Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

China Destroys Satellite With Missile ...

Discussion in 'Non-World War 2 History' started by Lone Wolf, Jan 19, 2007.

  1. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2807975

    This destruction of one of China's own aging weather satellites is widely being seen as an agressive act across the world as it is clear and unnecessary demonstration of China's capability (if not intention) to use such weapons. There is a genuine danger of this sparking a space arms race as understandings re use of that highest of high ground are abandoned in favour of protection of national interests.

    One unpleasant scenario that has been floated is China considering attacks on US satellites as part of an invasion on Taiwan - this is almost certainly scare mongering but possible none the less.

    Personally, I do see this as an irresponsable and provaocative act which is likely to lead to greater militarisation of space - if only for defence purposes.

    What think you ?

    PS. I do realise that both USA & USSR did this a while back but have long since agreed not to do it
     
  2. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    This sounds dangerous.
     
  3. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    Provocative just doesn't seem enough....hope nobody (most implying the States but who knows these days) misinterprets this as an act of war or something.

    Would end very badly for the whole world.
     
  4. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    it is a clear message to the usa: keep your eyes off ( spy sat ) our turf
     
  5. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I am not as concerned now as I would have been 5 years ago.

    Firstly China is dependant upon foreign trade for their booming ecomomy.

    Secondly I saw a Chinese government representaive discussing it to the press, something that would have been unheard of 5 years ago.

    thirdly Russia and the US have this technology. It's patronising of them to say that it's wrong and even if people do develop it they shouldn't test it. Thats a pretty high moral standpoint for someone who already has the working technology. Would the US and Russia comply if China developed something entirly new and then tested saying to the world that no one else should test it as it would be imflamatory?

    I personally think that China is engaging with the western democracies quite well and is no longer the silent communist state to be feared.

    FNG
     
  6. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    I hope you're right.
     
  7. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
  8. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I half agree with FNG, that it is not too much of an overtly aggressive act, for a number of reasons. However, it is also a blatant "look what we can do - tread carefully around us in future" warning. And yes, it is very likely to restart the old 'how to destroy enemy satellites while defending your own' race.
     
  9. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    I fail to see the couse for war. It was their weather satelite.

    News Analysis: China's missile test: A message for U.S.

    The last part of the article explaining a lot.
    And
    U.S. tries to interpret silence over China anti-satellite test
     
  10. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    If US and Russia,hawe that weapons,i dont see why otther country's shoud be banned to develop the same.I feal the same for nuclear weapons allso,if US and Russia want to proclame non nuclear weapons world,they must dismount their own nukes.All otther is just hipocracy.
     
  11. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    some of my friends found this "horrible" because they could take out American satellites and completely paralyze the Military...Are American Forces really that reliant on satellites?








    theres no need for any country's having them (nukes), so theres no reason to add more country's, the last thing we need is a country bent on anthers country destruction.

    US
    G.B.
    France
    Russia
    Pakistan
    India
    Isreal
    China

    N. Korea......

    then if nothing happens Iran.

    no country should be adding Nukes to there arsenal...because if u nuke some one they nuke u and u know the story.

    Sinissia have u ever been to the US? I don't think you'd find it so bad ;)
     
  12. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    There is a difference of course. Some nations are arguably more reasonable or sensible, others are not. I would be more concerned about North Korea or Iran having a Nuke than (for example) Morocco simply because the former regimes are more threatening in my eyes.

    Put simple, who do I think would be more likely to use such a device to prove a point? It's not Morocco, it's not the US, so it's not a matter of hypocrisy.
     
  13. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes - in our desire to be fair to everyone we should try not to lose sight of reality.
     
  14. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    Probably. The CIA probably does a lot too.
     
  15. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    The whole notion of mutually-assured destruction always scared-hell out of me. Civil Defense shelters, drills in school. I was 9 yrs old when the Soviets "blinked" over missles secretly placed in Cuba during the Kennedy administration. Frightening times they were.
    Todays greatest threat is likely the detonation of a nuke by a "rogue" nation, terrorist group or other politically motivated group intent on inflicting terrible loss of life.
    More than a few nations now possess the knowledge to contruct a nuclear/hydrogen bomb, but yes, the USA was the first. I also believe we have been wise stewards of the technology, as have other nations to date. Many of the scientists of course visualized future peaceful uses for the splitting of the atom.
    We've got nuclear subs... and power-generating plants.
    Isn't there a nuclear "clock" somewhere?
    Nuclear-powered aircraft-carriers... and nuclear medicine.
    Confusing, ain't it?

    Tim
     
  16. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Don't forget the nuclear family.
     
  17. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes
    Modern comunications sometimes even on small local battlefield level are now unimaginable without them.

    GPS is backbone of field navigation (give a a sun compass to modern troops send them into the desert and see how they'll fare :D ). GPS is also used for precision bombs (JDAMS) and in some cases cruse missiles. If you manage to disrupt GPS signal you can couse a lot of confusion (remeber tomahawks hiting Bulgaria in 1999?).

    Not to mention inteligence gathering, mapping & survailance. For survailance purposes satelites can be replaced with UAV's on limited very local battlefield level but cannot replace them on strategical or broad tactical level.

    For mapping and inteligence gathering they are irreplacable. Nowdays most strategical targets (airfields, communications, storage dumps...) are designated by satelites before war even starts. Remove that and you can kiss strategical bombing capaign goodbye.
     
  18. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Good article:
    Oops - Did I Help Start a New Cold War in Space?

     
  19. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Actualy when i spoked about nukes,i did not say that we need to alow any nation to hawe them,i sayed that presend users need to get rid of them first,then they will had credibility to speak against that weapon in world.
     
  20. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    sinissa:
    Pretty hard to shove that rabbit back into the hat after he's already been pulled-out. Same analogy as nuclear weapons technology... and I expect the ICBM is here to stay.
    Problems come with keeping the technology out of the hands of those who are eager to use one--or more--on their enemies. The Cold War ended without the destruction of the world that my generation grew-up sweating.
    I don't believe for one minute that terrorists wouldn't use one on a major metropolitan-area if given the opportunity. Governments like Iran cause great concern to the West due to their rhetoric about wiping nations off the face of the earth. (Israel for example.)
    Any nation that embraces nuclear-power today should be doing so in order to improve the qquality of life of it's citizens. Power-plants and nuclear medicine for example. Not weapons-grade plutonium. North Korea has delusional, paranoid leadership. They are NOT good stewards of this technology.
    It doesn't mean that The United States, Russia, England, China, and the other nuclear-powers are hypocritical... but simply realists in striving to keep this technology out of the hands of the "madmen" of the world. I don't think their "credibility " suffers one bit.
    The United States has had the bomb... and the ability to nuke it's neighbors since 1945. They have proven themselves to be good, and responsible stewards. Not the Great Satan.

    Tim
     

Share This Page