference in article vs blurb (Score:5, Informative)
Hype indeed... (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of modern western military tactical thinking revolves around spy satellites, communication satellites, navigation satellites, UAVs (most of them remote controlled or semi autonomous at best) as well as battlefield information exchange and coordination netw
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But that's the whole point. The USA/NATO wouldn't need to use nukes against a smaller, lesser equipped force. A large, well equipped country using nukes on a small, ill-equipped military? They wouldn't dare. That country instantly takes a major, critical, near suicidal hit to foreign relations. But, if there was a single country or group, with roughly the equivalent military might of the USA/NATO, that said one day, "Gee, we'd really like to destroy them. To War!" I'd bet that nukes would be involved
Re:blind my eyes too (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Software solution? Pffft. The solution is obviously Sharks with Frickin' Lasers on Their Heads.
Seeing Red (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the U.S., 'colour' reads ass if it would be pronounced 'cohloor' or 'cohlowr'. It is pronounced more like 'culler', but just dropping the 'u' makes it much more clear that it represents the apperance of light bouncing off of something instead of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
learn that building a global empire and spreading your language to every corner of the globe means you lose some control of how it's spoken. not to mention, England is even more guilty of rejiggering words than the US is, otherwi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The United States is, despite what people say about it being a Jewish nation or a Christian nation or a Judeo-Christian nation, governed by a secular government. As a group of people with similar values
Just keep telling yourself that. (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:English_dialect s1997.png [wikipedia.org]
Percentage of native English speakers worldwide by country:
U.S. - 67.2%
U.K. - 16.9%
CAN - 5.8%
AUS - 4.5%
Other - 5.5%
(Ironically, the source of the data is from a British Council report.)
So even if the U.S. is the only country that uses "color," it's still by far the most common spelling. More generally, American English is, by any realistic measure, the principle dialect of the Eng
Re:Just keep telling yourself that. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, what makes it wrong or misleading is that there are literally hundreds of millions of english speakers in Africa, Asia and the caribbean living in former British colonies. Since they only got their independence
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude. Your keyboard is totally broken.
What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We can have nukes, but North Korea and Iran can't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but Iran and North Korea are run in the wrong way. Iran for instance has organised religion controlling politics and North Korea is run by the spoiled, incompetant son of a former President.
But seriously, no matter how much I might bag out America on /. it IS different, there are worse Presidents than Bush on this earth, worse regiemes than the Republican party and I think the Iranian theocracy who puts a cleric in charge of the country and the DPRK's isolationism which is so feeble that the country
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Funny)
A theocracy that needs nukes certainly has a faith problem. (Not to mention that whole witches in ponds handing out swords thing.)
Why Iran and Korea can't have nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason I remember UN Weapons Inspectors being in Iraq and actually looking for WMDs. I also remember the US government not believing their reports and pushing for war and starting a little invasion before they could even finish their inspection.
Of course, Saddam Hussein being removed from power is great, but look at the price the Iraqi people (and not only they) have to pay every day.
Re:Why Iran and Korea can't have nukes (Score:4, Informative)
If Saddam was trying to show he didn't have WMDs and that he wasn't lying, he was going a godawful job of doing it.
Re:Why Iran and Korea can't have nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not entirely convinced they were looking very hard at all for WMDs, as I suspect their goal was the rehabilitation of iraq on the international scene rather than the aparantly unromantic task of thorough confirmation of treaty compliance. Their lack of information was a prime driver in the development of the war.
Of course the price of the war was terrible, but it could've been averted if the UN had at tried to at least appear willing to extract it. Diplomacy only works if the threat of a non-diplomatic resolution is real.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Iran vs Israel (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran is a mullahcracy, has a supreme leader for life, political canadates must be "selected", state controlled press, Iran does not have religious freedom, etc. Iran even has a bloody moral police with incredible powers to arrest and detain.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't say much for North Korea's mindset (maybe they are just their own special brand of insane?) but for the militant islamist countries, they would certainly prefer everyone dead over both they and the "infidels" being alive.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Funny)
That's just a side effect of our agenda.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is considerable merit to this argument. I think however that using nukes is different than using hundreds of kilotons in an urban area. The proposed US tactics would employ nukes in the range of several kilotons explicitly for the purpose of taking out targets hardened against conventional attack. I gather that it is claimed or perhaps suspected that the US doesn't have conventional weapons capable of taking out some of the tougher Iranian targets. It is highly doubtful that Iran or North Korea would
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as nuking goes, if the US uses nukes it will be as a symbol, not as an attempt to do any real damage. If the US wants to level a city, it can already do that with conventional attacks. A coupl
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
The last thing one wants is to have nuclear weapons in the possession of unstable regimes either unable to control the devices or demonstratively irrational. But do either North Korea or Iran really meet those conditions? I personally don't think so. It is also somewhat understandable why these states are intersted in possessing them given the sort of armchair militarism that passes for IR analysis in much Western punditry.
