3 ms·

A major provocation? "Oh, you deny using your satellites to supply them with imaging? All right, then it wasn't us who blew up your spy satellite that wasn't

A major provocation? "Oh, you deny using your satellites to supply them with imaging? All right, then it wasn't us who blew up your spy satellite that wasn't supplying imaging." That is, China's in a bit of an awkward position to complain very much.

rl3 19d ago
Problems start when their complaints take the form of using their own deniable capability against U.S. satellites. I've a feeling our satellites are far more expensive and advanced than theirs. Nobody wants a space tit-for-tat that can escalate dramatically.
- nomel 19d ago
  So, what solution do you have in mind, if China supplies military support to an adversary? Politely ask them to stop? Let them continue? Seems not so trivial to me, especially since everyone has satellites up there for this purpose, and there's a good chance China would do the same.
  - FabCH 19d ago
    Politely ask them to stop seems like a great idea to try first before you actively attack a space capable nuclear superpower!
    - nomel 19d ago
      If they did supply images, to supporting the attacks, that did or even didn't result in the death of soldiers, then they were first to commit an act of aggression towards a nuclear superpower. This is a measured response to that act of aggression. Asking politely, in that context, doesn't necessarily make sense, especially when you can just burn a few hundred million of their dollars to demonstrate why they shouldn't do that. I think China would have done the same, but with the usual gaslighting [1]. [1] https://spacenews.com/china-says-it-remains-opposed-weapons-space/ https://spacenews.com/china-says-it-remains-opposed-weapons-...
      - FabCH 19d ago
        There is a meaningful difference between „providing information to a country currently being attacked“ and „blowing stuff up in orbit“. One is significantly more risk to the rest of the world than other.
        nomel 18d ago
        Don't be naive. If a blind man is asking you where to aim his gun, are you responsible for the death or is the blind man pulling the trigger? In the context of war, BOTH of you are, and both are valid military targets, just as a spotter is, directing a sniper, on the battlefield, because the intention of both of you is to cause death.
        rl3 17d ago
        >Don't be naive. You do realize that since the advent of image reconnaissance satellites, imagery has been used to support the wider geopolitical objectives of whoever owns the satellites doing the reconnaissance, up to and including sharing intelligence with geopolitical allies? In other words: the point of contention here is a tale old as time, and when caught one power usually just registers diplomatic complaints against the other power. Rather than, you know, kick off WW3 by messing with space assets between two nuclear powers. I'd also like to note that the Soviets literally provided a massive amount of logistical support to North Vietnam. In the Korean War, their own pilots even squared off against Americans. The United States returned the favor when they invaded Afghanistan, our logistical and intelligence support killing scores of Soviets. At no point did either power decide to start blowing up each other's satellites. It's 2026, Iran I'm sure has a myriad of ways of acquiring imagery via commercial satellite providers. Let alone other intel modalities. The notion that a giant KC-135 sitting on a tarmac somewhere being otherwise safe were it not for the Chinese sharing intelligence is laughable. Reads more like incompetent threat assessment and regional asset positioning.
lossolo 19d ago
China is not Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela or some other third world country that the US has fought in over the past few decades. You can't just destroy one of their satellites for free. And I can bet the US didn't do it, because that would be a major escalation, especially now that Xi is coming to the US and there are rumors that the US wants a deal.
- chinathrow 19d ago
  So it broke apart by itself?
  - lossolo 19d ago
    "The European Space Agency estimates that there have been more than 660 explosions, collisions, or anomalous events resulting in fragmentation. As it stands, there are currently more than 1.5 million space debris objects in Earth orbit. It’s not clear what may have caused the Yaogan-50 (02) satellite to break apart, but it may have been a propulsion or battery failure, or it may have itself collided with another object or space debris."
    - willy_k 19d ago
      That doesn’t mean anything. “Sometimes satellites hit things or have problems and blow up. Maybe it hit something and had a problem”. Edit: Its a perfectly valid response to the question that was asked.
- boc 19d ago
  So China's brand new recon satellite that was placed specifically in orbit over Iran just happened to self-destruct weeks after China was accused of giving Iran high-res satellite imagery that was used to kill American soldiers? And the US just publicly told everyone they have weapons in space? Hell of a coincidence.

