The NYTimes on the Chinese antisatellite test
Turns out they're just misunderstood
By AcademicElephant Posted in War — Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The NYTimes today suggests that those who have supported the development of our Ballistic Missile Defense program (dubbed "star warriors" for the purposes of this article) were actually pleased by the Chinese antisatellite weapon test last week because it provided a justification, no matter how slim, for their pet project, which has gone "nowhere for two decades despite more than $100 billion in blue-sky research." There are those, the paper grudgingly admits, who believe the Chinese test is part of a larger military build-up with serious future ramifications for the US--and that we will be grateful some years hence to have a BMD system in place. But (there are a lot of "buts" in this article) there are the brave dissenters who believe that "[a]n unfettered arms race could hurt the United States more than any other nation." Furthermore, the Chinese may not be looking for such escalation--they might just be trying to encourage the truculent and war-mongering US to the negotiating table with this "shot across the bow." As the title of the article proposes, this could be "a plea for a ban:"
Diplomats from around the globe have gathered in Geneva for many years to hammer out a treaty on the "Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space," which would ban space weapons. Arms control supporters say China and Russia have backed the process, while the United States has dragged its feet.
I get it--the Chinese are just using a little tough love to get our attention. This test is really a demonstration of their desire for world peace.
Read on...
It's nice that the NYTimes has such an optimistic view of Chinese intentions, and it sure would be great if they are right about this test. But just in case they're wrong, I for one am grateful that this President has aggressively pursued "secret research that critics say could produce a powerful ground-based laser meant to shatter enemy satellites." Is that a criticism or a compliment? But I digress. I wonder if one day in the not too far distant future even the NYTimes may find itself thankful for the "wide-ranging [Bush] administration effort to develop space weapons, both defensive and offensive." And what may amaze the paper most at that point is that the "space warriors" they mocked will take no joy in having been right. It is probably beyond the Times' comprehension that the "space warriors" do not want to use these weapons. They don't want the Chinese to test, even if it validates their efforts. But they understand, as the Times does not, that given the realities of the world in which we live, in which such a test by an aggressive China was nigh on an inevitability, to neglect or abandon these weapons would be the height of irresponsibility. Does anyone seriously believe that had a President Gore hobbled the BMD program as he promised to do if elected in 2000, the Chinese would not have tested their anti-satellite program last week? And where would we have been then? Six years further behind, without basic working system (pace to the Times, but BMD is hardly "nowhere" at this point) we have today, not to mention the satellite-busting lasers and other new systems that are not yet public knowledge. Outside the pampered offices of the NYTimes it is, sadly, a dangerous world where depending on the kind intentions of the Chinese military is probably not the best policy. And so we should take very seriously the ramifications of having policy set by the sorts of candidates this paper supports.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Aww, Poor Baby... — Comments (3) »
The NYTimes on the Chinese antisatellite test 46 Comments (0 topical, 46 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But I could have written that article (and the previous one from the day the Chinese fired the missile) at least in broad outlines because it's a foregone conclusion that the NYT would:
1) Side with the Chinese as being the benevolent actors, and even the wise but desparate "victims" of America's heedless BMD plans, who have been forced to take this rash action to get the attention of the heedless American cowboy.
2) Accuse the Administration of escalating and goading the Chinese into conducting this test by not preemptively abandoning their plans and calling the Chinese to the table six years ago.
3) Take yet another opportunity to call the BMD program a waste of money, and ridicule it as a "pipedream" and a fantasy. Especially if they can drag Ronald Reagan into it.
4) Dig up every dovish/leftist nonproliferation expert they can find in their collective Rolodex to tell their readers why the United States is dangerously destabilizing the world because of a missile that the Chinese fired.
It's the standard playbook, and I could have written the outline and sent it to the Times 30 minutes after the test took place. Next will come a series of editorials and Sunday magazine pieces talking about the folly of BMD, the terrible dangers of our present course to the weaponization of space, and "news pieces" from "anonymous sources" detailing waste and fraud in the programs. Just watch.
