3 ms·

What's the rational behind this? The US has far more satellites to lose then any other country, last time I checked. The incentive seems like it should encoura

What's the rational behind this? The US has far more satellites to lose then any other country, last time I checked. The incentive seems like it should encourage preventing any shift of the overton window to full weaponization of space.

nateb2022 3y ago
> What's the rational behind this? The best defense is a good offense.
icegreentea2 3y ago
The US' stated pacing threat is the PRC. Talking about a shared overton window between US and China about weaponization of space in the context of full competition is nonsensical. The only way the US can reasonably compel PRC to not employ ASAT weapons (remember, if China is willing to fire on US satellites, then they've already decided that overall conflict with the US is acceptable) is to have a credible force to respond in kind, and hope that some sort of equilibrium can be reached. The most likely equilibrium is both sides going ham on each other's satellites. Another challenge is that ASAT and BMD capabilities seem to be highly linked (or at least that seems to be the US analysis of China's BMD tests) - see https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Research/CASI%20Articles/2021-02-09%20BMD-ASAT%20test.pdf https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/R... In that sense, since the US cannot reasonably apply any pressure preventing China from developing ASAT systems (since they could just be developed under the guise of BMD), then the only ways to prevent China from employing ASAT systems is to impose a credible risk/cost.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  But there is no equilibrium now or anytime in the forseeable future, hence my comment. The US has far more to lose in space then to gain because they have way more satellites then anyone else, that are more valuable on average, etc... The US airforce can't credibly threaten PRC satellites as long as they also maintain the minimum viable ASAT weaponry too, since trading tit-for-tat would be hugely detrimental in both absolute and relative terms.
  - icegreentea2 3y ago
    But allowing ASAT capabilities to go strongly asymmetric would be even more detrimental, especially in relative terms.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Yes, if the US Air Force was far behind and playing catch up. But they're clearly not.
deprecative 3y ago
The United States has had anti-sat weaponry for 20 years. This isn't new. They're organizing a unit dedicated to the technology and its use which is.
- jki275 3y ago
  We've had ASAT weapons since the 1960s... The first successful F15 launched ASAT test against a real satellite was in 1985. I have the same problem, if I don't think about it too closely, I still sometimes think the 80s were 20 years ago.
  - deprecative 3y ago
    I was thinking of the anti-sat missile test from the early aughts, but I'll take your excuse and run with it.
    - jki275 3y ago
      It's the best excuse.. :D

nateb2022 3y ago

> What's the rational behind this? The best defense is a good offense.

icegreentea2 3y ago

The US' stated pacing threat is the PRC. Talking about a shared overton window between US and China about weaponization of space in the context of full competition is nonsensical. The only way the US can reasonably compel PRC to not employ ASAT weapons (remember, if China is willing to fire on US satellites, then they've already decided that overall conflict with the US is acceptable) is to have a credible force to respond in kind, and hope that some sort of equilibrium can be reached. The most likely equilibrium is both sides going ham on each other's satellites. Another challenge is that ASAT and BMD capabilities seem to be highly linked (or at least that seems to be the US analysis of China's BMD tests) - see https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Research/CASI%20Articles/2021-02-09%20BMD-ASAT%20test.pdf https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/R... In that sense, since the US cannot reasonably apply any pressure preventing China from developing ASAT systems (since they could just be developed under the guise of BMD), then the only ways to prevent China from employing ASAT systems is to impose a credible risk/cost.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
But there is no equilibrium now or anytime in the forseeable future, hence my comment. The US has far more to lose in space then to gain because they have way more satellites then anyone else, that are more valuable on average, etc... The US airforce can't credibly threaten PRC satellites as long as they also maintain the minimum viable ASAT weaponry too, since trading tit-for-tat would be hugely detrimental in both absolute and relative terms.
- icegreentea2 3y ago
  But allowing ASAT capabilities to go strongly asymmetric would be even more detrimental, especially in relative terms.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Yes, if the US Air Force was far behind and playing catch up. But they're clearly not.

deprecative 3y ago

The United States has had anti-sat weaponry for 20 years. This isn't new. They're organizing a unit dedicated to the technology and its use which is.

jki275 3y ago
We've had ASAT weapons since the 1960s... The first successful F15 launched ASAT test against a real satellite was in 1985. I have the same problem, if I don't think about it too closely, I still sometimes think the 80s were 20 years ago.
- deprecative 3y ago
  I was thinking of the anti-sat missile test from the early aughts, but I'll take your excuse and run with it.
  - jki275 3y ago
    It's the best excuse.. :D