Talk:2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Chinese

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

ASAT in the arsenal?

The Aviation Week & Space Technology article does seem to suggest that the U.S. does have an ASAT weapon(s) in the arsenal. But I don't think that's accurate. The ASM-135 ASAT may or may not be operational or simply STUFFED into an ordinance bunker someplace. Nevertheless the claim that the U.S. HAS an ASAT weapon seems out of place and unverified.

Perhaps whatever the US possesses isn't operational. If you do make a change, I'd suggest at most removing the phrase "in its space weapon arsenal". Of course, the term arsenal and ordinance bunker are synonymous—the former no more suggesting live capability than the latter. Maybe someone can do some verification research. ~ Rollo44 02:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arms Race and Article Neutrality

It should be mentioned that the US has had a similar (anti-satellite) military capacity for twenty years now, to provide context to the precipitation of an arms race comment. Sad mouse 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right,I agree,like USA,Russia also got the Anti-satellite Weapons.I think the best effort to make is that all the counties with Anti-satellite weapons signing a treaty like Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and declaring the no-first using.If not,all the counties will try to develop the same weapons.--Ksyrie 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I heard the American response, or even that the US had made a response, all I could think is, "Who are you to talk? Twenty years ago, we were all positive you'd be doing this." Who knows; some friends of mine say the US is just trying to ressurect anti-communism to create a new cold war after their first attempt at a second cold war, the War on Terror, failed miserably. VolatileChemical 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the major concern over this type of test is that the satellite was destroyed using a kinetic kill vehicle, with the resultant debris implicatons, whereas the US years ago switched from a hard-kill to soft-kill ASAT solution. The Chinese weapon, by contrast, is an orbital denial, not control weapon. In any case, the discussion should be focussed on making the article better, not personal reaction to the test or the militarization of space. Banality 21:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if many people know it, but orbital space debris is highly disruptive and destructive, leaving its debris for many many years. -- "Who are you to talk?" lol - Rollo44 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the response to the test was unbalanced, if we allow the US to condemn the test without noting that the US already possesses similar (actually more advanced) technology. It is one thing for Australia to condemn the tests, with no space capacity, another thing for the US to condemn the test, considering they have the most militarised space program of any nation. Essentially, this is only notable because of the response of other countries, we should ensure that we make NPOV statements of other countries rather than repeat government-endorsed sound bites. Sad mouse 06:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Banality, I seriously doubt the number one concern of the US is space debris. they are so paranoid because the Chinese satellite been destroyed flew at the same altitude as most American reconnaissance satellites. Just check out any major news outlets. I have read expert speculation that this Chinese move is an attempt to pressure the US into signing the space demilitarization treaty at the UN. Shouldn't all these (the US refusal to sign such a treaty and their possesion of similar technologies) be included in this article to provide the context, instead of the mere negative reactions from the west? Pseudotriton 06:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, wikipedia should not follow the agenda of any individual country, rather we should put the test in context, and the response of different states in context. Leave it to Fox News to give only verbatim comments from the US government, if any government, US, China or any other, is to be cited here the context and critical analysis should be next to the quote. Sad mouse 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to the majority; it's certainly not my intention to support (or condemn) the defense policies of the United States or China. I would simply note that this article should be about this particular test - if readers are interested in the general history and politics of ASAT warfare, these issues are already amply covered in the excellent articles Anti-satellite_weapon and Militarisation_of_space. Banality 07:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many other military exercises and tests have been conducted by whatever nation without the slightest attention or concern, let alone warrant their own Wikipedia article? The only reason this anti-missile test is even notable is because of its political nature. I see three options. 1) Delete it. I think that would be stupid. 2) Focus solely on its technical nature. This would be silly. 3) Place it fully in its political context, which means explaining all views. This is obviously not just another military test. It has been reported in the media for the very reason that it has political/military implications. This is above all a political event and should be treated as such. Thoughts? ~ Rollo44 22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am enormously interested in international, political reaction to this test. I couldn't care less about the opinions of various editors as to whether this was a 'moral' test or not. As long as we stick to the former, it's all good. Banality 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted somewhere in the article that for several years prior to this test, China was a significant proponent of the PAROS (Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space) Treaty in the UN Conference on Disarmament. From [1]:

"In the UN First Committee in December 2005, 160 countries voted in favor of adopting PAROS resolution A/RES/60/54, with Israel abstaining and the United States the sole country to vote against it, much to the surprise of the council. The United States chose to vote against the PAROS resolution, despite having abstained since the resolution was first introduced in 1995, explaining that the current system governing outer space use is sufficient since there is no arms race in space."

One analysis (espoused by the Council on Foreign Relations, among others) of the Chinese ASAT test was that it was an attempt to goad the US to the negotiating table to agree to the PAROS Treaty.--Rpine75 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Resources

Here are two links to good NYT articles which someone can use to add more information:

~ Rollo44 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts

http://jir.janes.com/public/jir/chinawatch.shtml http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070124-121536-8225r.htm

I have added the following links to reflect the earlier attempts. What is rather interesting is that there were as much as three previous attempts in the past two years but there was no disclosure by the Americans or the Chinese.

