6 ms·

They really need an international treaty to stop these valueless demonstrations of power. Sure it shows you've got capabilities for shooting down really low sa

They really need an international treaty to stop these valueless demonstrations of power. Sure it shows you've got capabilities for shooting down really low satelites, but it also shows you don't have consideration for the effect this will have. If we don't cooperate globally and stop so much space debris being created some orbital ranges could become impractical to use and manned space flight becomes even more dangerous.

pjc50 8y ago
There is a treaty against the militarisation of space, but it doesn't cover this. Ironically India was recently arguing for it to be strengthened. https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/india-urges-strengthening-outer-space-treaty/ https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/india-urges-strengthening-ou...
- glax 8y ago
  You have to look through the geopolitical aspect. Treaties, historically have been favorable for those who ride the high horse, bystanders gut mud slung upon them. In the 60's India was pressurized not to develop Nuclear bombs, but it was secretly known pakistan was developing it with the help of china and stolen tech. If India had signed the NPT back then, it would not have have anykind of deterrence action against Pakistan where they had full scale war and USA coming to pakistans's Aid when India was trying to liberate East Pakistan where there was full scale genocide of ethnic Bangla people going, that we now know as Bangladesh. They developed the bombs but with a no first use policy. Now in 2019 with 2 front war with both Pakistan and china, where both party have actively militarized the border with them and playing the proxy war it was sure coming. China vetoing 2 times action against J-E-M terrorist group based in Pakistan that are active in insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir state of India. They are also actively claiming the state of Arunachal Pradesh as the territory like they did with Tibet China has also amassed large number of military installation near the North-Eastern border of India and have actively tried en roaching into Indian territories, several kilometers sometimes into the past few year resulting in border skirmishes sometimes. Last time India declined the UNSC seat and gave it to china & they are still regretting the the decision. They are hoping the next NPT for Space will have India's seat already reserved. If other nations are going to play game of dual diplomacy it's leaves no option but to demonstrate show of force. India cannot afford to become Another Ukraine, Tibet or Taiwan becomes some other nation can abuse it's power. Edit:Will provide citation in 2 hours currently in Mobile.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    No need to back your statements, these are (hopefully) generally known historical facts. I still don't understand why US decided to support horrible unstable dictatorship in Pakistan instead of biggest democracy in the world in the past. Unless I am mistaken India was always a victim in aggression of its neighbors - 1999 Kashmir conflict when Pakistan invaded sovereign Indian territory, China doing the same and annexing a lot of mountains and acting till today like it was eternally their territory). If India put their sh*t (economy) together, toughened/equipped up their military I think this behavior would stop.
    - devnonymous 8y ago
      > I still don't understand why US decided to support horrible unstable dictatorship in Pakistan instead of biggest democracy in the world in the past. Current India was born as the Socialist democratic Republic of India and had closer relations to the former USSR than the US, so naturally, the US aligned itself with Pakistan. > Unless I am mistaken India was always a victim in aggression of its neighbors You are mistaken. India has been an aggressor as much as a victim. Of course that's not to say the scale of aggression was like colonial powers but India is definitely not doodh-ka-dhula. > If India put their sht (economy) together, toughened/equipped up their military I think this behavior would stop. No. India needs to get its basics right -- Food, health care, education. The problem is /not/ the economy. If the so called 'educated' population of India actually made use of their education to participate in their democracy they would realize that economically speaking, India is not in a terribly bad state, however, the standard of life is sht as you put it, because very less focus has been put on the basics. In the history of the world there hasn't been any single successful empire or country which got to where it was while ignoring the health, nutrition and education of its people.