If anyone read their previous article carefully, in fact, one of their experts noted that this missile launched by the ChiComs was shown to the west a couple of years ago and that experts realized then that it was best suited (and therefore specifically designed) to be an anti-satellite weapon, but then it "disappeared." So in fact, the Chinese first teased the world with this capability and then took the next step and deliberately fired it, creating a huge debris shower which will endanger satellites of every nation in nearby orbits for decades to come. But that doesn't matter to the Times -- it's America's fault for developing our own defensive and offensive capabilities to match the Chinese.
What we should do is listen to Cindy Sheehan:
"Investigate, Deescalate, Troops Home Now" while the Chinese (and the Russians) continue to develop their capabilities. It may make the New York Times happy if the United States were to be forced to the bargaining table with John Kerry's "humility" and from a position of weakness, but does anyone believe that it's good for anyone except the Chinese to have us do so?
That last question, of course, answers itself: The New York Times believes it, and that means that the Democratic party and Democrat society believe it. But muscle-flexing belligerent communists have never been brought to the negotiating table before through acts of benevolent weakness and "humility" by the United States. China wants to become the Regional Overlord, and that means that every time the United States "goes weak" while the Chinese demonstrate new resolve, they take another step toward achieving that goal. How would you feel if you lived in Japan and the United States responded to this test by collapsing like a house of cards and slinking off to the negotiating table at the behest of the New York Times?
A couple of other questions the article really doesn't explore: Has the Chinese government publicised this event in their own country? How have they portrayed it to their own people? And what are the rest of our enemies saying about the successful Chinese test?
Actually you could have written 30 years before the launch.
Change the nationality, change the enemies name and it's the same thing they've been doing since the Cold War.
I couldn't count the number of times the NYT lectured us on why we must understand and accomodate "the Soviet Union's legitimate concerns".
Find an enemy, find a threat, and you will find the New York Times. Sometimes the method is obvious, direct, and shameless, which you never find in a liberal anyway. Other times a more indirect approach is taken, torture of suspected terrorists, spying on Americans,so on and ad infinitum.
It's almost boring how often they and other leftists are wrong on major policy issues, but fanaticism doesn't correct error.
They were dead wrong on the so called Star Wars and they hate it but that only makes them more determined. Did they happen to ridicule Ronald Reagan anywhere in the article? That poor, stumbling "amiable dunce"? I'd laugh at the trash but it's too serious.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Slightly off-topic but in the same meta-etymological spirit, is this, regarding the end of the cold war and the role the Nimitz-class carriers played in it:
What was it, exactly, that led to the end of the Cold War? The collapse of the Soviet Union’s economic system? A spirit of cooperation led by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev? President Ronald Reagan’s missile buildup?
Brian Persons, civilian executive director of the Naval Sea Systems Command’s carrier building program has another reason: the Nimitz-class ships.
“The Soviet Union tried to emulate it, and weren’t able to succeed,” Persons said. “They were never able to deploy a battle group around the world. It is the one war-fighting platform that really shaped the events.”
It's a very different capability. But there is nobody who would suggest today that a wise course of action for the U.S. would have been to preemptively abandon the construction of the Nimitz class because the Russians had started working on their own supercarriers.
True enough, but it's especially obvious when a Republican is the President. But on a strictly journalistic level, I think the American people should recognize something very basic:
The New York Times has gone over the years from being the Newspaper of Record and the one that published "All The News That Was Fit To Print" to being the Newspaper of Insinuated Motives and Competing Narratives. They've become quite adept at it, and I'd venture to guess that they even select their staff writers on the basis of how well they can instinctively do the Grey Lady Hustle. Even Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has recognized it, when he's not also admitting that there has been a consistent "failure narrative" that has run through the MSM's coverage of the Iraq war in his own newspaper.
It might be satisfying to dismiss these people and the newspaper they print as fishwrap, but unfortunately the fishwrap is everywhere.
Finally, I'd like to posit what I think is a genuine meta-etymological parallel (a quasi-meme, if you will) between the people that the New York Times calls: "Arms-control experts" and the ones they refer to as "Gun-control experts." Hint: it almost always has to do with "Diplomats in Geneva."
