DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Eye on China » China Space Attack: Unstoppable

China Space Attack: Unstoppable

China has shown it can destroy a satel­lite in orbit. What could the U.S. do to stop Beijing, if it decided to attack an American orbiter next? Short answer: noth­ing.
china_satellite.jpgIt takes about 20 min­utes to fire a bal­lis­tic mis­sile into space, and have its “kill vehi­cle” strike a satel­lite at hyper­sonic speed — over 15,000 miles per hour — in low-​​earth orbit. That’s far too quick for any­thing in the American arse­nal to respond, in time. There’s “no pos­si­bil­ity of shield­ing” a relatively-​​fragile satel­lite against such a strike. “And it is imprac­ti­cal [for a satel­lite] to carry enough fuel to maneu­ver away even if you had spe­cific and timely warn­ing of an attack,” Center for Defense Information ana­lyst Theresea Hitchens notes.
The American mil­i­tary today counts on its satel­lites to relay orders, guide troops across bat­tle­fields, and spy on enemy hide­outs. The U.S. Air Force’s primer for war in space — “Doctrine Document 2–2.1: Counterspace Operations” — lists a num­ber of mea­sures that can be taken to pro­tect American assets in orbit, includ­ing “deploy­ing satel­lites into var­i­ous orbital alti­tudes and planes” and “employ­ing frequency-​​hopping tech­niques to com­pli­cate jam­ming.” But those tac­tics are used to pre­serve the U.S. satel­lite con­stel­la­tion as a whole. None of them could save a sin­gle American orbiter against a direct attack. “Physical hard­en­ing of struc­tures mit­i­gates the impact of kinetic effects, but is gen­er­ally more applic­a­ble to ground-​​based facil­i­ties than to space-​​based sys­tems due to launch-​​weight con­sid­er­a­tions,” the Air Force doc­u­ment notes. “Maneuver[ing] is lim­ited by on-​​board fuel con­straints, orbital mechan­ics, and advanced warn­ing of an impend­ing attack. Furthermore, repo­si­tion­ing satel­lites gen­er­ally degrades or inter­rupts their mis­sion.“
With today’s con­ven­tional defenses prov­ing so impo­tent, expect a new push within the U.S. mil­i­tary for more exotic coun­ter­mea­sures. The Airborne Laser is a mod­i­fied 747 that’s being designed to blast mis­siles out of the sky, as soon as they leave they launch pad; the jet’s first flight test in expected in 2009, after years and years of delays. The Kinetic Energy Interceptor is a long-​​range, non-​​explosive mis­sile, meant for the same task. But the weapon “exists mostly on paper, and couldn’t be oper­a­tional before 2014,” Defense Tech’s David Axe noted recently.
The U.S. could also try to destroy an anti-​​satellite mis­sile, before it took off. Over the last sev­eral years, momen­tum has been build­ing in the Pentagon for the abil­ity to con­duct “Prompt Global Strikes,” hit­ting any­where on Earth, in an hour or less. But near-​​term PGS plans — using mod­i­fied Trident bal­lis­tic mis­siles — have been put on hold, for fears that such an attack could start World War III, in the process. Destroying a satel­lite is as clear an act of war as there can be, how­ever. Perhaps those Trident attacks will now be seen as worth the risk.
In the mean­time, GlobalSecurity​.org direc­tor John Pike fig­ures the Chinese will con­tinue to test their satellite-​​killing weapons. It takes a dozen or more tri­als before a strate­gic weapon like this is deemed reli­able enough to be con­sid­ered oper­a­tional. “So expect one or two more tests like this every year, for a long time,” he says.
The Chinese test, now con­firmed by the National Security Council, would be the first suc­cess­ful anti-​​satellite weapons trial since 1985, when the United States used an F-​​15 and a kill vehi­cle to destroy the Solwind research satel­lite. And that trial was dan­ger­ous — not just for its tar­get, but for nearly every­thing orbit­ing in space, Hitchens notes. Even small pieces of space debris can be lethal to space­craft. The ’85 test “resulted in more than 250 pieces of debris, the last of which deor­bited in 2002.“
The Chinese trial could “lead to nearly 800 debris frag­ments of size 10 cm or larger, nearly 40,000 debris frag­ments with size between 1 and 10 cm, and roughly 2 mil­lion frag­ments of size 1 mm or larger,” the Union of Concerned Scientists’ David Wright notes on the Arms Control Wonk blog. “Roughly half of the debris frag­ments with size 1 cm or larger would stay in orbit for more than a decade.“
“This raises an inter­est­ing pub­lic pol­icy ques­tion because we are so much more depen­dent on com­mer­cial and mil­i­tary satel­lites that the ASAT [anti-​​satellite] options avail­able to us are much more com­pli­cated than those avail­able to the Chinese,” adds Jeffrey Lewis. “This is a race that favors them, unfor­tu­nately.“
ALSO:
* China Tests Satellite Killer?
* Beijing’s Next-​​Gen Sat Strike
* Satellite Killer’s Broad Impact
* Why Did China Smack the Sat?
* China Sat-​​Killer Not Yet Weapons Grade?
* Who Ordered the Satellite Strike?

