More

China's Missile Shield Plans

China Missile

First Posted: 08/31/11 03:55 PM ET Updated: 10/31/11 06:12 AM ET

By Jason Miks, The Diplomat

China is developing a multi-dimensional programme aimed at improving its ability to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during a crisis, the Pentagon says in its latest report on the country’s military. Is this another step toward a ‘Star Wars’ missile defence shield?

Certainly according to South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo, it is. ‘China is developing a missile defence system in the highest layer of the atmosphere and outer space using high-end technologies like laser beams and kinetic energy intercept,’ the paper notes as it dissects the report, which has just been presented to the US Congress.

Entitled ‘Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2011’, the report assesses China’s military progress over the past 12 months, including potential space-based applications. It notes that China conducted a national record 15 space launches last year, and also ‘expanded its space-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, meteorological, and communications satellite constellations.’

‘China launched nine new remote sensing satellites in 2010, which can perform both civil and military applications. In 2010, Beijing also launched two communications satellites (one military and one civil), a meteorological satellite, two experimental small satellites, and its second lunar mission during the year,’ the report adds.

China’s advances are giving it the capacity to jam common satellite communications bands and GPS receivers. Meanwhile, ‘China is improving its ability to track and identify satellites – a prerequisite for effective, precise counter-space operations,’ the report says.

The problem for US and other analysts is that as with much else about China’s military advances, it’s difficult to establish with certainty what China’s intentions really are.

According to Joan Johnson-Freese, a professor of national security affairs at the US Naval War College, there are several reasons for this, the most important being that a very high percentage of space technology – probably about 90 percent she estimates – is dual-use, meaning of value to both the civil and military communities. ‘And in the military realm it’s difficult or impossible to distinguish offensive from defensive intent,’ she says.

‘Missile defense is a good example. While the United States considers its extensive missile defence system as defensive, many countries – including China – see it as giving the US a potentially significant offensive capability,’ she says. ‘Also, China is far more opaque about its intentions than the US would like – not atypical for either rising powers or Asian cultures.’

An indirect result of Chinese secrecy was international condemnation of its decision in 2007 to conduct the ‘killing’ of a satellite. On January 11 of that year, China used a missile to destroy an aging Fengyun series weather satellite. The test was a success, but prompted an international outcry and concerns that it was further evidence that China had taken another step toward the militarization of space.

But Johnson-Freese says China noted that the United States, which used its own missile defence technology in 2008 in Operation Burnt Frost to destroy a malfunctioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite, didn’t come in for such criticism. ‘So in 2010, the Chinese again tested technology with the potential for use as an ASAT, but this time called it a missile defence test and didn’t receive the same kind of international rebuke,’ she says. ‘Did they learn anything subsequent to their 2007 test? Yes, they learned how to avoid criticism by taking advantage of the dual-use nature of space technology.’

So, should the US military and its allies be concerned by China’s advances? ‘Other countries, and not just China, worried very much about US “intentions” in space during the years of US rhetoric about “space dominance” during the Bush Administration,’ she says. ‘That rhetoric has largely changed now, but the technology remains critical to the US military, and the United States has more of that technology than any other country. That gives us an advantage in the operations, but also makes it imperative that the US maintains that edge.’

Regardless of China’s advances, Navy War College professor and frequent The Diplomat contributor Andrew Erickson argues in an interview with Flashpoints blogger David Axe that it’s not in China’s interests to even try to compete with the United States.

‘Space is expensive to enter, hard to sustain assets in, contains no defensive ground, and – barring energy-intensive maneuvering – forces assets into predictable orbits,’ Erickson notes. ‘Some of the most debilitating asymmetric tactics could be employed against space and cyberspace targets.’

According to Axe, this essentially means that spacecraft are highly vulnerable to physical and electronic attack, and so are their control stations. To avoid these ‘asymmetric’ assaults at which China has proved particularly skilled, Axe quotes Erickson as saying that the Pentagon should take its current space-based equipment and move it downward to the atmosphere as the air is more secure than space.

As Axe notes, though, Erickson’s is a relatively lonely voice in urging the Pentagon to embrace what would be an orbital retreat.


All rights reserved ©The Diplomat

Read the original story here

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

By Jason Miks, The Diplomat China is developing a multi-dimensional programme aimed at improving its ability to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during a crisis, ...
By Jason Miks, The Diplomat China is developing a multi-dimensional programme aimed at improving its ability to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during a crisis, ...
Filed by Clare Richardson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 163
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
10:12 PM on 09/01/2011
I predict that the real conflict will arise (it is already happening) from the insistence of the developed nations (the haves) to insist that they have the right (militarily backed) to MAINTAIN the relative prosperity against all comers - that it is an act of war, punishable by military action, for any other nation to dare to gain ground economically.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramkshrestha
Lumbini-Kapilvastu Day Movement
11:59 AM on 09/01/2011
China wants to lead in every sector
07:12 PM on 09/01/2011
NO!!! It is in the Chinese blood to be always satisfied being No. 5, or 6 . . . . .