The invasion of Iraq was a huge disaster, if only for destroying the credibility of international organizations like the United Nations as a restraint on the unilateral militarism of its members. The proliferation of nuclear weapons through the Middle East may be the only thing capable of stabilizing the region at this point.
This isn't an easy case to argue either way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The last thing one wants is to have nuclear weapons in the possession of unstable regimes either unable to control the devices or demonstratively irrational. But do either North Korea or Iran really meet those conditions? I personally don't think so. It is also somewhat understandable why these states are intersted in possessing them given the sort of armchair militarism that passes for IR analysis in much Western punditry.
Iran, you might be able to make a credible argument for. But not North Korea whic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
time will show The Shrub's War to be an unmitigated disaster.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Iranians are Persians, good luck getting some dialogue in with a bunch of Persians that want to "wipe you off the map." Who wants to listen to anything Mr. Great Satan(USA) says anyway? Iran doesn't.
2) North Koreans think their dictator is the son of God, you think you can have a dialogue with God? Good luck!
The United States doesn't want to wipe out the Iranians or North Koreans, that is just what their leaders tell them, ya know, propaganda. Get them people yo
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
It surely may sound ironic in the case of China, but : a sovereign nation has a right to privacy.
I'll remember that the next time they try to steal nuclear technology from us.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:4, Insightful)
International law (you know, the thing that applies to the US but no one else) says that a nation owns only 100 miles up, and beyond that they can lay no claims. So, if this is to be believed, a the Chinese military just attacked the US military while the US military was in international waters. That is an act of war. If the US acknowleges it, we have to acknowlege it as an act of war.
My guess is that this was some Chinese general stroking his manhood, and that the US is going to use back channels to force China to remove that general. Better than admitting that we are at war with one of our largest trading partners...
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:4, Interesting)
While a common practice, spying of another country is a gray zone. A caught spy is usually condemned by the spyied country unless he/she has a diplomatic status.
International law (you know, the thing that applies to the US but no one else) says that a nation owns only 100 miles up, and beyond that they can lay no claims. So, if this is to be believed, a the Chinese military just attacked the US military while the US military was in international waters. That is an act of war. If the US acknowleges it, we have to acknowlege it as an act of war.
The same treaty makes space a military-free zone. So tell me, what was a US milmitary item doing in orbit ?
I don't like the chinese govt and such news give me a cold feeling in the back but I would consider that, regarding current laws and treaties, it is only fair game. They treat the spy satelite more gently than a spy : they didn't destroyed, didn't ask for it to be removed, they just blinded it temporarily.
Re: (Score:3)
My point is not that we obey the "international law", my point is that no one seems to expect anyone to except the US. Did Iraq? Does Iran? Does China? No one obeys international law, because no one enforces international law. But if the US
How is this interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, reading my own definition, this would justify Afghans and Iraqis seeking to expel the Americans and the British, just as it justified the French Resistance in WW2, and the American Colonists in the 1770s.
At what point is the present US administration going to face up the fact that it is the self-appointed global hegemon and that five and a half billion people disagree with that?
Re:How is this interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)
So does this mean that the US has the right to disable Chinese "fishing" vessels outside the 12 mile limit on the open seas if the "fishing" vessels are covered with anttenae? No, because that would be an act of war or piracy because nations have a right to sail on the open seas, just as nations have a right to have satellites in space. You are justifying a violation of treaties governing the neutrality of space.
Spy satellites != American arrogance (Score:4, Informative)
The old Soviet Union maintained heavy orbital surveillance of the US.
This was and is a Good Thing. US scaremongers shouting "missile gap!" were overruled by satellite intelligence. Soviet paranoia was limited to what was actually going on. Arms control treaties specifically and explicitly required both sides to submit to "national technical means" of verification.
>someone else has the right to disable it with proportionate force
As close as the Cold War came to ultimate horror, and as much as spy satellites stabilized it, that's an idea you do not want people to adopt.
>self-appointed global hegemon
Spy satellites are not a reason to believe that, unless the US starts shooting down other nations's satellites while maintaining their own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Was there a formal extradition treaty with the former government of Afghanistan? If not, should they be under any legal obligation to oblige?