Share |

January 18th, 2007 | Eye on China, Space | 339426 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/01/18/china-space-attack-unstoppable/China+Space+Attack%3A+Unstoppable2007-01-18+18%3A51%3A06hambling You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Inside the N.S.A. Hearing | Beijing’s Next-​​Gen Sat Strike » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. JH says:
    January 18, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    Their is a solu­tion to pro­tect­ing U.S satel­lites, but it would be about 10 years off. Space-​​based lasers.

    Reply
  2. Jeffrey Damien Cappella says:
    January 18, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    Knowing Teresa hitches and her moti­vated bias against the United States cap­i­tal­iz­ing upon its cur­rent advan­tages regard­ing uti­liza­tion of near earth space her com­ments regard­ing the

    Reply
  3. C-Low says:
    January 18, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    So now would it be OK for the US to work on “star wars” or what­ever satelite defence/​anti mis­sile net we have been try­ing to do with­out the HUGE INSANE flak jab­ber retarted paci­fist crit­i­cism that is the norm?
    Or is this still “our fault” some­how?
    By the way many moon ago this is just one pos­si­bil­ity some of US feared when Clinton approved advanced mis­sile guidence sys­tems to be sold to China “for peace­full space pro­grams only” of course. Another being those new fan­gled Carrier killers China is per­fect­ing Ballistic Missiles that dive straight down on a car­rier from space with ter­mi­nal guid­ance ability.

    Reply
  4. Jeffrey says:
    January 18, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    JH: “Their is a solu­tion to pro­tect­ing U.S satel­lites, but it would be about 10 years off. Space-​​based lasers.“
    Finally some one lese sees the solu­tion besides me. Ya know JH I have been pro­fess­ing the neces­sity of SBL /​ GBL approach not only for mis­sile defense but for defense of our space assets from ground to space inter­cep­tors (1) for over 8 years now. Interesting when I put for­ward those ideas on a white paper (pen­cil whipped to a b by the left wing pro­fes­sor at Georgetown) how hos­tile that crowd view such a approach. The funny thing was that a report out of RAND mir­rored my con­clu­sions not a year after sub­mit­ting said white paper. Ya know when I men­tioned this to ol Theresa on the ground floor of ICC in 2005 you should have heard her squeal in protest. Good sh-​​t trust me, buddy, keep up the good work.
    1. I know this still leaves the issue of hard­en­ing space assets against ground to space directed energy weapons a capa­bil­ity that China demon­strated within the past 2 years when it lased one of our space assets. While SBL/​ GBL defen­sive con­stel­la­tion does not address such a threat that does not mean that such a threat is impos­si­ble to mitigate.

