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.








The_Observer
The USA and NATO have not being honest brokers in internatonal affairs and the use of military intervention. Israel has been ethnically clensing indigenous Palestinians from Palestine since 1948 and, in that time, the Israeli military and Jewish settlers have been killing large numbers of the Palestinians, seizing land and property from the remaining population in the West Bank and enclosing them in what can be termed the largest fenced and walled concentration camp in the world. I have yet to see either the Americans or the Europeans asking for sanctions on Israel or even condemning the Israelis strongly for causing 63 years of hardship on the Palestinians. Then again, Americans and Europeans were no slouches when it came to colonization in the past.
As for space-based assets, why should the Americans and her allies be the only ones to possess such capabilities? Countries potentially targeted by such systems can never be sure that expedient use of those assets against them wouldn’t occur. Also, the Americans would like to undermine China economically, socially and militarily and are probably sheduling that for later on in the decade. But before that, the Iranians will probably be the next target for attack by the Americans and Israels. The practice run in Libya, instigated by Britain and France, has almost proved too easy and will no doubt encourage the US neo-cons and their Zionist lobby friends. The Iranians should follow China’s lead and seek a mix of attack and denial assets and technologies. What’s good for the American goose is good for the gander.
klee
US is trying to contain China anyway it can. China should develop all kinds of space weapons to disrupt the US dominance of space. So that, in case of war, China can destroy most of communication between all the American military sectors. But, China should also increase the arsenal of nuclear warheads close to what US has and let the US know about it implicitly. Because I strongly believe only the notion of mutual destruction can prevent the US to invade China and stop a war between these two countries. This tactic worked very well during the cold war between US & USSR even though the Soviet had weaker conventional weapons than the US and USSR had more nuclear warheads.
Varun
US hasn’t begun the containment YET & its not going to simple to do so in the future as well.
China is not a closed world like it used to be or like the USSR & East Block.
klee
US is trying to demonize China in the international arena by drum up the so-called “China threat” sentiment hoping that other countries, especially, Asian countries will rise up to face against China. Because US believes that China rise will jeopardize its world dominance and hegemonic status around the globe, particularly in west Pacific.
Even knowing that China’s military strength is, on average, about 20 years behind that of US, but US doesn’t want to take any chance. US ran up its own deficit because it has kept increasing the military budgets and has raged 3 wars in the last 10 years while running up more than 14 trillion dollars in debt (soon will be 16+ t). And those American right-winged conservatives and war hawkers still like to use China as a scapegoat for all the US shortcomings. Part of the reasons is due to jealousy of the Chinese economic strength. It is very pathetic for Americans.
a_canadian_observer
@klee: The US doesn’t have to “demonize” china. china and china’s bloggers have done a good job already.
Sinodefender
You just label everyone pro China as a CCP mouthpiece,still care to prove Bai yue are Southern Chinese ancestors?
Leonard R.
Watch their offense too.
This story reports that China as recently as this week, August 2011, China had plans to launch a pre-emptive missile attack on the United States. And as always, the source was a PLA Officer who was not reticent to shoot off his mouth.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/new/blogs/chang/Is_China_Planning_a_Surprise_Missile_Attack
The general’s name is Xu Guangyu. Ironically, he’s a member of the PRC’s ‘disarmament’ team. According to the story, he said if China couldn’t keep it’s launches secret, it would no longer be able to launch a surprise attack on the United States.
It’s a good thing Hu Jintao gave the US a reset. I guess allowing him to insult his hosts at a state dinner was the price we pay for ‘peace in our time’.
ozivan
@Leonard R. You recommended reading : http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/new/blogs/chang/Is_China_Planning_a_Surprise_Missile_Attack
The editor of this article is Gordon G Chang who wrote the book “The Coming Collapse Of China”
He predicted in the book that China would collapse in 2006. Since 2006, readers noted China has become even weathier and stronger. He is a laughing stock now.
Tony Lee
@ozivan, it’s obvious that the PLA is getting extremely horny for a fight, when the tanks start rolling and roll they will, are you going to don an Australian uniform or a Chinese one? Many overseas Chinese CPC loyalists will be faced with the same dilemma; I guess that’s why they’re so reluctant to join the military in their adopted countries.
ozivan
@Tony Lee. It’s not difficult for me to decide. Should PLA goes to war, I will most likely not get involved with China, except in the case of Taiwan declaring independence unilaterally without the consent of China, because Taiwan is special to me. Anyway, there are enough people in China to do the fighting.
However, if there are exceptional circumstances where China is the victim of international conspiracy to dismember her, though I am well out of useful war fighting age, nonetheless I will participate in demonstrations, join groups to raise funds and aid, and participate in blogging for China.
My dilemma would be if US attacks China, and Australia requires me to serve against China, then I would hesitate and balk. I took oath to be loyal to Australia, but I will not deny and betray my ancestry for another country’s war eg US
If the unforeseeable happens that China attacks Australia, then it is very clear that I must stand for and defend Australia.
I know you’re testing me, but I am glad to oblige.
John Chan
@Tony Lee:
You are totally confused with the intent of Chinese bloggers here, Chinese bloggers just do not want China to be portrayed unfairly, CCP is a regime of China, all China bashers can’t distinguish the difference between China and CCP, they are smearing and bashing China instead of bashing CCP.
China repeatedly said it only wanted to rise peacefully; its arms buildup is for defending itself against overwhelming firepower from USA and its lackeys’ containment. Even ex-Australian defence minister agreed with that, Chinese defence is defence in nature. None of the western powers did what China did when there were on the rise; instead their rises brought the world two world wars and endless atrocity and suffering.
You are slandering overseas Chinese integrity baselessly, many overseas Chinese serve in law enforcement agencies and military. All overseas Chinese are loyal to their adopted homeland first, and every citizen has the duty to whistle-blowing the wrongdoing of their adopted homeland.
Unfortunately Chinese serving in the military of their adopted homeland were abused, a Chinese marine killed himself recently in Afghanistan because he could take the abuse and torture from his White comrades in the trench anymore.
John Chan
@Tony Lee:
Let me give you a little bit of history, so when the similar things happen to you and your family, you are prepared, and won’t feel betrayed.
In WWII, both USA and Canada sent their Japanese citizens to concentration camps regardless how long they have been in both countries, their wealth were confiscated; no accusation and no trail, it was all legal by new laws. Majority of the Japanese had been in both countries for generations, and most of them probably even couldn’t speak Japanese.
But USA and Canada did not send their German and Italian citizens to concentration camp. They were treated just like normal citizens.
If the unfortunate happens, USA starts war against China, and Australia treats you like the Japanese were treated in North America in WWII, just don’t be resentful, it is price a worthwhile to pay to be a loyal Australian.
ozivan
@John Chan & Tony Lee. JC, Thanks for the history and suggestion. Those are possibilities that we should well consider.
John Walsh
As I recall it, Hu Jintao was insulted during a US visit under Bush when the anthem of Taiwan was played instead of the Chinese one and a religious “protester” somehow managed to get past the Secret Service to disrupt the ceremony.
Hu could not be insulted at a state dinner because as I recall there was none.
Also all this stuff about a Chinese general saying this or that is hearsay. Why not focus on declared policy – for starters? The US policy is to permit no other country to come close to it economically or militarily. No mistaking what is going on there. The Chines policy is live and let live – in fact it is essentially a Libertarian foreign policy. Trade with everyone; fight with no one if it can be avoided.
And a long history and its present actions support that defensive policy as being real not simply words.
Leonard R.
@ozivan, either the story is true or not. Either the words were spoken or not.
The SCMP also ran the story this week w/a different slant.
http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=6663f956bb012310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=China&s=News
@John Walsh, always a pleasure to meet an America-hating Anglo. Such people are my bread and butter.
Mr. Walsh & I agree. Hu Jintao’s insult was deliberate & was executed by the talented Lang Lang, who is currently enjoying the hospitality of New York City. He and I probably also agree, China should not be attending American state dinners in the future too, but for different reasons of course.
John Chan
@Leonard R:
Because somebody corrects some misleading reporting, you label the whistleblower America-hating; it seems you are suppressing freedom of speech. Do you know that suppressing freedom is against USA constitution? Are you sure you are not from North Korea? Because you are so good at it like Sam.
ozivan
@Leonard R. So…the story was with a different slant by SCMP, unlike Gordon G Chang & Leonard R who made it look like doomsday is near.
What’s the big deal? The US test missiles of all types all the time.
BTW, you said : Mr. Walsh & I agree. Hu Jintao’s insult was deliberate & was executed by the talented Lang Lang.
JW made 2 comments here. None of which he didn’t agree anywhere else with you on Lang Lang. Instead, JW noted that Hu was the guest who got insulted.
Are you seeing ghosts of China everywhere, you turn ?
ozivan
Correction. None of which he didn’t agree anywhere else with you on Lang Lang
Shoud read as : None of which he agreed anywhere else with you on Lang Lang
Pee-wee Herman
JW is wrong, Libertarianism is on the opposite end of the political spectrum of Authoritarianism. It’s impossible for China to have “Libertarian Foreign Policy”. It’s a bluff.
John Chan
@Pee-wee Herman:
Libertarianism let everybody grows freely, and Authoritarianism dictates others. China’s non-interference policy supports everybody to grow freely, it is Libertarianism. Meanwhile the Westpac led by the USA dictates others the way to grow, it is Authoritarianism.