rl3 19d ago

Problems start when their complaints take the form of using their own deniable capability against U.S. satellites. I've a feeling our satellites are far more expensive and advanced than theirs. Nobody wants a space tit-for-tat that can escalate dramatically.

nomel 19d ago
So, what solution do you have in mind, if China supplies military support to an adversary? Politely ask them to stop? Let them continue? Seems not so trivial to me, especially since everyone has satellites up there for this purpose, and there's a good chance China would do the same.
- FabCH 19d ago
  Politely ask them to stop seems like a great idea to try first before you actively attack a space capable nuclear superpower!
  - nomel 19d ago
    If they did supply images, to supporting the attacks, that did or even didn't result in the death of soldiers, then they were first to commit an act of aggression towards a nuclear superpower. This is a measured response to that act of aggression. Asking politely, in that context, doesn't necessarily make sense, especially when you can just burn a few hundred million of their dollars to demonstrate why they shouldn't do that. I think China would have done the same, but with the usual gaslighting [1]. [1] https://spacenews.com/china-says-it-remains-opposed-weapons-space/ https://spacenews.com/china-says-it-remains-opposed-weapons-...
    - FabCH 19d ago
      There is a meaningful difference between „providing information to a country currently being attacked“ and „blowing stuff up in orbit“. One is significantly more risk to the rest of the world than other.
      - nomel 18d ago
        Don't be naive. If a blind man is asking you where to aim his gun, are you responsible for the death or is the blind man pulling the trigger? In the context of war, BOTH of you are, and both are valid military targets, just as a spotter is, directing a sniper, on the battlefield, because the intention of both of you is to cause death.
        rl3 17d ago
        >Don't be naive. You do realize that since the advent of image reconnaissance satellites, imagery has been used to support the wider geopolitical objectives of whoever owns the satellites doing the reconnaissance, up to and including sharing intelligence with geopolitical allies? In other words: the point of contention here is a tale old as time, and when caught one power usually just registers diplomatic complaints against the other power. Rather than, you know, kick off WW3 by messing with space assets between two nuclear powers. I'd also like to note that the Soviets literally provided a massive amount of logistical support to North Vietnam. In the Korean War, their own pilots even squared off against Americans. The United States returned the favor when they invaded Afghanistan, our logistical and intelligence support killing scores of Soviets. At no point did either power decide to start blowing up each other's satellites. It's 2026, Iran I'm sure has a myriad of ways of acquiring imagery via commercial satellite providers. Let alone other intel modalities. The notion that a giant KC-135 sitting on a tarmac somewhere being otherwise safe were it not for the Chinese sharing intelligence is laughable. Reads more like incompetent threat assessment and regional asset positioning.

lossolo 19d ago

China is not Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela or some other third world country that the US has fought in over the past few decades. You can't just destroy one of their satellites for free. And I can bet the US didn't do it, because that would be a major escalation, especially now that Xi is coming to the US and there are rumors that the US wants a deal.

chinathrow 19d ago
So it broke apart by itself?
- lossolo 19d ago
  "The European Space Agency estimates that there have been more than 660 explosions, collisions, or anomalous events resulting in fragmentation. As it stands, there are currently more than 1.5 million space debris objects in Earth orbit. It’s not clear what may have caused the Yaogan-50 (02) satellite to break apart, but it may have been a propulsion or battery failure, or it may have itself collided with another object or space debris."
  - willy_k 19d ago
    That doesn’t mean anything. “Sometimes satellites hit things or have problems and blow up. Maybe it hit something and had a problem”. Edit: Its a perfectly valid response to the question that was asked.
boc 19d ago
So China's brand new recon satellite that was placed specifically in orbit over Iran just happened to self-destruct weeks after China was accused of giving Iran high-res satellite imagery that was used to kill American soldiers? And the US just publicly told everyone they have weapons in space? Hell of a coincidence.