    Reply
  5. Jeffrey says:
    January 18, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    C-​​Low:
    “So now would it be OK for the US to work on “star wars” or what­ever satelite defence/​anti mis­sile net we have been try­ing to do with­out the HUGE INSANE flak jab­ber retarted paci­fist crit­i­cism that is the norm?“
    While I can empathize with your irri­ta­tion regard­ing “paci­fist” obstruc­tion­ist based sedi­tion. You must under­stand where such obstruc­tion comes from. To be hon­est it has many dif­fer­ent sources, one might say it is a polit­i­cal ver­sion of the low tech loose con­nected net-​​centric war­fare being levied against us by our adver­saries in GWOT. In this instance how ever their weapons are “law­fare” (1) some­thing to which the United States being a rep­re­sen­ta­tive repub­lic is inher­ently vul­ner­a­ble. Such sources include but are not lim­ited too:
    A. Left over rem­nants of the soci­o­log­i­cal war­fare levied against the United States by the Soviet Union. Such left wing ele­ments got entrenched in United States insti­tu­tions of edu­ca­tion since the late 60s.
    B. Indigenous polit­i­cal dis­si­dents whose activ­ity is facil­i­tated by the rel­a­tive eco­nomic stag­na­tion /​ decline of the United States. (2)
    C. The above of course sup­ported /​ uti­lized by External Meddlers who use inter­nal dis­si­dent fac­tions such as China, Russia, France as well as transna­tional ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions and their rogue state sup­port­ers to under­mine sup­port of poli­cies those exter­nal med­dlers deem unde­sir­able. (3)
    For those of you that think the above alarmist I sug­gest you read the book “Star Wars US tools of Space Supremacy”. Pay par­tic­u­lar atten­tion to chap­ter 10 where author Loring Wierbel talks about using “polit­i­cal action” and NGO’s to change United States pol­icy. Better yet go to space4​peace​.org web site and talk to the direc­tor he is bla­tant on using “law fare” to under­mine the United States abil­ity to cap­i­tal­ize upon its cur­rent but dimin­ish­ing advan­tages regard­ing uti­liza­tion of near space.
    “By the way many moon ago this is just one pos­si­bil­ity some of US feared when Clinton approved advanced mis­sile guidence sys­tems to be sold to China “for peace­full space pro­grams only” of course. Another being those new fan­gled Carrier killers China is per­fect­ing Ballistic Missiles that dive straight down on a car­rier from space with ter­mi­nal guid­ance abil­ity“
    While you will never get me to defend Clintons pol­icy of polit­i­cal engage­ment towards the Chinese, Clinton had sup­port via the lassie fair free mar­ketist on the right. Also ol Dubaya fur­thered tech trans­fer to china dur­ing his watch. I am not say­ing the United States should a pol­icy of eco­nomic iso­la­tion­ism, rather we should adopt of a pol­icy of strate­gic trade. Got to be care­ful C-​​Low don’t let group think cloud your judge­ment ;)

    Reply
  6. ... says:
    January 18, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    So we just lost de facto con­trol of the ulti­mate high ground?

    Reply
  7. th says:
    January 18, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    You know, my Mom always taught me that when you can’t say some­thing nice you shouldn’t say any­thing at all. So, I will take the high ground and avoid reply­ing to ad hominem attacks, hilar­i­ous inabil­ity to spell my name cor­rectly and dis­tor­tions of my past pre­sen­ta­tions and cur­rnt posi­tions. But I will say one thing: if you actu­ally read Noah’s post, you will see that the USAF itself echoed the com­ments I made about not being able to ade­quately pro­tect a LEO sat from a direct ascent attack. Whatever your views about the neces­sity, fea­si­bil­ity and afford­abil­ity of space-​​based inter­cep­tors, you still have to deal with the issue of timely, accu­rate and action­able warn­ing regard­ing poten­tial attack on a SPECIFIC satel­lite — which is not exactly a walk in the park. The lim­its of physics and the lim­its of engi­neer­ing can­not be swayed by polit­i­cal ide­ol­ogy or will.

    Reply
  8. Gram-err.... says:
    January 18, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    “…hilar­i­ous inabil­ity to spell my name cor­rectly and dis­tor­tions of my past pre­sen­ta­tions and cur­rnt posi­tions.“
    You spelled “cur­rent” incorrectly.