It's not that complicated a concept. The more pedestrian vernacular is "Weasel Words." ;)
I define meta-etymological pairs as follows:
"Words or phrases which refer to different concepts or objects and yet are frequently bound together in narratives (or close substitutions for each other) because of the underlying philosophical biases of the narrator. Thus, although they are nominally unrelated, they evoke similar Nodding-In-Agreement Quotients™ during any political or ideological discussion."
Just as a rough example, if liberals thought that both milk production and flyswatting were as dangerous as BMDs or the 2nd Amendment, and that both should be regulated by diplomats in Geneva, you would find that they would speak of "milk-control experts" and "flyswatting experts" using similar rhetoric and also virtually in the same breath.
that the New York Times is biased?
Oh, just checking!
...is that it will rely on a range of space-based assets (based on my limited knowledge of the subject). These are exactly the systems that are now presumably vulnerable to Chinese attack.
China appears to be playing a very sophisticated game of asymmetric "counter-counterforce." Their new weaponry must be considered a first-strike capability. One somewhat odd thing is the timing. The impact weapon they tested isn't terribly practical for an ambitious spacefaring nation, because of the mess it makes up there. I doubt China's war planners anticipate an outcome in which the capability will actually be used. They may be having trouble developing satellite-disabling lasers (now that the Bill Clinton secrets-for-cash window is closed), and saw a political motivation for making this move now.
Because we enter into international agreements with the intention of actually living up to them. No other large power faces a similar constraint.
I've always felt that the editors and writers of the NY Times are acting not from malice but from misplaced idealism (aka, stupidity). Since the Times is (for better or worse) part of the apparatus that ensures the US will only contract treaties in good faith, it makes sense for the Times to innocently assume other governments are in a similar position. They're not.
There's something about the liberal viewpoint that is SO, SO blatantly clueless about strategy.
We should really adopt a much tougher stance toward the Chinese. They need our Wal-mart money to sustain their growth rates. If their national growth fell to even 7%, the chaos that would ensue, in light of their already deceptively unstable social situation (especially in the rural areas) would be difficult for the Chinese to recover from. After something like that they would be more careful about publicly challenging American supremacy.
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth." -Picasso
"The Republic does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things- the nature of the city." -Cicero
the chaos that would ensue, in light of their already deceptively unstable social situation (especially in the rural areas) would be difficult for the Chinese to recover from.
The advantage to the Chinese government is they can accept several million deaths due to starvation, or murdered during an insurection, and most of the outside world would hardly know (or, unfortunately, care.)
What appears as instability to us, is an opportunity to shed unnecessary population pressure to them. And the libs will give them a pass, because...well, because!
Are you guys serious?
China doesn't present the kind of existential threat to us that the USSR did. You're proposing full-scale economic war, and I can't imagine us paying that price, for a whole host of reasons.
I'm sure a lot of people will throw rocks at me for the preceding statement, but I'm not saying we should let China beat us. I am saying this is a considerably more complex relationship than the USSR was. Our adversary is also our partner in many spheres, and we also understand his motivations only dimly. It's hubris to suppose otherwise.
I consider Radical Islam to be the greatest threat to world freedom today. The Chinese, notwithstanding their fervent hopes and dreams, are still 20 years from being a true world power. However, that said, we shold take a harder approach toward China, a carrot and BIG STICK approach, as it were, to convince them to be our ally, rather than our enemy. I was pointing out above, merely the fact, that a few million deaths would not be considered bad by that government.
Have you war-gamed that out? (I happen to agree that the Chinese regime will have no problem "expending" a large number of people among their rural populations.) Exactly how are you imagining that could happen? Are you thinking of a limited nuclear exchange? If so, how might it go down?
China is a true world power now, in every meaningful sense of the word that I know, including the diplomatic one. We underrate them at our peril!
somehow, I don't think any sort of nuclear exchange would have anything to do with RURAL populations.
...of HUNGER?
Pretty interesting point, although every Chinese person older than 50 will remember the last time they did that. They might make more trouble this time around.
