Arms Control Wonk Jeffrey Lewis and Gregory Kulacki of the Union of Concerned Scientists gave a talk at the Carnegie Endowment on China’s ASAT test in January. They argued, in a preview of a forthcoming paper, that the test was not meant as a show of force and could possibly have been averted if the U.S. had demarched the Chinese government for previous attempts (a point that was hinted at in an earlier New York Times article). From a summary on the Carnegie site:
The unpreparedness of Chinese officials in the aftermath of the ASAT test is not inconsistent with the statements of technocrats, who framed the development of the ASAT as part of a general drive to improve China’s military capabilities in space, not as an effort to provoke the U.S.
In other words, many Chinese feel the test was a mistake, and was bad for Chinese security, and that there are problems with the Chinese decision-making process. People in the general armaments department pursue military technologies for different reasons than policy makers; often, the goals of these groups may be rival.
There is also a writeup in Global Security Newswire, and an apparently less than accurate writeup forthcoming in Space News.
A new report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments looks at the cost-effectiveness of deploying space-based weapons for each of the proposed goals:
The wisdom and feasibility of acquiring and deploying one or more of these kinds of space-based weapons can only be determined through an analysis that takes into account a broad range of strategic, operational, technological, political, and financial considerations. Of all of these factors, historically, the area that has received the least attention has been the financial costs—specifically, the funding requirements—that would be associated with the acquisition and support of space-based weapons.
The Register has a snarky writeup on the report online (”U.S. Doesn’t Need Orbital Battlefleet“). I’m still working on processing new quotes into the system but they will be available here:
Updated March 18, 2008
I’ve created an argument based on this report here: