Long March rocket launch

Washington has been sent a blunt new year’s message from Beijing that America no longer has a monopoly on weapons in space, and must choose between negotiating a treaty with the rising Asian power and facing the prospect of a dangerous arms race against a new rival.

For decades America has been dominant in every aspect of space technology, particularly in what President Reagan liked to call “Star Wars”, the development of weapons systems capable of destroying satellites and even intercepting and knocking out ballistic missiles before they reach their targets.

Last year the Bush Administration made clear with the publication of its National Space Policy that it reserved the right to continue developing this technology in the face of opposition, particularly from the Chinese.

On January 11 the Chinese destroyed an object at roughly the same distance in space that many US spy satellites orbit. So far Beijing has not said what it hopes to achieve from its dramatic missile test in space. However, experts believe that it will now press home its demands that America sit down at the negotiating table and agree to limit the use of weapons in space and future tests.

The U.S. has hardware to do this since the 1980’s.

Last August, Bush told the world the United States had the right to deny access to space to any nation he felt was hostile to American interests — and there was no need to negotiate with anyone over the question.



  1. ethanol says:

    There is a good series of books (Dragon’s Fury) from Jeff Head that is part novel, part prediction of how the Chinese will use all of this technology to our severe disadvantage…

  2. MT says:

    Wow, Bush put his claim on space now! What an arrogant ass! If the US foreign policy was different maybe the US wouldn’t be hated as much around the world. Space belongs to all of us. What’s next Bush will lay claim on Canada, Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans? Why is it ok for the US to orbit satellites over other nations but they can’t do the same? What makes the administration think that every foreign country with perhaps the exception of Great-Britain and maybe Canada causes threats to the US national security?. If Bush and his cabinet had any brains, they would negotiate with China making them an equal partner because let’s face it, sooner or later China will become the world’s superpower no matter what the US tries to do about it so they should make nice with them now before a new arms race starts.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m Canadian and like the US. The citizens are great and the country does provide a lot of humanitarian aid across the world (probably more than any other nation for that fact) but the federal government’s policies often leave me scratching my head.

  3. Improbus says:

    There is nothing wrong with America that a 50 megaton thermonuclear blast over Washington D.C. wouldn’t cure.

  4. Mike Voice says:

    …must choose between negotiating a treaty with the rising Asian power and facing the prospect of a dangerous arms race against a new rival.

    Interesting to see how the arms race would play itself out.

    Would it be like the US vs USSR, but with the deficit-spending, debtor-nation US facing a financial crisis while trying to fund the race??

    It would be another great way to “starve the beast” though, wouldn’t it? 🙂

  5. RTaylor says:

    The Chinese has no great interest in sitting down with the Bush Administration. They would like to lay a frame work for the, hopefully more sensible, following administration. For non-US readers there is something called the Monroe Doctrine that US Presidents occasionally dusts off and use when extension of force needs justification.

  6. Mike Voice says:

    5. The Chinese has no great interest in sitting down with the Bush Administration.

    That has a ring of truth to it. I hope it is true.

    I was looking for a link to GW’s statement that we would consider using nukes if the PRC took military action against Taiwan, and came across this, from 2004:

    http://tinyurl.com/26t4bs

    For example, the official Xinhua news agency last week had this to say about the U.S.: “A man can’t maintain his reputation if he is found to be untrustworthy, let alone a major power.”

    The Beijing-based Global Times accused Washington of “frequently changing commitments it has made to other countries.”

  7. mxpwr03 says:

    Why is everyone so nervous about China?

  8. Dan says:

    I am very happy that all of the US mfg companies are over in China. Very smart.

  9. coconuts says:

    #4, I think you’re right.

    The US is pouring $15 billion into fortifying Guam, for example, which is linked largely (though not exclusively) to the coming war with China.

    China now has $ 1tillion (yes, trillion) in foreign exchange, and can afford to build military capability. But they will do it in their own way, I suspect. I doubt they’ll build massive and expensive aircraft carriers to fight the US. They appear to be inclined to use other, more cost effective means, to hit our soft spots, so to speak.

    I don’t pay much attention to the middle east stuff, I think that China is the real big deal coming up. Even after WWII, we’ve lost over 100,000 troops fighting on the Asian mainland, and those were “small” wars that some pompous journalists call mere “conflicts.”

  10. If we simply put a tariff on Chinese goods, this would end.

  11. GregA says:

    John C Dvorak,

    Forget the tariffs. All we need is an administration that will take dumping complaints seriously. The only area that any action has been taken against dumping is steel. All the steel fabricators now complain that the steel costs 2x what it did when China was dumping cheap steel.

    Just one example of many where dumping is a problem is toasters. You can go into Wallmart and get a toaster for $3. Come on, at $3 bucks that toaster is selling retail for less then the commodity value of the copper, steel and plastic it is made of. Never mind the cardboard box, shipping or marketing the dang thing. The only reason Walmart (China) is selling toasters for $3 is to put American (or western) toaster manufacturers out of business. They arn’t making any money on it.

  12. mxpwr03 says:

    GregA the groups that seem to be gaining in the $3 dollar toaster market would be the consumers who value the product at that price, & the producers who can manage to sell the goods at that cost. “The needs of the many (consumers) outweigh the needs of the few (the producers).” If American companies cannot compete in the $3 toaster intra-industry trade sector, they should exit the market, or invest money to manufacture better toasters that consumers are more than willing to pay for. If I was in the market for a toaster and their are several on the self, I would pick one that has a lot of features, and would inevitably cost more.
    . .Mr. Dvorak I don’t see how placing tariffs would solve the problem (I’m not even sure what the problem is that you’re alluding to.) The effects of tariffs typically include a lowering of the real wage for consumers, giving less incentives towards domestic firms to innovate and become more productive, and finally the inevitable dead weight loss that follows.

  13. Guyver says:

    #9, the last time I was in the “know”, China’s level of “average”military technology wasn’t up to par to ours. However, they have lots more than we do, that’s for sure. For them to modernize their military would bankrupt their economy.

    I think and agree with your assessment that they are clearly going for the more cost effective alternatives such as this new laser weapon or many more ICBMs. That’s far more cheaper than modernizing their aging fleet of military equipment.

    #11, I’m really hesitant in believing any tariff would end anything. Slow down, yes. To what degree? I don’t know, but I seriously doubt it ending.

    #2, someone else brought this up, but you may want to google what is called the Monroe Doctrine. I agree the United States has a double standards of sorts when it comes to policy, but that’s because we believe we’re more responsible than others. As for who we deem a threat, that changes frequently, but I think it’s all too easy to blame a particular politician when people don’t like his style. You only need to compare this president to the previous one and note how many double standards there are. The demands made of this president were not made by the same critics of the previous. That being said, China aside, this country also needs to worry about itself because some politicians are more concerned with their party winning than doing what’s good for the country.

  14. Guyver says:

    Not to scream the sky is falling, but people should take our attempts at a missile defense system more seriously. Star Wars or not, any confrontation with China IMO would definintely need a system such as this to protect ourselves.

  15. Phillip says:

    Too many people seem to enjoy this event. You may like it because you feel it’s a slap in the face to Bush. Don’t forget that this spreads debris around in it’s orbit which impacts all nations access to space.

  16. doug says:

    #15. that was my first thought. what grounds do other countries have to complain about this, besides the debris? I mean, is there any treaty that says the Chinese can’t test an antisat weapon?

    while I certainly appreciate the US’s military supremacy, it is not our right. Other nations have the right to try to catch up, and we can just try to stay ahead. fortunately the US has a long lead …


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5998 access attempts in the last 7 days.