When China unexpectedly demonstrated its anti-satellite capability in January 2007, shattering a communications satellite with a missile from the ground, quite a few observers in this country worked overtime to explain away its conduct, in effect justifying the Chinese action as a reaction to the U.S. refusal to negotiate a ban on the use of anti-satellite weapons.

This was the view of the editorial page of the New York Times, which cited unnamed “experts” who contended “that China’s latest test is intended to prod the United States to join serious negotiations.” The way to counter China, the Times continued, “is through an arms control treaty, not a new arms race in space.”

Now that the United States has shot down a satellite of its own — in this case not to test an anti-satellite system but to avert the danger of it falling in a populated area with its fuel tank spewing poison gas — many of the same observers are working overtime to paint the United States in the worst possible light. They are describing the shoot-down as a provocation, an unnecessary effort to test an anti-satellite capability under the guise of protecting public safety.

Fortunately, James Oberg has been on the case. He is one of this country’s most knowledgeable experts on space and he has authored an indispensable piece, Five Myths About the Satellite Smash-Up. One such myth is that “Falling satellites aren’t really hazardous, and since they’ve never hurt anybody before, they were unlikely to hurt anybody this time. Hence, there must have been a secret ‘real reason’ for the missile mission.” Oberg convincingly explains why this logic is wrong.

Not that his explanations have stopped the Times editorial page from again leaning on unnamed “experts” who believe that the primary reason for the shoot-down is that the “United States is eager to trump China, which shot down one of its own satellites last year.”

Though the Times notes that American officials deny such speculations, it goes on to say that the “administration would have a lot more credibility if it wasn’t also planning to oppose the latest Russian-Chinese draft treaty to ban weapons in space.”

But the Times would have a lot more credibility if, no matter what aggressive actions are taken by the Chinese, it didn’t sing the same old refrain about the necessity of arms control, while simultaneously pointing a finger of blame at the United States.

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link