    Reply
  9. Yap Hong Hor says:
    January 18, 2007 at 10:39 pm

    First of all, its only right that some other coun­try should try to counter what the Americans are doing.
    1. America has huge arse­nal of weapon of WMD
    2. America has huge quan­ti­ties of advanced air­craft, war­ships and mis­sile sys­tems
    3. America’s pol­icy is to inter­fere in every cor­ner of the world. Example: It has enacted the Taiwan Act to make pre­vent China from mil­i­tary action in their own land.
    4. America has invaded two coun­tries in the Middle East.
    5. America has not been ashamed to want to use force or WMD, as shown in Hiroshima.
    6. America has been devel­op­ing its mis­sile shield and space sys­tem.
    All these acts of US is to show America’s arro­gance and its mil­i­tary might.
    Do we allow US to do what­ever it wants and cry fouls over other’s defen­sive devel­op­ment in mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties???
    This is exactly hypoc­racy of the first degree.….
    Yap

    Reply
  10. C-Low says:
    January 19, 2007 at 1:39 am

    That IST was actu­ally ISS International space sta­tion
    Its late I’m out.

    Reply
  11. JH says:
    January 19, 2007 at 3:51 am

    Yap writes “First of all, its only right that some other coun­try should try to counter what the Americans are doing.
    1. America has huge arse­nal of weapon of WMD
    2. America has huge quan­ti­ties of advanced air­craft, war­ships and mis­sile sys­tems
    3. America’s pol­icy is to inter­fere in every cor­ner of the world. Example: It has enacted the Taiwan Act to make pre­vent China from mil­i­tary action in their own land.
    4. America has invaded two coun­tries in the Middle East.
    5. America has not been ashamed to want to use force or WMD, as shown in Hiroshima.
    6. America has been devel­op­ing its mis­sile shield and space sys­tem.
    All these acts of US is to show America’s arro­gance and its mil­i­tary might.
    Do we allow US to do what­ever it wants and cry fouls over other’s defen­sive devel­op­ment in mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties???
    This is exactly hypoc­racy of the first degree.….“
    Why would China be afraid of what the U.S is doing in the first place, unless China had some sin­is­ter plans… And two neg­a­tives don’t equal a pos­i­tive either.
    1. Russia has more WMDs than the U.S, why don’t you care about them?
    2. China has the world’s largest army, and is spend­ing more money than it claims to be on rapidly mod­ern­iz­ing it Air Force and Navy (what it would count on to fight America over Taiwan)Not to men­tion steal­ing any­thing and every­thing it can get it’s hands on.
    3. The ONLY rea­son China doesn’t mess around in dif­fer­ent parts of the world is sim­ply because it can’t get there, and can not fina­cially afford to.
    4. Same answer as #3. Didn’t China invade a cou­ple neigh­bor­ing coun­tries within the last 30 years…
    5. What kind of ultra lame chim­com com­ment is that?! The U.S hasn’t used WMD in over 60 years!
    6. Question: If you kick some­ones butt in war, and they want to strike back with nukes, how else do you stop that from hap­pen­ing with­out using nukes your­self? Answer: Develop an effec­tive BMD shield.
    I’m hon­estly sur­prised you were able to get through the Great Firewall of China and visit this web­site. Hey don’t blink, or you might miss another 1,000 of your coun­try­men being put to death for minor crimes and hav­ing their organs har­vested against their last wishes.