The links have expired therefore the claims cannot be verified. Power hungry wikipedians are reverting/saving these expired links because it illustrates previous failed attempts just to put down the Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.133.37 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 December 2007

You have consistently been removing content from this page. Your edit summaries have been disruptive and uncivil, and you clearly have an anti-American POV. This article must present a neutral point of view, and there are (or at least were) sources to verify it. I'm sure that others can be found. The fact is that you have no evidence that there were no other tests. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple fact of the matter is this.

If you are claiming a fact but the proof cannot be found then it is useless. Second. A person reading this article would just take what they are told which is misleading. You have one working link. Fine, keep that. But as said above, there is no disclosure by the Americans or the Chinese because this is likely classified material. What makes ONE NY times article so credible? And tell me why you should keep the expired links? Why should other users revert blindly. You accuse me of being uncivil. Look at the past edits and see why I shouldn't be. I explained why it shouldn't be kept and you and other users alike just reverted it saying its "incorrect". What gives you the right to change the edits to your POV whilst disregarding others which have a different view than yours?

I find it a joke that you say I'm anti-american. This is an article about China. If its negative its going to be directed to China not the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.43.96 (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SC-19

The article said SC-19 is based on DF-21. Any references? I think it derived from DF-31. Sinolonghai 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koxinga CDF 09:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some links

I added a page link to an MIT page with downloads and graphics of the ASAT test Yale Simkin Yale s 16:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth fragment map

Hi. This might be relevant to the article: http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2008/04/space_debris_viewed_in_google_earth.html It has a link to a Google Earth layer tracking the fragments of Fengyun-1C, with updates in realtime. Ben W. Bwyutai 17:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trash in the Article

"Compared with the USA 193's bus-like size, the main body of Fengyun meteorological satellite only had a size similar to an incubator (except wings), which also illustrates the accuracy of the test."

-What the hell is a sentence like this doing in an encyclopedia article? It doesn't address the huge differences in altitude, attitude, and orbital predictability between the two tests. "Size similar to an incubator"? This is ridiculous Chinese propaganda, written in Chinglish, masquerading as encyclopedic material. I tried to remove this ridiculous sentence but was overruled 10 times by idiots with a revert button at their disposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.40.177 (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? With such a charming and constructive attitude, it's astounding anyone would question you. - Vianello (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)(Side note: You may want to look at WP:3RR, unless those ten "overrules" were spaced out over quite a length of time)[reply]

Let's just leave it as it is

I have re added the part about the accuracy of the test part, because compared to USA 193, it is more small, however I added "vaguely" in front of the word "illustrates". I have also left the countering sentence saying that ballistic warheads would be harder to hit. However, I think that part is not exactly relevant to the ASAT test, as the missile was meant to take down satellites, not a ballistic missile. I have left both sentences on, so that people can read it and make up their own minds. We don't want to make wikipedia anti chinese or pro chinese. Show both sides of the argument and therefore it will be balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that whole paragraph. It's trying to make an assertion that is patently false - that direct-ascent ASAT weaponry is as difficult a technical challenge as ABM weaponry. The Chinese through this test have demonstrated a lesser level of capability (by use of a large ground-launched missile rather than a small, air-launched one) than we had at the time of the 1985 ASAT test - almost 25 years ago right now. Given the difficult development of kinetic ABM systems in the United States despite our first-time success with kinetic ASATs to claim that the Chinese have some kind of technological parity with us through this test is absurd and an insult to every American engineer working on ABM weaponry. 128.153.195.125 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant picture?

I'm just curious about the satellite image featured at the bottom of the article currently in the International Response section. What exactly is the relevance of this image? I can't figure it out. Feels kinda random and unnecessary to me. Glandrid (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debris increase

According to the Space debris page (debris growth section), 19,000 items were known to be in orbit in 2006 (and presumably being tracked). Presuming that that number didn't jump before the missile test, another 2300 pieces would be a 12% increase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkonc (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China's Explanation?

I'm not sure if this was right, but I'm pretty sure that on the Hong Kong news, the explanation given by China for destroying the satellite was that it was an old weather station, and needed to be brought down or else it would malfunction in orbit (barely believable). Was this true, or are we simply assuming that it was a weapon's test regardless? I personally don't believe that kind of story (its BS), but I swear that's what they said about the test. 203.213.40.129 (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that isn’t true. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of old malfunctioning / completely dead satellites circling the earth right now and they pose almost no threat whatsoever because they are large enough to be easily tracked allowing other satellites and space craft to be manoeuvred away from them if their orbits ever get too close. In situations where a satellite malfunctions and can no longer manually de-orbit, currently the safest option by far is to just leave it be. Instead, the Chinese simply turned one trackable and easily avoidable piece of space debris, into many thousand pieces of space debris that have fanned out in all directions, and most of which are too small to be tracked and therefore impossible to avoid (but because of their immense velocity still have enough energy to severely damage anything they crash into). There is absolutely no conceivable reason that a weather satellite would ever ‘need’ to be shot by anti-satellite missile, it has made space far more dangerous, not less. Currently almost one third of all trackable sized pieces of space debris in low earth orbit are the result of this incident.2A00:23C8:2688:A401:1961:EB33:494E:1996 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]