4 ms·

And if said missiles is greater in cost (manufacture/maintenance/launch) than the satellites (manufacture/maintenance/launch)? I'm thinking there are much more

And if said missiles is greater in cost (manufacture/maintenance/launch) than the satellites (manufacture/maintenance/launch)? I'm thinking there are much more cost effective[0] ways to go about such possible ends any given space-faring nation may be seeking… [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_of_ASATs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_...

sangnoir 7y ago
The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. Rather, what matters is the "cost" of someone poking holes in the Great Firewall (which itself cost(s) no small amount). What price would China pay to maintain "social cohesion"? My guess is "a lot", especially if they are setting a public example. The mere threat to destroy a hostile satellite would likely be enough to activate censorship, if economic incentives have failed. Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground
- cinquemb 7y ago
  >The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. With thinking like this, this is how one looses in the game of attrition warfare (setting aside the technical difficulties shooting down satellites that are trying to active evade such, rather than some boisterous demo on one that isn't). If the Chinese can't maintain "social cohesion" at a cheap of enough cost, it would be only be ruinous in the long run. "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare" - Sun Tzu >Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground Well this certainly sounds like a cheaper alternative that seems way more sustainable and wont be as burdensome on the resources of a population. However, any ground station that has LOS into china from outside its borders) and powered high enough would evade such, then we're talking about the cat and mouse game of trying to impede beam paths. Maybe they'd have to purse something on the device level via the manufactures to block such things.
  - sangnoir 7y ago
    I'm sorry, but this is getting too abstract for me: China will not fight a war of attrition against Apple, Inc. over internet satellites. Just like the US or Russia, or any other major power, China does not need to play a game of cat and mouse over an entity acting in a way perceived as harmful to its populace. I'd like to think they are able to perform attribution, and have a range of options on how to apply pressure (diplomatic, financial / economic, or electronic - remember N. Korea vs Sony Films?)

sangnoir 7y ago

The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. Rather, what matters is the "cost" of someone poking holes in the Great Firewall (which itself cost(s) no small amount). What price would China pay to maintain "social cohesion"? My guess is "a lot", especially if they are setting a public example. The mere threat to destroy a hostile satellite would likely be enough to activate censorship, if economic incentives have failed. Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground

cinquemb 7y ago
>The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. With thinking like this, this is how one looses in the game of attrition warfare (setting aside the technical difficulties shooting down satellites that are trying to active evade such, rather than some boisterous demo on one that isn't). If the Chinese can't maintain "social cohesion" at a cheap of enough cost, it would be only be ruinous in the long run. "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare" - Sun Tzu >Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground Well this certainly sounds like a cheaper alternative that seems way more sustainable and wont be as burdensome on the resources of a population. However, any ground station that has LOS into china from outside its borders) and powered high enough would evade such, then we're talking about the cat and mouse game of trying to impede beam paths. Maybe they'd have to purse something on the device level via the manufactures to block such things.
- sangnoir 7y ago
  I'm sorry, but this is getting too abstract for me: China will not fight a war of attrition against Apple, Inc. over internet satellites. Just like the US or Russia, or any other major power, China does not need to play a game of cat and mouse over an entity acting in a way perceived as harmful to its populace. I'd like to think they are able to perform attribution, and have a range of options on how to apply pressure (diplomatic, financial / economic, or electronic - remember N. Korea vs Sony Films?)