It is human nature to excel. Competition brings out the best for the benefit of all human kind.
09:52 AM on 09/01/2011
The foreign dairy maker probably wants more shares in Bright Dairy as China's milk market is expanding rapidly.”
09:47 AM on 09/01/2011
A lot of the money which will go into defense programs which the pentagon is proposing are borrowed from China. A lot of China's money come from export to the US. If both of these nations want to screw each other there is no need to use military weapons. All the US need to do is to ban all Chinese products, and China needs to simply shut the US out of its market and stop lending to the US. This will assure mutual destruction far more potent than nukes.

China's development in Asia has more to do with its military hardliners maintaining the stance that US global military hegemony must be challenged. But if you think about, the US spending billions and billions every year on military means less resources for regular programs to help its citizens. As the result the US is in a decline. This is what happened to the Soviets.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KMBerger
"Cui adhaereo, prae est,"
12:04 PM on 09/01/2011
To keep the wheels of the Chinese export machine running, China needs US open markets more than we need cheap Chinese products that pay for China's military defense build up. If we were not so myopic in our definition of security, limiting it to only military security, we would recognized that our one competitive advantage still is the ability to re-source manufacturing back to the United States to put Americans back to work and paying taxes, and limiting China's expansion both economically and militarily. Unfortunately, we still are adverse to recognize what every other nation in the world accepts as the norm that "economic security" is just as important if not more so than military security. A nation cannot thrive without a vibrant active economy. Military uses resources to help either expand or maintain one's political power, but we cannot afford to do that without a strong economy.
07:15 PM on 09/01/2011
Really?

Exports to America today accounts for 15% of all China exports.

Go back to your house and count up the purchases and see if it is really true that you "don't need" Made in China. Be objective about it. Goods that are sourced from China today, would cost 3 to 10 times as much, if made in the U.S.
07:19 PM on 09/01/2011
America's economy has no hope of coming back to health while the derivatives cancer (today over US$600 Trillion, or over 40 times the GDP of America) continues to grow unchecked. Manufacture even at its peak was a mere 25% or 30% of the economy after WW II. With the gambling (yes, derivatives "trading" is nothing but sheer gambling on a gigantic scale) continuing to drain all the vitality out of the economy, nothing else matters.
KIampfbeobachter
Misanthropic economic and political shaman
08:48 AM on 09/01/2011
It seems to me that China is arming itself against yesterdays threats. A rocket is almost ever a weapon of aggression, that's why a couple of nations develop and upgrade missile defense systems. Patriot three comes to mind.
Patriot or it's clones or derivatives are utterly useless against a cruise missile that comes in 50 meters (150 feet) above ground at,say, 400 knots, or even slower, but quiet and stealthy.
The newest,very large, Chinese "super fighter" or is it a bomber, is more of an engineering exercise that the first step toward a fleet of those aircraft.
The first question one should ask about every new or proposed weapons system is: against whom, what threat, or whom do I, the developer want to threat?
08:58 AM on 09/01/2011
Patriot is also totally useless against a warhead that's delivered by a ballistic missile, coming down that near right angle at speeds in excess of Mach-10.

Anyway, China is not after our missiles, they are after those satilites that control our drones and long range land attack cruise missiles.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Amalek
Highly decorated HP warrior
08:18 AM on 09/01/2011
China is spending a lot of money in space.  There was another nation that did a lot of that in the 1960s and had several decades of world technological leadership as a result.  It would seem the Chinese study history.
09:16 AM on 09/01/2011
True, and while they are planning on going to the moon, we have to rent seats on Russian crafts to get to the ISS.
07:39 AM on 09/01/2011
Anyone remember Clinton sending US engineers to help the Chinese
with their missile systems which kept falling down?

We spent millions providing and letting them steal bad information...
and the Clinton makes it all better. And they do make things that they
steal better.
All of their recent hardware looks alot like our stuff.
Planes, ships, trains... oh, my.

Have a good day y'all.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
07:11 AM on 09/01/2011
Erickson's a bit of a loon.

While a reconnaissance satellite 300-km up over china is expensive and not invulnerable to attack, try obtaining the same information by taking a suitable radar or camera across China at 60,000 ft and see how long it lasts. The same goes for looking at the US as at China.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richypc
02:26 AM on 09/01/2011
Military propaganda, their budgets are being cut and more is to come so they start fear mongering. The current Chinese military spending is dwarfed by what the US alone spends annually.
02:47 AM on 09/01/2011
Your view of military affairs is beyond naive.

The Chinese military budget is estimated at 300 billion annually. There is no separation between their civilian tech development and military tech development in China.

The United States has various defense agreements with Asian and East Asian nations. From Japan, S. Korea, India, down to Vietnam, Australia & the Philippians, Chinese increased defense budgets have been sounding alarm bells. Those aforementioned nations have a working military relationship with the United States and expect the US to live up to those agreements.

China can do what it pleases, any nation has the right to arm and defend themselves; but to ignore such developments is dangerous.