    Reply
  12. Scandlyn says:
    January 19, 2007 at 6:29 am

    It may be spec­u­la­tion but I expect Tiawan to make a final bid for Independence before or dur­ing the Beijing Games while the world has its great­est focus on China thus far. Ironicly with the eco­nomic growth China is expe­ri­en­ce­ing at present I wouldn’t be sur­prised if Tiawan wasn’t beg­ging to come back in the dis­tant future.
    I still believe that its any coun­tries right to deve­l­ope pro­tec­tion from its neigh­bours if it deems fit. Saddam’s main rea­son for his WMD’s could have souly been to keep his foes (Iran for instance) at bay using the Kurdism minor­ity as an exam­ple to any would be invader. Where ever human­ity shows its ugly side whether its a per­sons envy of their neigh­bours plasma TV or one coun­try look­ing to take anoth­ers nat­ural resource you will always have a need to defend your­self. Peace is a myth in this regard.
    China has is mov­ing in to a phase that will more then likely see it as the domi­nent eco­nomic power and world leader, any coun­try on a path like this will always take steps to arm and defend its self accord­ingly. The US is a good exam­ple of this, heck who is it armed to defend its self against. Mexicans? Canadians? Surely not the Russians or those peskey Terroists. No other force has the mobile capa­blity to assult the US shore, does the US really need such a large expe­di­tionary force to defend its self? Why would any nation need to invade another coun­try? We frown upon China for devel­op­ing a device that could give it a strate­gic advan­tage, while we watch the US refresh its cur­rent WMD stocks with out even bat­ing an eye. If China builds up enough capa­bil­ity it would never have to drop a bomb on Hiroshima to get its point across, all it will need to do is prove it could if it wanted to, stretch out and reach points around the world and make every­one lis­ten. There is a new bully in the school yard?
    If the US was smart they would rapidly start try­ing to work with China as an aly not an enemy (I believe the EU nations are con­cerned about such a part­ner­ship). China won’t back down on threats issued by the US or pos­si­bly the UN and has already showed that it is eager to keep do things its own way. Their han­dle­ing of North Korea and Iran are both exam­ples of that. With the rest of the world more then eager to jump in to bed with China for a share of the eco­nomic growth China will soon find enough friends to back them in the global coun­cil. Sure China has a less then per­fect human rights record but right now the US debar­cle in Iraq and Afganistan, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, Hurricane Katrina to name a few have made the US look no more beneva­lient. Small coun­tries try­ing to keep a head in a world of increa­se­ing eco­nomic dif­fi­culty will find it eas­ier to open new opper­tu­ni­ties in China and ignore their prior indis­cre­tions, then try and gain ground in the restricted US mar­ket­place.
    Where will it all end? The US may even­tu­ally with­draw behind its bor­ders and spend less on war and more on defence and its own peo­ple and the world will look to another bene­fac­tor to take on the role of big brother and that I am afraid may be an even scarier story, one I hope I never witness.

    Reply
  13. John sniper says:
    January 19, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    It’s a big progress of world peace.
    Since 1990 till now. USA always abrupt­ness by their force on inter­na­tional com­mu­nity and UN.
    They inter­fere other coun­try for oil with­out any UN per­mis­sion. Thousands upon thou­sands peo­ples died because of it. They want develop fourth-​​generation nuclear weapons with­out con­sid­er­a­tion of our earth.
    So It’s nec­es­sary to have a another great power to deter USA. China is the choice.

    Reply
  14. Amhense says:
    January 24, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    Ok so yap the first atomic bombs were invented by US! MK? The NUKES were ours until Our so called part­ner Mother Russia Decided It wanted to be cool, One of the “Big Kids” with thoes bombs that kill lots of peo­ple. then the rest of the frekin world wants in on it to the point that we could destroy our selves 20 times over! the a bomb was to end WWII, NOT WORLD DOMINATION!!! All of You Pidley ass coun­tries just need to under­stand that the USA could blow you to smitherenes, so dont even bother try­ing to “defend” your selves with ur lit­tle cracker jack box weapons. If the USA wants to take you over it will pro­bibly do so.

    Reply
  15. human says:
    January 25, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    From what JH had posted on the net one can deduct that the guy is a neo-​​con who doesn’t know har­mony that word. As a neo-​​con who just want to dom­i­nate the world and rob every­body else’s nat­ural resources to safe guard their American way of life with com­plete dis­re­gard of nei­ther the envi­ron­ment nor other peo­ple. I think the Americans need to address their great many prob­lems such as bor­row­ing fully 2/​3 of every dol­lar safed by every­body in this world to finance their American way of life( and this is only one of them). Americans (European descen­dants) need to have a real­ity check as they are not the only one in this world and they can­not dic­tate what other peo­ple can or can’t do as if they were god(?). Americans owe the world tril­lions of dol­lars that they can never hope to repay and may be this is the lever­age that we (as human beings of this American world) can use in order to check their madness.

