Many satellites traverse a circumpolar route, which presents Canada with an additional advantage..we can bolster our arctic claims with a military presence while optimizing our laser's efficiency.

I don't want to focus on American satellites especially; I do feel we have the right to deny any country information gathered without our consent.

It's not exactly clear what capabilities the Chinese have, according to the story, although it doesn't surprise me that some have already started using China's actions to stir up fears of its military and space programs.

Canada should not, in my opinion, contribute to the further militarization or eventual weaponization of space. We should, in fact, be putting restrictions on how satellites like RADARSAT are used, to make sure that information or maps derived from them are not misused by those to whom they're sold.

[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

The practice you're describing--temporarily blinding a satellite with a laser--is an 'offensive counterspace operation' (OCS) according to the United States Air Force Counterspace Doctrine document, released in 2004.

quote:

---

Offensive counterspace operations preclude an adversary from exploiting space to their advantage. OCS operations may target an adversary’s space capability (space system, forces, information links, or third party space capability), using a variety of permanent and/or reversible means. The “Five D’s”—deception, disruption, denial, degradation, and destruction—are the possible desired effects when targeting an adversary’s space capability.

---

So what we're talking about here is the use of a directed energy weapon (DEW, the laser) to achieve the effect of 'denial': as you say, it's temporary and possibly harmless to the satellite, but it would still be a bad idea for Canada to accelerate trends in this direction, in my view.

For one thing, notice the sequence leading from denial to degradation to destruction in the Air Force definition. If someone builds a DEW capable of 'denying' use of a space-based surveillance system, someone else will likely counter by creating a system that can survive the denial attempt, if the stakes are high enough.

That could lead, in turn, to the 'denier' become a 'degrader' and the 'degrader' eventually a 'destroyer.'

Not a happy prospect.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some rather alarmist American reaction to this story about the Chinese DEW, particularly from the usual suspects in the US military space program who insist the US must retain and extend its 'dominance' or 'supremacy' in space (these are their actual words).

The space 'supremacists' are quite likely to take this Chinese story as evidence that a new space-weapons race is on, and act accordingly. Great news for Boeing and Raytheon (and maybe their Canadian associates), bad news for the rest of us.

Another reason I wouldn't want to see Canada accelerating the pace of such a race with a DEW-denial weapon is because the innocent-sounding 'denial' technology could likely be modified for other purposes as well, some less innocent.

The document I link to above has this to say about DEWs:

quote:

---

DEWs, such as lasers, may be land, sea, air, or space based. Depending on the power level used, DEWs are capable of a wide range of effects against on-orbit spacecraft, including: heating, blinding optics, degradation, and destruction. Under certain circumstances, lasers may also be effective against space launch vehicles while in-flight.

---

DEWs--even ground-based ones that only temporarily blind--could thus be modified to achieve other, less harmless ends.

Furthermore, in a moment of crisis, how is the 'enemy' to know its satellite is only being jammed or blinded, and not destroyed. Unless they have an excellent 'space situational awareness' capability, they may not know, and may react in a way the 'blinder' doesn't expect or intend.

Recall, too, that any ground station basing such a 'blinding' laser would itself become a military target to the nation owning (or maybe just relying on) the 'blinded' satellite.

The Iraqis at one point made a crude attempt at jamming GPS signals in the hopes of undercutting the American advantage with satellite-guided 'precision' weapons: the jamming station was bombed.

The crudity of the Iraqi attempt and the primitive state of their 'anti-satellite' capability did not, of course, prevent the space-hawks in the US from citing the effort as justification for taking the measures necessary to retain and extend 'space supremacy.'

Rather than play such games, I think Canada's efforts would be better spent in reducing, rather than escalating the militarization of space.

And certainly, we should continue to oppose any steps that could lead to a space arms race, as we have traditionally done at the UN Conference on Disarmament in support of the PAROS process (Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space).

Unfortunately, this process has been stalled for some time, principally by a country which sees no need for the proposed treaty.

First, what would a Predator be doing flying over 'sensitive' Canadian sites, unless it were part of some agreed-upon drill or exercise? Are you expecting an attack from the Americans?

Second, how would the laser technology you're talking about affect the Predator aircraft? Are you talking about trying to interfere with the aircraft's satellite link in some way?

Returning to orbit, I assume from your first post that your principal concern is about others gathering information about Canada without our consent.

That principle brings me to a third question: if we're allowed to interfere with others' satellites as they cross our territory, are other countries allowed to interfere with ours, like RADARSAT, as it gathers information to produce maps for military use?

[ETA: This is a timely thread, since Keep Space for Peace Week starts on October 1!]

[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

The practice you're describing--temporarily blinding a satellite with a laser--is an 'offensive counterspace operation' (OCS) according to the United States Air Force Counterspace Doctrine document, released in 2004.

---