I'm of the mind that the US mustn't focus on future land wars, but pump billions, if not trillions, into cyber warfare (offensive/defensive), long range missile defensive and the ability to bring down other nation's satellites to stop costly and often violent traditional forms of warfare.
photo
Ethernum
The cutting edge in the heat
07:55 AM on 09/01/2011
let's be serious for a minute, which country is a military threat for China ? none in Asia have the ability to challenge China. India is a peacefull country without big military programs like China.
All these chinese weapons are aimed toward the U.S which is also not a military threat unless China plan to invade Taiwan or take military action somewhere in the Pacific.

The nazis also used civil programs to build their weapons without alarming the world.
09:05 AM on 09/01/2011
Do you know how much it costs to operate an aircraft carrier per year or to maintain a military base overseas? That's where the bulk our defence money is going. Operations, not military toys.
02:22 AM on 09/01/2011
why cant you human beings get along ? why must you war with each other ? so much hate for brothers and sisters. Why must it always be one empire over another...why cant you all work together as A HUMAN RACE ? so many questions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kazzim Zongo
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
08:40 AM on 09/01/2011
When have we ever gotten along? Garden of Eden?
07:26 PM on 09/01/2011
The FIRST STEP towards that goal would be to BAN military arms from being transferred across national lines. If the locals have to fight with sticks and stones, a lot less blood will be shed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joe Padilla
If you disagree with me, you're wrong
02:14 AM on 09/01/2011
People. We are going to break the Chinese the same way that we broke Japan. Once they disconnect from the dollar their currency rises, their products become more expensive, ours become cheaper, the slowdown causes bank defaults and that whole nightmare starts for them. Without strong exports to fuel their addiction and with inadequate natural resources, they go broke.

In terms of the military if you blow up the ports and a few dams, the whole country floods, and all their water flows to the sea in a matter of days. And then they can't eat or get oil in there. Beating China would be a piece of cake. Of course we wouldn't want to try to occupy it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Heso
02:06 AM on 09/01/2011
"So, should the US military and its allies be concerned by China’s advances?" Actually i am concerned with US and China military, Both are always trying to make more advanced offensive weapons, one of them always conceal its intentions and the other advertise different intentions.
02:28 AM on 09/01/2011
The United States produces and uses both offensive and defensive military hardware. China, on the other hand, has for decades been developing predominately defensive weaponry. It is only during the past decade China has begun to develop and look into offensive weapons (stealth tech/aircraft carriers/ access denial naval capabilities).
photo
Ethernum
The cutting edge in the heat
08:00 AM on 09/01/2011
But china is not a democracy, these weapons don't need some congress approval to be used, the dictator can decide alone to make war, he can do it just with a snap of his finger.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Heso
10:59 PM on 09/01/2011
True, but as you said, right now, both are producing advanced offensive weapons.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gadgetman
No sense of humor? That's not funny!
01:18 AM on 09/01/2011
The problem with a Chinese missle shield is that it's made in, you know, China.
09:10 AM on 09/01/2011
So is the computer that you just used to post this comment .. lol
11:52 AM on 09/01/2011
I'm pretty sure all of my parts said Taiwan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Social Construct
Go left, young man.
12:14 AM on 09/01/2011
Now, if we ordinary folks could get the powers that be (whether established status quo or emerging) to leave the Earth altogether to fight their belligerent little hearts out.

Also, I'm loving how many of the comments have made the leap to either crowing or whining about favorite political ideologies. But what do I know, I'm one of those liberal, progressive, democratic interventionist welfare state, socialist, pinko, commie, unpatriotic, blah, blah blah, etc., ad nauseum whatevers. Though, lord help me, I do so enjoy the fray.
Pauline Jaing
Artist, worker, mother
11:59 PM on 08/31/2011
How can you move satellites down to the air? What a PREPOSTEROUS little article this is!

And SHOCK, another elite which wishes to maintain the sovereign rights of its own people is defending itself! I'm really, really shocked, hell, don't they love baseball? What's wrong with them, don't they love those Beau Brummel ties we forced them to wear? Down with those Moa Shirts! Our garment industry don't make them!

Someone is trying to raise a straw man to get us used to considering war with China!

Eh, been there, done that. Lost.
photo
Protocolor
Have maths, will travel.
11:47 AM on 09/01/2011
I think the argument is not for bringing satellites into the atmosphere but rather replacing satellites with high altitude reconnaissance drones.
07:45 PM on 09/01/2011
The West's assertion is that "space" is somehow different. Drones or other vehicles in the atmosphere flying over any sovereign nation would be invading "air space", and it is totally justified to shoot them down (much like showing up uninvited at a stranger's house, and you have no cause for complaining if you are shot by the owner).

But "space" is supposedly different. I'm not sure the law has actually been fixed at the UN level or by treaty. The course of dealing - especially since up till very recently only a few nations had the capability to launch satellites, let alone shoot them down from space - was that those who have satellites had flown them with impunity over other nations. The rules might well change in the next major war.

Also, it is hard to understand the big deal about killing satellites. Anyone wishing to deny the use of guided munitions would just foul up the space through which satellites fly - for the duration of the war. Then it is back to fighting via radar and sight.