So you're seriously proposing we engage in economic warfare with the goal of destabilizing the Chinese regime? I'm not sure there's enough capital in the world to do that.
Note: I am not endorsing the following in any way, shape or form, merely describing it.
The short version is, when famine hits - and serious economic dislocation will probably eventually cause one - you look through your provinces and pick out the most rebellious one. You then take out all the food still in there and send it to a province that's more loyal. Minimizes the negative reactions.
I believe, in fact, that this technique was first used by a previous dynasty*.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*I think that among ourselves we may dispose of the polite fiction that the People's Republic of China is anything besides the name that it pleases the Son of Heaven to call the current dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. Frankly, I wish that its current mandarin class would come up with a plausibly-Marxist reason to put jade buttons on their Mao caps; it'd make them all happier in the long run.
20th Century Atlas, they managed to get by with killing 42.5 million people from 1945 to 1975.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Mao died in 1976. He belongs in the inner ring of Hell, right along with Stalin and Hitler. But the current leaders, although far from being nice people, have very different motivations. In fact, they take a lot of internal criticism from the Left. (Of course, they shut down newspapers and execute college professors at will, but the point remains.)
Ironically, I'd say that the current government's greatest threat is a new Maoist revolution coming down from the hills. However, they won't repeat the unfathomable ineptitude of the previous Nationalist government, in 1947-48.
The Chinese, however, have a loooong history of expending their population at the convenience of their rulers. I'm guessing it's either a genetic disposition or it's historically ingrained by now.
Given their physical size and population, the I would expect that they would consider only perhaps India to be a threat. I just have a hard time imagining them being too concerned about a limited nuclear exchange that kills 10MM or so.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
We're the only country on earth with a significant military and commercial dependency on space assets. (China certainly doesn't, which is why the new ASAT capability qualifies as asymmetric warfare.) We're also the only country with enough naval power to cut off their shipping lanes. Plus, we have the security guarantee to Taiwan, which we will break but will extract a price for breaking (unless some g****mn Democrat is in the WH at the time, in which case we'll give away Taiwan for free). China's military planners have us in their sights.
Their economic-war planners, on the other hand, are definitely targeting India. Both countries want to own the global infotech and biotech industries. So far, India is ahead, and they have a pretty decent venture-capital industry too. Can't hold a candle to Sand Hill Road, but they're on the way and moving fast. Modern finance only works in the presence of freedom, which India has, but China will try to make up the gap with brute-force. It's a plausible strategy.
...but "genetic disposition" I won't. It is, in fact, pushing the boundaries a bit. Don't send me back into a jetlag sort of mood, man. It's scary in there; I'm not my usual carefree, merciful self.
Anyhoo; I think that even a limited nuclear exchange would be a catastrophe for them (not to mention the Russians, who are generally who the missiles are pretty much aimed at anyway). Which is not to say that they aren't focussed on India, or even that India isn't their major long-term worry.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*The Taiping Rebellion alone was a nightmare that should be required reading for every person who has ever glibly tossed around the phrase 'civil war'.
"genetic disposition", the comment was intended only as a foolish man's choice against the obvious.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Gotta make things clear for the peanut galleries sometimes, that's all. No huhu.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
is an opportunity. The US does not like rivals, certainly not Communist rivals. However, the Chinese really are adopting our model more and more every day. There is little or not threat of war with China in the next couple decades, they are growing rapidly and have no desire to screw that up.
Yes they are a strategic rival, they want power and must take some of it from us, since we fill every vacuum of power. But the China US relationship is so mutually critical (moreso for them), there is no reason why either would screw it up at this point. Are they a long term strategic rival and potential enemy? yes they are. Are they helpful to our economic present and future? yes they are.
As for moving closer to our model, I wonder if you're referring to the often-expressed idea that economic success will drive the people of China to demand freedom. I think this is a serious misreading of what the Chinese are all about. I also think that what they are all about must be considered a Rumsfeldian "known unknown."
