THE PLAYERS:
Since the start of the space age, the list of countries, multinational entities and private commercial consortia that have demonstrated an ability to launch satellites into orbit—and thus potentially to shoot one down—has grown long. The chief worry among observers is that any effort by the U.S. to develop orbital weapons would drive the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation and others to join in a costly arms race in space.

Demonstrated Ground-Based Antisatellite Weapons
China, Russia, U.S.

Attained Geostationary Orbit (36,000 km above Earth)
European Space Agency (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, U.K.), France, International Launch Services (Russia, U.S.), Japan, Sea Launch (Norway, Russia, U.S.)

Attained only Low Earth Orbit (between 100 and 2,000 km above Earth)
India, Israel, Pakistan, Ukraine

THE CASE AGAINST

1. All satellites and space-based weapons are likely to remain highly vulnerableto attack.

2. Developing advanced antisatellite weapons will probably trigger a new international arms race.

3. The cost of space weaponry is huge.

4. Testing and using space weapons could leave enormous quantities of debris in orbit that would threaten all satellites and crewed spacecraft.

THE AFTERMATH
When the Dust Won’t Clear
A military conflict in space could release an enveloping cloud of debris that could damage or destroy satellites and crewed spacecraft that circle the globe. At orbital speeds, even minuscule objects could deeply penetrate a vehicle and wreck vital equipment (far right). The results of a nuclear detonation in space could be even worse: the electromagnetic pulse and blast of charged particles would degrade all but the most heavily shielded electronics systems in orbit. Space war could push the world economy back into the 1950s, as communications, navigation, weather and other advanced satellite services would be rendered impractical for years to come.

4 Comments

1. 1. spacebuff 09:00 PM 3/2/08

   If only Ms. Hitchens had done her study. For me, a regular reader of SciAm, this article is a joke.
   
   Take for instance the statement - "(Countries) Attained only Low Earth Orbit", which mentions India. Now of course, India has definitely attained LEO, but also has been able to place satellites in GEO via its GSLV programme. Ms. Hitchens is welcome to read up the rest at www.isro.org. It is available, free and without registration. Now in the para above, luxembourg is mentioned as a country attaining GEO. How? Via providing some secretarial services to ESA? Or via its own lift capability? Now take the case of Japan in GEO and Pakistan in LEO! Japan has an advanced programme, but is behind on GEO and the only thing Pakistan launches is missiles shipped from China and North Korea.
   
   No doubt, the premise of the article itself being incorrect, the rest of the article is trash. I hope SciAm editors do some research before bringing the quality way down.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. sk2008 10:33 PM 3/2/08

   Is she clueless or is she pushing an agenda? Either case - why is this trash finding a home here? Does no one do basic fact checking?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. kochukuttan 12:30 AM 3/3/08

   what a dud!!!
   Will the author kindly tell us when Japan sent a geo stationary satallite aloft? India has and the name is excluded.
   Similarly when did Pakistan send a LEO satallite?
   The author seems fixated in degrading India's capablities and boosting Pakistan's.
   Such articles degrade the standing of "Scientific American".
   Maybe it reflects that decline in quality of american thought?
   Anyway I have asked a date with the esteemed lady. Invited her to Africa to sit/lie under the star lit skys of Serengetti plains and discuss. Hope she accepts the offer.
   Waiting anxiously.
   The author's agenda among other things is to trash India as a poor third world country. Not a very good approach considering where we are now.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. kochukuttan 12:37 AM 3/3/08

   sorry if I was hard on author. Please delete my comment or edit it if necessary.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this