8 thoughts on “The Indian ASAT Test”

  1. The U.S. response – or non-response – was fine. India is not a bad actor here.

    The debris from this test will be gone about as quickly as that from NROL-21.

    India lives in a dodgy neighborhood and has land borders with two nuclear-armed opponents, the PRC and Jihadistan, one of which, rather infamously, is also known to have ASAT’s.

    Weeden and the rest of the Western arms control crowd are the transnational equivalent of domestic gun controllers – they think weapons, per se, are the problem. They aren’t. Lunatics and the aggressively ill-intentioned with weapons are the problem, both at the individual and nation-state level.

    And at the nation-state level, there aren’t any cops that can be called. Self-defense is the only defense. India has chosen to engage in “open carry” anent ASAT’s. Good for them say I.

  2. Reminds me of Sir Lancelot charging the castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.. He runs one of two guards through with his sword, then dashes into the castle. The other guard turns and says “Hey….”

  3. While praising the Trump administration’s sharp focus on space security overall, Rose criticized the almost startling lack of a diplomatic element to the current strategy

    India took steps to prevent the creation of dangerous debris but they proved to not be 100% effective. This is far different than how China acts.

    That should be recognized because in the broader picture, Trump hasn’t shown a lack of diplomacy. He has been reaching out to India to counter the threat posed by China. Driving a wedge between the USA and India isn’t an example of good diplomacy but bad diplomacy.

    What is the goal of this op-ed? Is the POV offered in good faith, although misguided, or is it part of a disinformation campaign designed to push the USA into making poor decisions that strengthen our competitors and separate us from countries with common interests?

    Maybe the behavior of journalists over the last few years has made me jaded but regardless of the intent of the op-ed, it is a bad take.

    1. Quite.

      There is no “lack of a diplomatic element to the current strategy.” There is certainly a lack of the reflexive and stupid finger-wagging and “viewing with alarm” sorts of virtue signalling that veteran arms control “experts” in previous administrations – especially the immediately previous administration – would have indulged. The absence of such by the Trump administration is not a “lack” of diplomatic strategy, it is the diplomatic strategy. Armed friends are not a cause for concern, only armed enemies.

  4. Instead of bluster, why not a treaty that allows the technological capability to be demonstrated but without the long term risk of contaminating LEO?

    Remember when the Soviets and USA moved nuclear testing from the atmosphere to underground. What is fascinating about the so-called Test Ban Treaty is that even other late comers abide by the principle of not doing atmospheric tests, even though they could have. Memes are a powerful thing I guess.

    1. There is no “long term risk of contaminating LEO.” The last shreds from this test will be gone by summer.

  5. Looks like lots of impotent whining from people who know they can’t stop it, and can’t clean it up. Elon needs to start a space division of the late Browning-Ferris industries.

Comments are closed.