      - setum 8y ago
        > Current India was born as the Socialist democratic Republic of India and had closer relations to the former USSR than the US, so naturally, the US aligned itself with Pakistan. Not true. In-fact just the opposite. India started non-aligned movement and tried to remain non-aligned to the extent possible. Pakistan joined SEATO in 1954[1], India-Russia relations started a year later in 1955[2] Also, India was not born Socialist, although it may have socialist policies - much like any other country. First mention of socialism was in 1976 [3] > You are mistaken. India has been an aggressor as much as a victim. I think you could easily have add examples to support your claim rather than making statements [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organiza... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Soviet_Union_and_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Current_countries_with_constitutional_references_to_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Curre...
- acct1771 8y ago
  It's not ironic. It's like Facebook asking for legislation. "Look what we'll have to (feel we'll have to) do in the current paradigm, unless..."
rjf72 8y ago
It's in part going to be a demonstration of power, but these tests are largely just that - testing. Shooting down a satellite is incredibly difficult. You don't want to start testing it when you actually need to be able to do it.
- kuzko_topia 8y ago
  Well shooting a satellite could be done on a garbage orbit that would.not threaten critical internationnal science projects... not LOE
  - rjf72 8y ago
    I've no idea their internal decision on metrics for the test, but they did shoot down something in a pretty low orbit. It was at about 300km. The ISS orbits at 400km. "Space" begins at around 100km. Shooting low is exactly what you want to do to minimize risk since it means the pieces will enter the atmosphere more rapidly and harmlessly burn up. Like the article mentions only 24 pieces of trackable debris ended up in an orbit sufficiently high to possibly intercept the ISS. This is among the 23,000 other trackable pieces of debris including 3,000 from a Chinese satellite destruction test done with somewhat less regard, and about a million smaller pieces of various debris. The article mentions the risk of any impact increased by 44% without giving the baseline. No idea what that is, but it's going to be some extremely low figure remaining an extremely low figure -- e.g. 0.001% becoming 0.00144%. And an "imminent" collision isn't imminent. The ISS has maneuvering thrusters, and in fact would gradually fall out of orbit without them! This [1] page shows the height of the ISS over time which is a convenient way of seeing how often it fires its maneuvering thrusters. Suffice to say, it's a very regular thing. I think the bigger reason we're upset is because of the technology itself. As nations become more capable of independently defending themselves it chips away at America's martial dominance, which is a major source of our political clout. [1] - https://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx https://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx
Razengan 8y ago
Destroying the habitability of our planet while making it difficult to escape to other planets.
Tsubasachan 8y ago
Yeah but international weapons treaties are actually being sabotaged by our beloved and glorious leader Trump right now so I wouldn't count on it. Everyone seems to be gearing up for a new race of tic tac toe.
- acct1771 8y ago
  If by "everyone", you mean the Military Industrial folks, and politicians paid by them, then, yeah.