Pee-wee Herman
@John Chan, I suppose it’s China’s non-interference policy that sought to sell arms to Qaddafi? Why do you lie? I think China needs to get booted out of the U.N. pronto.
ALbert. B. Australia
@ the_observer….. live and let live huh…
you are joking aren’t you…
china’s policy?!…
just ask any Tibetan’s if China has a live and let live policy….
how easily people forget ….. so what is the reason you beleive or spout this lie?
John Walsh
How can one decide if anti-missile systems are offensive or defensive? The answer seems simple. If a country develops a massive offensive missile system behind a state-of-the art antimissile system, that is the hallmark of an offensive capability. That is what the US has done. If a country develops a massive missile system without an antimissile system, then that may be regarded as defensive or deterrent. That is what Russia has done. If a country develops a minimal missile system, a few hundred and not many thousands or tens of thousands, and attempts to develop an antimissile system, that too may be regarded as defensive. That is what China has done with no more missiles than Israel.
In the area of policy, both Russia and China have a no first use policy. The US does not.
I would say that there is little question that the US keeps trying to develop a knock-out nuclear missile strike for any adversary perceived as outstripping the US in wealth or power. It has never been in that position with Russia or with China while Russia was its ally or since China developed its own nukes. I fear the US – not Russia or China.
As for secrecy if I were a Chinese leader, I would reveal just enough to keep the US from my door – nothing more. And after the depredations of the US around the world since the end of the Cold War, every third world country that might afoul of the US is only being rational when it considers developing nukes. Ask Gaddafi.
James the Australian
I do concur with your view.
The USA is the most aggressive, war waging nation in the world.
It out spent the rest of the world, year after year, on arms.
On record, it invaded more nations and cause the most civilian deaths in the world.
It has close to a thousand military bases around the world and employ close to a million spy’s.
It put it’s military ambitions and hegemony ahead of it’s pensioners, health system, and the sick and needy.
What else can you say.
nirvana
Against all these rumours, I am surprised that nobody has thought of the possibility that China is inviting herself into the next US presidential election.
For the sake of argumentation, let’s first assume that this is their goal. Assuming they don’t like Obama, what would be their most coherent strategy? Do these rumours fit?
Now let’s assume the contrary and that, according to Chinese analysts, the outcome of this election will not change the US diplomacy towards China, what would be their most coherent strategy? Do these rumours fit?
I give you more food for thought. Deng Xiaoping many times taight his countrymen “bide our time, conceal our capabilities until we are ready to act”. This is not a rumour and he is not a general of the PLA. He is more revered than Mao.
So?
John Chan
@nirvana:
Although it is a nice thought, and probably is the only practical solution to pull USA out of its financial mess.
Directly involved in the USA election is interfering other nation’s internal affairs, it is against the China’s non-interference policy, China cannot do it because it is a betray of China’s integrity.
But running USA as a trust on behalf of the USA people, then return USA back to its citizens after everything is sorted out, I would think it might be acceptable to China.
Bruce Chung
John Chan: “Directly involved in the USA election is interfering other nation’s internal affairs, it is against the China’s non-interference policy, China cannot do it because it is a betray of China’s integrity.”
This is a lie and John Chan knows it. For example, there is definitive evidence of an effort by the PRC to influence American politics during the 1996 federal elections. Something like twenty people were convicted for fraud and funneling PRC funds into US elections (some were associates of Gore and Clinton).
The PRC also “owns” politicians in other western countries like Canada.
Pee-wee Herman
Just to add to your last paragraph. In 1996, the vice commandant of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences said “..it will be absolutely necessary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance…we must conceal our abilities and bide our time.” This is also not a rumor but a fact.
Quietly nurse our sense of vengeance?! Vengeance for what? Preemptive vengeance via nuke strike is my guess.
ven.geance noun
:PUNISHMENT inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense :RETRIBUTION
Leonard R.
China will be a bogeyman in the 2012 election by both parties. Some TV ads have already been produced. They will uphold the standard of silliness and inanity the world rightly expects from American presidential elections.
I don’t know why the CCP wouldn’t like Obama. He bows. He allows his guests to insult him at dinners he throws in his home. Ask him to kowtow for peace. Let’s see what happens.I think the CCP probably likes Perry. But Perry’s supporters don’t like China. He may have sum ’splainin to do down the road a bit.
The US military posture in WestPac is already changing dramatically. I think foreign policy will slowly follow. It’s the tail. The Pentagon & intelligence services are the dog.
ozivan
Leonard ..Is that you ? Thank you for the rebalance.
Edy
China needs to keep building it’s military capability, and the most important, keep building more nuclear war heads to match those of US’.
