hankyoreh

On January 11 China shot down one of its weather satellites some 860 kilometers above the earth. It was big news, but the history of the development of anti-satellite weaponry is already a long one.

The development of surveillance satellites in the early fifties was quickly followed by efforts to develop weaponry with the ability to destroy those of your enemies. The United States sought ways to hit them directly, while the Soviet Union thought the solution was to launch a rocket into the orbit of the satellite and make the rocket explode in a way that its fragments destroy the target. There were even moves to develop weapons with nuclear warheads, but that stopped with the signing of the "Outer Space Treaty." Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" too effect in October 1967. Article IV goes like this: "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes." Military use is prohibited.

The anti-satellite technology the U.S. came up with instead was the ASM-135 ASAT, which can be fired by an F-15 jet fighter. Developed in 1977, it can destroy surveillance and other military satellites up to 1,900 kilometers high. In September 1985, during the Reagan Administration, an F-15 flying at 12 kilometers scored a direct hit during a test of this ASM-135. The Soviets did their first anti-satellite test in 1968 and positioned its anti-satellite weapons in the field in 1971.

In 1980 the Soviet Union began calling for space arms reductions. It stopped related experiments in 1982. The U.S. Congress responded in kind and called on the U.S. to stop similar experiments in 1985. The U.S. ceased jet fighter-based missile experimentation in 1988.

Will this be enough for space to remain peaceful? The Reagan Administration's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, also called "Star Wars") went against the spirit of the treaty. Every year since 1999 the UN has held votes on the space treaty in order to keep the U.S. in check. Everyone votes for it except the U.S. and Israel, which abstain. In October of last year the Bush Administration issued a document on U.S. space policy. It says "freedom of movement" in space is as important as air and naval power, essentially a statement that the U.S. is not going to let anyone interfere with what it does. In response to China's recent test, the spokesperson for the U.S. National Security Council said China's actions go "against the spirit of international cooperation" in space, but is the U.S. in a position to criticize?

In September of last year, Defense News reported that China has on several occasions tested lasers on U.S. surveillance satellites. Lasers can render satellites useless by destroying their sensing systems. This latest missile test demonstrates that Chinese anti-satellite technology has advanced considerably. The spy satellite launched by Japan in response to the 1998 North Korean test of a "Taepodong" rocket orbits at 500 kilometers. That would be a simple job for Chinese anti-satellite weaponry.

U.S. military operations are heavily dependent on satellites. The Congressional Research Service once estimated that the destruction of 50 of America's roughly 400 satellites would paralyze U.S. military power. This makes China's recent test threatening to the U.S. Some say it is the "threat effect" that China is really after; that it is trying to get the U.S. to give up on competition in space and talk about arms reductions. However, given how things have gone so far, if Chinese space technology emerges as a new "dark horse," it is going to lead to unlimited competition and turn space into a battlefield. It will not likely lead to arms reductions.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]