It looks like a lot of people are starting to agree with me that we need more responsive military space systems:
Peter Hays, a Science Applications International Corp. employee and senior policy analyst supporting the plans and programs division at the Defense Department’s National Space Security Office, said that small, distributive space-based systems could particularly benefit compared with larger satellites – speeding up a shift that already started. The new attention could even re-energize the U.S. aerospace industry, he said.
“It could be a fire under people that was lacking,” Hays said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if other things get energized.”
Of course, as I predicted (hardly a feat worthy of Kreskin) we have the usual foolishness from the usual suspects:
“American satellites are the soft underbelly of our national security, and it is urgent that President Bush move to guarantee their protection by initiating an international agreement to ban the development, testing, and deployment of space weapons and anti-satellite systems,” said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), House telecommunications and Internet subcommittee chairman.
Yes, as I noted in my article, this is exactly what they’d like. If Congressman Markey (and others like him) actually were on the side of the Chinese, how would they behave differently?
[Update late afternoon]
Useful comments in the comments section. It seems to me is that what we want is not a treaty to ban ASATs, which is certainly impractical (and would be to our great disadvantage). A much better model is a convention, similar to Geneva, in which we stipulate the manner in which anti-satellite warfare is to be conducted, in order to eliminate, or at least minimize, collateral damage. I haven’t thought about it much further than that, but it’s what Theresa Hitchens et al have in mind, we’re probably on the same page. But I suspect that’s a different page than Rep. Markey.