pjc50 8y ago

There is a treaty against the militarisation of space, but it doesn't cover this. Ironically India was recently arguing for it to be strengthened. https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/india-urges-strengthening-outer-space-treaty/ https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/india-urges-strengthening-ou...

glax 8y ago
You have to look through the geopolitical aspect. Treaties, historically have been favorable for those who ride the high horse, bystanders gut mud slung upon them. In the 60's India was pressurized not to develop Nuclear bombs, but it was secretly known pakistan was developing it with the help of china and stolen tech. If India had signed the NPT back then, it would not have have anykind of deterrence action against Pakistan where they had full scale war and USA coming to pakistans's Aid when India was trying to liberate East Pakistan where there was full scale genocide of ethnic Bangla people going, that we now know as Bangladesh. They developed the bombs but with a no first use policy. Now in 2019 with 2 front war with both Pakistan and china, where both party have actively militarized the border with them and playing the proxy war it was sure coming. China vetoing 2 times action against J-E-M terrorist group based in Pakistan that are active in insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir state of India. They are also actively claiming the state of Arunachal Pradesh as the territory like they did with Tibet China has also amassed large number of military installation near the North-Eastern border of India and have actively tried en roaching into Indian territories, several kilometers sometimes into the past few year resulting in border skirmishes sometimes. Last time India declined the UNSC seat and gave it to china & they are still regretting the the decision. They are hoping the next NPT for Space will have India's seat already reserved. If other nations are going to play game of dual diplomacy it's leaves no option but to demonstrate show of force. India cannot afford to become Another Ukraine, Tibet or Taiwan becomes some other nation can abuse it's power. Edit:Will provide citation in 2 hours currently in Mobile.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  No need to back your statements, these are (hopefully) generally known historical facts. I still don't understand why US decided to support horrible unstable dictatorship in Pakistan instead of biggest democracy in the world in the past. Unless I am mistaken India was always a victim in aggression of its neighbors - 1999 Kashmir conflict when Pakistan invaded sovereign Indian territory, China doing the same and annexing a lot of mountains and acting till today like it was eternally their territory). If India put their sh*t (economy) together, toughened/equipped up their military I think this behavior would stop.
  - devnonymous 8y ago
    > I still don't understand why US decided to support horrible unstable dictatorship in Pakistan instead of biggest democracy in the world in the past. Current India was born as the Socialist democratic Republic of India and had closer relations to the former USSR than the US, so naturally, the US aligned itself with Pakistan. > Unless I am mistaken India was always a victim in aggression of its neighbors You are mistaken. India has been an aggressor as much as a victim. Of course that's not to say the scale of aggression was like colonial powers but India is definitely not doodh-ka-dhula. > If India put their sht (economy) together, toughened/equipped up their military I think this behavior would stop. No. India needs to get its basics right -- Food, health care, education. The problem is /not/ the economy. If the so called 'educated' population of India actually made use of their education to participate in their democracy they would realize that economically speaking, India is not in a terribly bad state, however, the standard of life is sht as you put it, because very less focus has been put on the basics. In the history of the world there hasn't been any single successful empire or country which got to where it was while ignoring the health, nutrition and education of its people.
    - setum 8y ago
      > Current India was born as the Socialist democratic Republic of India and had closer relations to the former USSR than the US, so naturally, the US aligned itself with Pakistan. Not true. In-fact just the opposite. India started non-aligned movement and tried to remain non-aligned to the extent possible. Pakistan joined SEATO in 1954[1], India-Russia relations started a year later in 1955[2] Also, India was not born Socialist, although it may have socialist policies - much like any other country. First mention of socialism was in 1976 [3] > You are mistaken. India has been an aggressor as much as a victim. I think you could easily have add examples to support your claim rather than making statements [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organiza... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Soviet_Union_and_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Current_countries_with_constitutional_references_to_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Curre...
acct1771 8y ago
It's not ironic. It's like Facebook asking for legislation. "Look what we'll have to (feel we'll have to) do in the current paradigm, unless..."

rjf72 8y ago

It's in part going to be a demonstration of power, but these tests are largely just that - testing. Shooting down a satellite is incredibly difficult. You don't want to start testing it when you actually need to be able to do it.

kuzko_topia 8y ago
Well shooting a satellite could be done on a garbage orbit that would.not threaten critical internationnal science projects... not LOE
- rjf72 8y ago
  I've no idea their internal decision on metrics for the test, but they did shoot down something in a pretty low orbit. It was at about 300km. The ISS orbits at 400km. "Space" begins at around 100km. Shooting low is exactly what you want to do to minimize risk since it means the pieces will enter the atmosphere more rapidly and harmlessly burn up. Like the article mentions only 24 pieces of trackable debris ended up in an orbit sufficiently high to possibly intercept the ISS. This is among the 23,000 other trackable pieces of debris including 3,000 from a Chinese satellite destruction test done with somewhat less regard, and about a million smaller pieces of various debris. The article mentions the risk of any impact increased by 44% without giving the baseline. No idea what that is, but it's going to be some extremely low figure remaining an extremely low figure -- e.g. 0.001% becoming 0.00144%. And an "imminent" collision isn't imminent. The ISS has maneuvering thrusters, and in fact would gradually fall out of orbit without them! This [1] page shows the height of the ISS over time which is a convenient way of seeing how often it fires its maneuvering thrusters. Suffice to say, it's a very regular thing. I think the bigger reason we're upset is because of the technology itself. As nations become more capable of independently defending themselves it chips away at America's martial dominance, which is a major source of our political clout. [1] - https://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx https://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx

Razengan 8y ago

Destroying the habitability of our planet while making it difficult to escape to other planets.

Tsubasachan 8y ago

Yeah but international weapons treaties are actually being sabotaged by our beloved and glorious leader Trump right now so I wouldn't count on it. Everyone seems to be gearing up for a new race of tic tac toe.

acct1771 8y ago
If by "everyone", you mean the Military Industrial folks, and politicians paid by them, then, yeah.