The reason is, because the USA is encircling China from every direction. When Soviet wanted to encircle USA from Cuba, American was so panic. But today they are doing so to China, and still keep accusing China as offensive or a threat.
The USA is so hypocrite, at one face they support the one China policy, at the other face they sell weapon to Taiwan. They also support rebellion in Tibet and terrorist in Xinjiang. What is USA feeling if China supports the independent of Indian (native American) and demands the white to return to Europe? Same with Aborigin in Australia.
In fact, the US government is the biggest terrorist organization in the world, and the US treasury is the biggest ponzi scheme in the world.
nandan , a messenger of peace
PEACE IS WHAT WE MUST ALL BUILD , MISSILES ARE SOMETHING WHICH MY LORD DOESN’T LIKE
CAN YOU MAKE THAT FOR THE ALMIGHTY , MR. CHINA,AND WANNABE WORLD INVADERS …….
ozivan
@nandan. Then the Lord replied.
Not by MIGHT, but by FAITH.
And the Lord reminded that mankind is born of a sinful nature, that the US has set the example and standards that all sinful nations and wannabes shall hope to aspire.
The Lord then rested on the seventh day, and decided not to teach mankind anymore from then on.
John Mulcahy
Iran has published more scientific papers than China last year according to a Canadian Organization. What amazes me is the most brtual sanctions imposed upon this nation has not able to prevent the rise of Iran. Turkey and Iran has published 4 times more papers than anybody. Together with China, and other Asian Giants, the rise of Iran and Turkey at the same time is the testimony of the end of western era that dominated more or less the world for about 2 to 3 centuries.
Chinaman
So China is a threat when it builds up its military to defend China from,you guess it,the US.How many nm has China? At most less than 50 of which maybe six to ten can hit the US in self defence. The US wants a China like the opium era or Mao’s time up to the 1996 Taiwan crisis.Then The US could have attacked China with mimimum cost. You never know. In 1996,if the PLA were naive to attack the 7th fleet ,it would be the excuse for Bush and his neo cons to disarm China.
Now it’s a different story. Of course the US will still prevail in any war with China but the price for victory has gone up and will go up significantly in the years to come.
As for space,it belongs to all mankind or if you like lady kind.The thing is the US wants to use space exclusively for its war waging capability.Now if the Chinese can send a guy into space, they can develop space capabilities to defend China. China aint going to attack the US.It’s the other way round. If you have a
99.999% wlill indicate China can only defend itself from attack.
Btw,don’t give the bs the US is a protector of free navigation ,human rights ,fair play,etcWhat will happen if the Chinese station an anti missile shield in South America to defend itself from missiles launched from Brazil?
The Chinese aint daft that the US anti shield in Japan is to defend Japan and US from NK missile attack read China.Have a realty check .
The days when the US can attack China with immunity and impunity are over.
elberto
funnily enough the same thing was said when America had a small conflict with Iraq and Afghanistan…… <>
So how did those conflicts run???
whenever anyone (anyone..) comes up against american weapons they seem to lose… and lose VERY quickly…
I China can’t even take out Taiwan…
I would somehow believe the US is more reasonable global citizen than the Chinese…. (just ask any Tibetan… oh no that is right – you can’t – most are dead and no media is allowed there…. or the UN – just ask any croation.. or any other people the UN has allowed to die under their care….)..
tosky
always be careful with the US! nomatter how advanced chinese think they are, be careful!
China Wong
The Chinese aint itching for a fight but to make sure the US knows it aint going to be a cheap victory with minimum casualties and cost and US territory unscathed.Those days are soon going to be consigned to the dustbin of ancient history.
The US cannot expect 100% security and China 10% or even 0% security.If the roles were reversed,what would the Pentagon do?Exactly the same as the PLA.The US is like the lion and China the hyena.The lion can kill the hyena but the later will fight with 60 % fatal bites.
As time goes on the costs to US of victory over China will increase.But you never know.We all know it’s stupid to send carriers to within PLA missile striking range.The president will say they are defending the US ie attack China.
Fortunately this is 2012 China not Ching or even Mao China.The carriers are destroyed raining destruction on china.
The US unleashed the full spectrum of US conventional and nuclear forces on China
China is devastated but wait a minute.After suffering nuclear attack ,thePLA launched its own nw.30% of the US has become wasteland.It will be more wasteland
when the PLA increases its nm.
ThePLA missile aint a threat unless the US attacks.Btw 80% of raptors sent to attack China will be shot down
The PLA sam network will be a hundred times more formidable than NV and furthermore PLA missile will home in on bases used to launch such attacks.
Of course this is just a hypothetical case but you never know. The US may unleash a war before China becomes stronger.