I am just saying I believe in the power of freedom. Look at it this way, the Communist idea was for state controlled thought and state controlled means of production. The Chinese are already loosening the latter, they are giving in slowly. I believe that a state with free markets (the are not there yet) creates a huge desire for political freedom. And to be realistic, there is more political freedom in China today than ever before. I am not saying China is not "communist" or a threat, they are. but hard line Maoists are getting older and older, the young desire economic and political freedom.
Ironically, I would rather invest in a Chinese petroleum company than a western one. They all produce the same product, but who dares (*&^ with the Chinese? One thing they have not learned from us is political correctness. The point is this, China is a huge opportunity for this country, our corporations are crying for growth, the growth is in China and other parts of the East. We don't need to nuke them, we are going to Big Mac them to death.
I'll content myself with responding to just two.
Freedom: I smelled something wrong with applying the Anglocentric ideal ("success-brings-freedom") to China in the first five years after Tiananmen Square. I firmly believe that freedom doesn't matter to the Chinese people. What does matter is prosperity and international prestige. (And the leadership intends to retain power by continuing to supply those two things.)
Big Macking them to death: I was just thinking earlier today that most if not all of the big-time international investors I know are either moving into China or moving out. The latter are still asking themselves why it's so hard to make any money there. China has a big interest in taking the world's direct investment and technology transfers (which are a condition of most of their deals). But they haven't the slightest intention of letting anyone non-Chinese earn serious returns on those investments.
Is that a reason not to invest in China? For private equity, yes it is. For large public companies, sadly, no. Because public equity these days is valued principally by top-line growth, so these companies have no choice. Yet another reason not to buy publicly traded companies.
China is a little like the guy you knew from the company that was previously trying to destroy your company but who decided at the last minute to try and work with you. Then their company went bankrupt and now he's showing up at your door, offering to be your partner.
And the Americans are the partners of the Chinese, in many ways. A lot of the products Americans buy at Wal-Mart and Costco and the other big-box retailers are manufactured in China, and really thanks to Richard Nixon and a few other visionaries on both sides, we enjoy much better relations with China right now than we might have by this time. I have two IBM eSeries servers sitting right downstairs from me that were manufactured in China but once resided in conservative Utah before becoming depreciated and sold to me at a bargain price. They're great machines. Very well-made.
About a year and a half ago I highlighted one of my favorite Chinese companies here on RedState: SoThink. I'm still using their products, which I paid for through an electronic transaction with my American Express card, and I've been very pleased with the results.
Somebody in China (probably one of the less levelheaded people there) decided that not only was it necessary to develop an antisatellite ballistic missile but they decided to go through with it and actually blow something up. I think that was a very rash thing to do. If the Chinese want to push us into a new Cold War stance, they could easily do so by continuing along that path. The ball is in their court.
Kowalski, with respect, I would never be content to let the ball be in China's court. The ball is in our court, and we can't let someone else control our destiny. China has escalated an arms race in space, and they're going to get what they asked for. This is a simple matter of defense planning, not foreign policy.
I may have completely misread you. You may have meant the standard negotiating ploy in which "the ball is in your court" actually means "we can kill you this way or we can kill you that way, and it's your choice." If so, then I apologize.
check our PTR, HMIN, and BIDU. Look, I agree China could go either way, but they are allowing investors. The Big Mac thing was not just a "throw away line", see what MCD is doing there. The first drive thrus in China.
It is certainly true that China is about crony capitalism, but if they list in the US they have to give some way. Many board members of these companies are from Hong Kong, Singapore, or the West. These companies can not draw real capital unless they allow Western accounting to some degree. Also, look at companies such as UTX, they are selling hard equipment the Chinese have not the time or inclination to compete with. Sure the Chinese wont give a nickel if they can give only a penny, sure they steal software, but they are still huge buyers of American products.
We can either bring the Chinese at least onto our economic model, or we can fight them. And I do not agree the Chinese do not desire freedom, Tianamen Square showed many do. I do agree that economic freedom can buy them off for a while, but not in the long run. Look at Hong Kong and Macau, the Chinese dare not meddle much there, they want winners too.