Do you realize that attitude is precisely why Iran is trying t
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia article on the Outer Space Treaty [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that property is defined by the man standing on it with the biggest gun. Mars will be "free" until the very moment someone puts up a hotdog stand and the only reason people can take treaties like this seriously is because they can barely be violated, let alone enforced.
If we go to space, we will war over its territory. And that's the way it is.
KFG
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the problem with the chinese shining their lasers at space that nobody owns anyway?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
China Is a Potential Trade Partner (Score:5, Informative)
Read the rest of it. It's an interesting article, but some of these statements come off as revenue generating news (and considering this is Defense News, it's no surprise).
They forget to mention that we would probably do the same (if not worse) to deter spy satellites over our own country. They also don't address the concept of whether or not a country has a righ to its own privacy here. I think we would want privacy for our country and should not be surprised or angered to find our attempts thwarted when spying on other countries. Well, that jamming station must not have worked well and I highly doubt it was put there by the Russians. I cannot think of a clear motive for it. Probably sold as surplus or exchanged for payment by a disgruntled soldier and found its way to Iraq.
So we'll either change our standards or give the military a special encrypted standard. The cat and mouse game will begin between the US wanting to see what China's doing and China not wanting the US to see what they're doing. Frankly, I don't really give a damn. China has some bad leaders and some severe problems but they're more internal than anything.
You'll find at the bottom of the article: That's right, they do. So this isn't really news so much as "Country X Defends Itself Against Country Y" except that Country Y is the only country that thinks it's hot shit and that the world must reveal all and revolve around Country Y. Also, our leader has stated that non-compliance means you are with the terrorists and you're against us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a non-American, I find it problematic that a spy-satellite "attacked" in that way over a sovereign third country is seen as a vulnerability to the U.S. space network.
This report is suggesting that the U.S. have the right to spy on
Re: (Score:3)
You clearly did not get the memo. (Score:2, Funny)
It is obvious to any red-blooded, patriotic, Jesus-loving American that we are the only source of righteousness on earth and it is our God-given duty to use His power to advance our cause of spreading His holiness throughout the world and trample over the devil-worshipping heathens. Therefore, what we do is good and what all the godless nations of the world that are not America do is wrong. Thank you, and God bless.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what I want to know is why you think that the US has responded in a manner that questions this right?
Unless you're asking why the US put the satellite up there to begin with, which is simply asinine. Countries spy on each other, it's a fact of life
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... because space is free according to UN? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I am on a public right-of-way and she closes her blinds, then nobody. If she sends her boyfriend out to pull a sack over my head, there would likely be some legal issues.
Re:What I really want to know... (Score:5, Informative)
The Russians operated a multitude of surveillance satellites over the US in the 1960s-1980s. They still do I believe. As do the Chinese. As do, I believe, others. Almost all reconisiance sattelites should be able to "spy" on the US should their owners be so inclined.
If anyone cares enough to try to figure out exactly how many surveillence satellites are in orbit, here's a link to the Union Of Concerned Scientists sattelite database [ucsusa.org]
Well, then, I'll give you an answer. (Score:3, Interesting)
Setting aside absurd fantasies, lets ask this: how far should national bounaries extend into space, or into the core of the Earth? After
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Temporary blindness (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
So its a bit like saturating a camera with light so it can't take good pictures, but once it moves on it should be OK.
so China hired Dr. Evil (Score:4, Funny)
Where's Austin Powers when you need him?
What would we expect them to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, good for them....I guess. I would imagine that the US would do the same to Chinese spy satellites (if they had any - which I don't know and don't feel like googling), so why be surprised when the Chinese do it? It seems to me that this is just a case of the Chinese government acting in the interests of it's own national security. This may be news, but it should not be surprising.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What would we expect them to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet you don't see us blinding their satellites and claiming "it's not aggressive, it's just common sense."
Satellites, outside of a state of war, are like transoceanic cables. You're supposed to leave each other's alone because it starts a chain of retaliations that ends up with very little accomplished aside from a disastrous collapse of certain types of infrastructure.
So yes, China going and doing this is an openly aggressive act. It's not as aggressive as cutting a cable would be, or landing soldiers in Hawaii, but don't think it's somehow innocent.
Re: (Score:3)
I've not heard the US making those claims, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't use similar techniques (or use Free Trade agreements to negotiate no-fly no-photo zones). Do you really think the US lets anyone with a satellite photograph any old thing they like? Really? Why does Google maps/earth/etc have some US installations censored?
