China test anti-satelite weapon

[EagleSmack]

Quote 1 -- “This is the first real escalation in the weaponization of space that we’ve seen in 20 years,” said Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer who tracks rocket launchings and space activity. “It ends a long period of restraint.”

Quote 2 -- Mr. Krepon added that the administration had long argued that the world needed no space-weapons treaty because no such arms existed and because the last tests were two decades ago. “It seems,” he said, “that argument is no longer operative.”

Well, there it is folks. The favorite country (China) of some of these posters has just started another arms race.

 

[earth_as_one]

The US and Russia starting doing tests like these more than 20 years ago. Check the date of this article.

2d U.S. Anti-Satellite Rocket Is Fired in Test by Air Force

Published: November 14, 1984
The Air Force today announced it had conducted its second live-firing test of its new air-launched anti-satellite rocket.
The test, conducted over the Western Test Range at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, focused on the guidance system contained in the new weapon, the Pentagon said in a brief announcement.
Col. Charles W. McClain Jr., a Pentagon spokesman, said the new anti-satellite missile had been fired from an F-15 fighter and eventually landed in the Pacific Ocean. The missile carried no warhead and did not go into space, Colonel McClain added.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E7DB1E39F937A25752C1A962948260

China has repeatedly called for the demilitarization of space, no one listened, so now they have no choice but follow suit.

 

[Colpy]

The US and Russia starting doing tests like these more than 20 years ago. Check the date of this article.



China has repeatedly called for the demilitarization of space, no one listened, so now they have no choice but follow suit.

Oh HORSE****!

Are you an apologist for every bunch of no good, undemocratic scum that happens to threaten some of the free world?

If so, why?

 

[Tonington]

Really I'm not surprised at all by this. It's natural for militaries to evolve, and imperative for militaries to remain competitive. I suppose I should elaborate, as militaries like ours in Canada rely on protection from our big brother to the south, so I guess not all have to fall in like those in my second sentance.

So I guess the Americans will have to speed up their ground/air based lasers. This is a big threat to America though, and probably us too, as so much of our society relies on information being bounced off these satelites.

 

[L Gilbert]

I get a chuckle out of you Junior Bush fans and your "if you ain't with us you is agin us" attitude. I don't like China any more than I like the US. IMO, they both have warehouses of room left for improvement. So if I say something criticising the US, it sure as hell doesn't mean I'm defending China; it simply means that I think the US has glitches.
Anyway, I see both countries as being quite similar in being totalitarian.

 

[I think not]

Chinese industrial spies cost Canadians billions of dollars a year.

Shhhhh.

It's not Americans, so they don't care.

 

[Tonington]

Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many satelites would need to be shot down in a pre-emptive strike so that the US couldn't respond...

 

[Tonington]

It strikes me though, to all those out there who would wish bad things on the Americans, how long do you think it would be until our natural resources here in Canada were being taken from us and shipped across the Pacific once the Americans are incapacitated....

 

[darkbeaver]

It strikes me though, to all those out there who would wish bad things on the Americans, how long do you think it would be until our natural resources here in Canada were being taken from us and shipped across the Pacific once the Americans are incapacitated....

It's not necessary to wish bad things on America to get them riled up, even if you want good things for your own country that is frequently taken as a direct threat to the American way of life and tranlated into anti-American activity by the MSM. :wave:

 

[darkbeaver]

Chinese industrial spies cost Canadians billions of dollars a year.

Shhhhh.

It's not Americans, so they don't care.

NAFTA costs us billions of dollars, fighting in your stupid war in Afghanistan costs us billions of dollars selling lumber to ya costs us billions of dollars, watching your stupid movies and eating your junk food costs us billions of dollars.
:wave:

 

[tamarin]

The 21st century is shaping up to be China's. It's busy now with its booming economy, rapid industrialization, and feisty inroads into high tech. And, of course, pilfering whatever new ideas and tech might be available and unsecured to its well financed tentacles. Taiwan will have to be settled at some point and then the real test of American world hegemony will be underway. The US is in decline as a culture and financial giant. It has its military might but even its most devoted fans must now wonder at the efficacy of 'Shock and Awe.' If you're 55 or under you should live long enough to see the real China. As its leaders and one party apparatus truly see it.