All the way back to BA and KO and later, CSCO. I know what MCD is doing, and I stand by my belief that their business goal there is to grow the top line rather than the bottom line. I also reiterate that some of the smartest non-Chinese investors I know have given up trying to make real money in China. Perhaps ironically, growth opportunities in the US are now so low that it may even make sense for the managers of public companies to scrape for the low returns the Chinese will let them have. Believe me, China has our number(s) on this and they played the whole opening to foreign direct investment with incredible shrewdness and mastery. They've learned from 500 years of mistakes. My hat is off to them.
Tiananmen: I was thrilled to see it (and horrified at the deaths) but it took me about five years to give up on them. There was no real followthrough. And the lid is back on now, tighter than ever.
i don't want to argue with you, at first i thought i was backing you up. But i would ignore 20 of your 25 years because things have changed. My money is real, of course international investing has extra risks. Anyway, nice discussion, but i will move on.
You had the clarity to recognize that China is essential to our future and vice-versa. Plenty of intelligent people have lost sight of that critical fact in the last few days. I think you and I differ over strategies for how to manage the relationship to our best advantage ("know thine enemy"). And China's military escalation changes the game in a way that they been extremely reluctant to do in the past, so some new thinking is required.
I understand. And to be clear, I believe heart and soul in American Exceptionalism. When I say "the chinese will not attack us in the next 20 years", I do not mean, let us stand down. There is no question in my mind that the USA's several generation advatage on military technology is the key and should always be preserved. We should meet any military threat with massive expedient research and development. We should always maintain our edge and defend Taiwan.
I am just saying I think the Chinese realize they can not matter unless they are an economic power, and they have a much longer view on things than we do. They can wait until they have a hand. My hope is when they finally have a hand, they will not consider us an enemy. Hell the Chinese work harder than the Europeans. You never know what kind of realignments might occur in the future.
Doc, RS comments are "threaded" so they are easier for old guys like me to follow. When responding to a specific post, click on the Reply To This blue bar at the end of the post you are responding to it will automatically thread. When you click the "Post new comment" at the bottom of the blog, your comment automatically is sent to the end of the blog.
Thanks. And good comments.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Namely, can we somehow construct a comprehensive foreign policy that will result in a robust alliance with China?
Wow, my mind is reeling. I'll need a long time to chew this one through. I'll tell you one thing though, it will need a statesman of the caliber of Bismarck or Reagan to make it happen. And a historic-class diplomatic corps backing him up.
We're in the process of creating a robust alliance with India, which I think will make one with China impossible. Honestly, I'd prefer the Indians anyway; I like the idea behind the Anglosphere, and it'd be simply easier to fully bring them into it. For that matter, the changes that we'd have to make for that to happen will be a lot more tolerable. Or just tolerable.
We should, however, be able to create stable and good long-term relations with China. Eventually.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
is something I care much about too. But India has a lot of growing problems as well. They have learned PC much better than the Chinese. I read recently that they wanted to further build the Airport in Mumbai but were stopped by "homeless unions" that have squatted all around the airport with their shanty towns. I have high hopes for India, but there is a TON of waste and inefficiency there. And remember, they sided with the Soviets during the Cold War.
One of those fun things to think about, like curing cancer. It does of course violate a pretty fundamental rule: alliances only make sense in the presence of adversaries.
India: much more natural alliance, obviously. (They've got a little problem called "Pakistan" that would have to be worked out in the context of an alliance.) I know we're working on this, but I don't know who at State owns the charter. (Anyone know?)
I have a vague, odd sense that aligning our economic interests with India won't be as easy it seems. We're more in line to be directly competitive with them, which is not true in the case of China.
sorry, i am still having trouble following how this works. I have to look for the amount of indention it seams. I wish it were more obvious, and i do not have the excuse of age, just bewilderment lol.
The New York Times will never change. Even after the public smack down they took over revealing the financial tracking program of terrorist funding and the NSA intercept program, they are still engaged in the war against the war.
I notice they never seem to have front page stories about terrorist barbarity. It doesn't fit the BUSH LIED template.
Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!