What's more, why is this even news? A few days ago we had an arti
Re:What would we expect them to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would imagine that the US would do the same to Chinese spy satellites (if they had any - which I don't know and don't feel like googling)
They do, and they pass over the US. So do Russia, India, France, Spain, the UK, Germany, Turkey, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Iran, Algeria... in short, pretty much everybody (Note that I'm considering any satellites capable of earth observation as "spy satellites" -- most of them aren't intended for that purpose, but most of them can, and probably are, used for intelligence-gathering). Though the US has various anti-satellite weapons, including both lasers to blind them and experimental systems intended to destroy them, all testing of US anti-satellite weapons is done on US satellites and drones, in order to avoid provoking incidents with other nations.
Perhaps the US should change this policy with respect to Chinese satellites? I don't think so, but I can see where others might disagree.
So that idea about.. (Score:2, Interesting)
To be fair though, I'm guessing there are SR-71 replacements (Aurora?) busy doing a similar job but we just don't know about it yet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
BTW, I have been led to believe the Aurora is at least 2 generations old now
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is that why he was "ex"?
I know, that is nothing like what you menat, but it made me giggle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US launches 5-10 spy satellites a year, and they publically announce when they go up (though not what they do). Just look at something like this launch schedule [spaceflightnow.com] and look for launches with "classified spacecraft payload for the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office".
Poked in the eye (Score:2, Funny)
I like this
Also Chinese defence program is called "Assassin's Mace".. it's straight out of a badly dubbed movie!
History repeats (Score:2)
Did you ever (Score:5, Funny)
Did you ever see a friggin' shark in a Google Earth picture? No?
Now you know why.
But seriously... (Score:2, Funny)
amazing how much they can go away with (Score:2)
Humour (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing that new here (Score:3, Interesting)
The big deal here is that this is yet another message to the folks who want to spend hundreds of billions on satellite weapons. Put 'em up there, and someone will spend a lot less money to disable them when the need arrises.
Space based weapons systems are not "siezing the high ground". They are more like climbing a tree with a sack full of rocks. They have some advantages, but overall against a serious opponent, they are a poor and expensive strategy.
Um, they can hit the ones they can see... (Score:5, Interesting)
The $500 billion dollar annual defense budget is being spent somewhere. I would hope some of it was put into spy satellites that are awful easy to overlook.
Re:Um, they can hit the ones they can see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you think spy satellites are detected using a RADAR?
Well, how do YOU think they are detected? SONAR?
BFD (Score:3, Interesting)
If anything, your reaction to this story should tell you where you stand with respect to the US.
More power to China, I know this will force the US to improve/upgrade it's space efforts. And that, to me, is a good thing.
could this be a bluff? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was in the US spying game and I know that someone was trying to blind my satellites, I'd say "Oh no, you've stopped me photographing your secret installations" even if the attempts were unsuccessful. That way the target thinks they've stopped the spy satellites, whereas in practice, the lasers may be completely ineffectual.
Until the Chinese spies can get hold of genuine, spoiled, satellite photos (that weren't staged/planted) they cannot be sure they have suceeded.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
New Spy Satellite (Score:4, Funny)
Play misty for me (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure the Chinese government realizes that spy satellites that you know about are a stablizing influence. Things, like nukes, are destablizing. Bring on the satellites. (as per Arthur C. Clarke)
Oblig musical reference (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eventually... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, without calling me an American hater, please; what would be so wrong with the chinese launching satelites, putting men into orbit and having nuclear weapons? Oh, and by the way, whos' fault is that chinese are financing USAs balances?
As someone said it before, this is no news at all. The novelity here is that China used laser to disable satelites, but i bet a lot of countries have done similar (if not worst) in the past.
Re:Is this an attack? (Score:4, Interesting)
After all, I'm just disabling your eye -- temporarily at that.
I'm pretty sure the authorities would disagree with me when they hauled me off to the pokey as I screamed, "It wasn't an attack! I was just disabling him, or perhaps blinding would be more fitting!"
Re:Is this an attack? (Score:4, Interesting)
What if I was looking through your bedroom window from a public sidewalk as you and your boyfriend made sweet love. Then to prevent me from seeing this lovefest you shined a laser in my eye.
Now if China shot a rocket into space and blew up the satilite or damaged it, then that's an attack. Otherwise you could call what the US is doing to China an attack.
Re:Is this an attack? (Score:5)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't that apply to the US as well?
I doubt they could make it work. Wanna Bet? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/2006071 3-9999-lz1c13laser.html [signonsandiego.com]
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/Apoll oLaser.html [nasa.gov]
Thats 239,000 miles hitting an 18 inch square target.
Re: (Score:3)
No we didn't. We blew up an American scientific satellite that was past its end of mission.
and it caused all sorts of issues,
That's because although the satellite was passed end of mission, it was still returning data. The scientists were pissed.