 

[I think not]

NAFTA costs us billions of dollars, fighting in your stupid war in Afghanistan costs us billions of dollars selling lumber to ya costs us billions of dollars, watching your stupid movies and eating your junk food costs us billions of dollars.
:wave:

Why thank you!! :wave:

 

[L Gilbert]

Chinese industrial spies cost Canadians billions of dollars a year.

Shhhhh.

It's not Americans, so they don't care.

I'd be interested to see links of examples. Americans have also cost us, though, but maybe not that particular way. I'm thinking of their talking Diefenbaker into scrapping the Arrow. That's just off the top. China doesn't bomb our troops and call it "friendly" fire, either.

 

[I think not]

I'd be interested to see links of examples.

Defectors say China running 1,000 spies in Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/15/spies050615.html

Americans have also cost us, though, but maybe not that particular way. I'm thinking of their talking Diefenbaker into scrapping the Arrow.

The Avro Arrow was scrapped because of its immense costs and becuase in an era of intercontinental ballistic missiles, it was useless.

China doesn't bomb our troops and call it "friendly" fire, either.

What do you call Canadian soldiers killing Afghan police? Just curious.

 

[Tonington]

The Avro Arrow was scrapped because of its immense costs and becuase in an era of intercontinental ballistic missiles, it was useless.

Yet Canada has no ballistic missiles, and everyone else has continued to advance their aeronautical programs.

 

[darkbeaver]

Why thank you!! :wave:

Your welcome.:wave:

 

[I think not]

Yet Canada has no ballistic missiles, and everyone else has continued to advance their aeronautical programs.

Who is everyone else, and who says Canada doesn't have an aeronautical program?

 

[Tonington]

Who is everyone else, and who says Canada doesn't have an aeronautical program?

You commented it was useless in an era of ballistic missile, as far as I'm aware even nations with ballistic missiles have continued their advancement of aircraft, be they fighters, support, or bombers.

The majority of our aircraft now are foreign designs.

 

[L Gilbert]

Defectors say China running 1,000 spies in Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/15/spies050615.html

Now I know something I didn't know a while ago.

The Avro Arrow was scrapped because of its immense costs and becuase in an era of intercontinental ballistic missiles, it was useless.

Ah, the "official" excuse. And there's a bridge between North Shore and Stanley Park in Vancouver I'd like to sell you.

As much as I'd rather live here than anywhere, when my country fμkcs up, it gets no excuses out of me. I don't whine about anti-Canadianism when people point out its faults, I email the appropriate parts of my gov't and tell them what I think so they become aware of people knowing they fckd up.

What do you call Canadian soldiers killing Afghan police? Just curious.

I would call it Canadian soldiers killing Afghan police. Mistakes happen, but it ("friendly" fire) seems to happen frequently with the US. But, the issue isn't that Canada isn't perfect. The issue is that the US is out for no-one but itself no matter what or who has to suffer in the meantime and are remarkably similar to China. It wasn't even going to get into WW2 until the JIN attacked Pearl Harbor. Perfectly content to see Europe fall into the hands of Nazis; and Australia, NewZed, etc, go to the Japanese, otherwise. "The hell with Europe and Oz. It ain't our fight."

 

[L Gilbert]

You commented it was useless in an era of ballistic missile, as far as I'm aware even nations with ballistic missiles have continued their advancement of aircraft, be they fighters, support, or bombers.

The majority of our aircraft now are foreign designs.

The Arrow was a multipurpose jobbie: bomber, fighter, interceptor, and attack. At a potential 2.5 mach it would have danced around anything else in the air at the time. The Starfighter (F-104) was damned quick but it only reached 2.3 mach and itr wasn't manoverable enough to serve as a fighter and not big enough to serve as a bomber.