    Reply
  16. razorblade says:
    January 26, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Al-​​Qaeda is said to be able to det­o­nate a low-​​yield nuclear device in a major met­ro­pol­i­tan cen­ter (Washington, DC) in about a year to two years. There is noth­ing we can do to stop it — but rather, only to delay it. “Little Boy” that took out Hiroshima had 600 mg of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). Only 6 grams of HEU went into crit­i­cal mass and energy. Hiroshima is roughly 550 square miles. Washington DC is roughly 62 square miles. When al-​​Qaeda hits WA, DC, that will take out our national elected lead­er­ship, our national civil­ian lead­er­ship, our national mil­i­tary lead­er­ship, our national-​​level law enforce­ment lead­er­ship and most of the agen­cies that pro­vide our national infra­struc­ture. A high-​​ranking Chinese General that has defected has exposed the plans of China to nuke the US. China is approach­ing the “point of no return” in their aggres­sion. The General said they will hit about 200 tar­gets. They will not do that with their Air Force, nor their Navy, it is impos­si­ble to march their Army up from Mexico or down from Canada, but they will take out the US by sub­ma­rine. They have more sub­marines than the US. Their newest subs are equal to or greater than the subs of the US. From the moment of a sub­ma­rine launch to det­o­na­tion over the tar­get, it can take as lit­tle as 30 sec­onds. Exactly as al-​​Qaeda hopes to hit Washington, DC, China will also hit DC. That will “decap­i­tate the ser­pent”. Then at their leisure China will take out each State capi­tol and then the one or two biggest mil­i­tary instal­la­tions in each State. We will not get a sin­gle mis­sile launched in return. This will all be com­mit­ted against the US some­time in the next 20 years, prob­a­bly in 10 years or less. The FBI believes this is 100% true. They have qui­etly begun mov­ing crit­i­cal func­tions and essen­tial per­son­nel out of the antic­i­pated blast zone of WA, DC. However, they have grossly under­es­ti­mated the area of ground zero. For America, I pity the sur­vivors. I am a DoD civil­ian Assistant to a Colonel in the Marine Corps.

    Reply
  17. dagger says:
    January 26, 2007 at 1:29 pm

    Razorblade erred in say­ing it takes only 30 sec­onds for a sub­ma­rine launched bal­lis­tic mis­sile from a Chinese sub to reach Washington DC. I don’t know where the sub would have to be moored in order to achieve that small time frame prob­a­bly right in the Potomac River. You and the neo-​​cons need to get the facts right that the Chinese has only one Xia class and is build­ing one or may be two type 094 nuclear bal­lis­tic mis­sile sub while the U.S. has 14 Trident at last count and the remain­ing 4 have been con­verted into cruise mis­sile subs with over 100 poten­tially nuclear tipped cruise mis­siles each ready to launch at a moment notice. Also the U.S. is the only coun­try that has more tech­no­log­i­cally advanced nuclear attack subs than the rest of the world com­bined. Your arti­cle failed to address the fact that the U.S. is the only super­power who has con­sis­tenly refused to sign an agree­ment of no first use of nuclear weapons pol­icy in which I believe both the Chinese and the Russians have already done so. I sup­pose the neo-​​cons in the U.S. need to look for another ‘evil’ coun­try to jus­tify spend­ing another 500 bil­lions of dol­lars (money that you guys don’t have) in the defence of ‘democ­racy of the world’. You guys talk about human rights abuse in China and other coun­tries that the U.S. dis­like but yet you guys con­ve­niently over­look other coun­tries’ trans­gres­sions such as Egypt and Pakistan (just to name a few). I admit China has abused human rights in the past and prob­a­bly will reof­fend again in the future. It takes time and patience for democ­racy to take roots and ger­mi­nate in any cul­ture. China has only been really opened to he out­side world for about twenty some odd years. One only needs to look at the black Americans who were freed from slav­ery by Abe Lincoln in 1860’s and weren’t allowed to vote and enjoy some form of basic human rights till 1965 or 1966 when the bill of rights to vote was signed into law by the late Lyndon Johnson at the height of an ear­lier fiasco. Yet the black Americans are still being dis­crim­i­nated sys­tem­at­i­cally in your soci­ety. How about the abuses lev­elled against the American Indians by the ‘white’ Americans over the years and still hap­pen­ing these days? If you guys wish to blow this world to king­dom come just be my guest for I’m ready to face my cre­ator but I have doubts about the neo-​​cons like your President and VP.

    Reply
  18. Eric says:
    January 28, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    Scandlyn is right. No mat­ter what we do the rest of the world is con­vinced it’s done for self­ish rea­sons. Maybe it is, par­tially, in that we’re all about busi­ness and sta­bil­ity is good for busi­ness. But I sup­pose there’s no use deal­ing with small prob­lems when you can wait for them to become big prob­lems while prid­ing your­self on advanc­ing the cause of peace.
    Personally, I don’t care if Iran nukes Israel. Of course, the Israelis will respond with their own nukes, and it won’t be just Iran that gets what’s com­ing, but so what? They can all go to their hate­ful, radioac­tive grave for all I care. The US has more coal than the rest of the world put together, so we’re in the best posi­tion to live in the after­math. Instead of buy­ing oil we’ll sell coal.
    As far as China goes, there’s no rea­son for the US to oppose the inva­sion of Taiwan. So they’re not free any­more. Who cares? We can still buy toys from China. Of course, that will prompt Japan and South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons. I mean, you’re right, instead of hav­ing one world super­power things will be much more peace­ful if there’s a bunch of regional pow­ers, uh, like in the 1930s, only with nuclear weapons.

    Reply
  19. Firestorm says:
    January 30, 2007 at 11:44 am

    Look who’s talk­ing about another’s ‘agres­sion’- another fire breath­ing ‘con­ser­v­a­tive’. It never fails to amaze me that you guys would label all those peo­ple you don’t like as agres­sors, ter­ror­ists or what­ever cre­ative terms you guys can come up with. You peo­ple were the ones who had mis­led, mis­rep­re­sented and deceived not only us — the American tax pay­ers but all the peo­ple in the world on this Iraq fiasco. Where are the WMD? The only coun­try that needs a regime change is none other than the U.S. Can’t believe peo­ple can swal­low lies like the ones put out by this admin­is­tra­tion and send their kids to Iraq to get
    killed for the enrich­ment of two oil­men and their bud­dies in the oil indus­try. Don’t you guys remem­ber Dicky boy was the CEO of Haliburton before he nom­i­nated him­self as the VP? Also Haliburton was the same com­pany that over­charged us — the tax pay­ers over 6 bil­lions dol­lars a few years ago in sup­ply the army in Iraq. What a coin­ci­dence if one may say so. Wake up and do some­thing pos­i­tive about this world and help our fel­low man before it’s too late.

    Reply
  20. cedaferta says:
    December 5, 2007 at 3:46 am

    “So now would it be OK for the US to work on “star wars” or what­ever satelite defence/​anti mis­sile net we have been try­ing to do with­out the HUGE INSANE flak jab­ber retarted paci­fist crit­i­cism that is the norm?“
    Where — I it already read that!

    Reply
  21. KR says:
    December 5, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    “Look who’s talk­ing about another’s ‘agres­sion’- another fire breath­ing ‘con­ser­v­a­tive’. It never fails to amaze me that you guys would label all those peo­ple you don’t like as agres­sors, ter­ror­ists or what­ever cre­ative terms you guys can come up with. You peo­ple were the ones who had mis­led, mis­rep­re­sented and deceived not only us — the American tax pay­ers but all the peo­ple in the world on this Iraq fiasco. Where are the WMD? The only coun­try that needs a regime change is none other than the U.S. Can’t believe peo­ple can swal­low lies like the ones put out by this admin­is­tra­tion and send their kids to Iraq to get
    killed for the enrich­ment of two oil­men and their bud­dies in the oil indus­try. Don’t you guys remem­ber Dicky boy was the CEO of Haliburton before he nom­i­nated him­self as the VP? Also Haliburton was the same com­pany that over­charged us — the tax pay­ers over 6 bil­lions dol­lars a few years ago in sup­ply the army in Iraq. What a coin­ci­dence if one may say so. Wake up and do some­thing pos­i­tive about this world and help our fel­low man before it’s too late.“
    First of all, Oil is a com­mod­ity. A com­mod­ity is any­thing for which there is demand, but which is sup­plied with­out qual­i­ta­tive dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion across a given mar­ket. In the world mar­ket there is a lim­ited ammount of Oil avail­able for pur­chase at any time, and there is a set “All Clear” price at which if some­thing is placed at that price, all of the com­mod­ity (In this case oil) that is avail­able for sale will be sold. If the United States buys oil from Russia at the buy price, some­one else will buy from Iraq. We can’t stop some­one from buy­ing from Iraq, if they put the oil up for sale it will be sold the­o­ret­i­cally within a sec­ond. If we buy from Iraq, then the per­son who was pre­vi­ously buy­ing oil from Iraq will then have to buy it from where we were pre­vi­ously buy­ing that Oil, in the exam­ple I used, Russia.
    We didn’t go to Iraq for the oil, so don’t use that as basis for an argue­ment. We went because we knew he had weapons of mass destruc­tion. How did we know? Because we gave him weapons of mass destruc­tion, and in our treaty with Iraq that closed the first gulf war, it was required that they keep those weapons. Why? Because we’d rather have bal­anced Iraq and bal­anced Iran so that one doesn’t become more pow­er­ful than the other. We know how many weapons of mass destruc­tion they used, its kind of hard to avoid that. We required them, in the treaty, to allow us to make weapon checks. They denied and so we, since the agree­ment said so, restab­lished the gulf war.

    Reply
  22. Karl Reidelbach USMC Vet says:
    January 11, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    You peo­ple are afraid of your own shad­ows. What you maynot or may know is that for every threat there are sev­eral options includ­ing shoot­ing down any satel­lites from our adver­saries.
    What we need to con­cern our­selves with is a joint pact between Russia and China against the U.S. and our allies, the only way to stop this is to nuke them. I would pre­fer using a Neutron Bomb, kills every­one and every­thing, but has no resid­ule radi­a­tion. We need to have these and other items such as scram­jets and rock­ets to drive home the knock­out punch.
    Anyways the only way to defeat the Chinese is to keep them out of Los Alamos and other sen­ti­tive areas. Changeour tac­tics and most of our arse­nal with­out any­one know­ing what we have includ­ing killer satel­lites and lasers in space etc.
    Let us not make the mis­takes of Chamberland the stu­pid and gul­li­able Primeminister of Great Britain prior to WWII. Let us not let our guard down and be ever vig­i­lant to keep our coun­try safe. We need to stop wor­ry­ing what oth­ers think about us and not be the world’s patsy but be aggres­sive in our stance and our defense.

    Reply
  23. Ohmish says:
    March 25, 2008 at 11:27 am

    How China Loses the Coming Space War Part Ihttp://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-chin.html
    How China Loses the Coming Space War Part IIhttp://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-ch-1.html
    How China Loses the Coming Space War Part IIIhttp://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-ch-2.html

    Reply
  24. ping says:
    October 30, 2008 at 11:50 pm

    The map is incor­rect, it misses the tai­wan province of China.

    Reply
  25. lol says:
    November 18, 2008 at 8:06 am

    has any­one got a light?
    you think this is all about the humans — you couldnt be more wrong — the bat­tle is spiritual.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Today's Hottest Topics
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
    Recent Comments
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      I'm disappointed. When are they going to make clothes...
      Nadnerbus
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part II : * USMC attempts to make a single seat (no...
      freefallingbomb
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part I : I think we're not the only ones on the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : Guided missiles will also be programmed to...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : If a tank shoots at another tank at only 5...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part I : To the poster "Will" : You wrote:...
      freefallingbomb
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      Yeah, I don't get it. The "Dragon...
      Ptsfp
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
      Should wikipedia Ned Kelly.He used armour that worked in...
      Nick
    • UPDATED: Details on Army’s New Afghanistan Duds
      Marines win agin hoo rur
      greg
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      To the poster "batvette" : You wrote:...
      freefallingbomb
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage