Application of Sun Zi (i): China's anti-satellite test, and the non-issue of space trash

The Economist disappointed me greatly in its recent analysis of China's anti-satellite missile test recently.

It blindly followed the unsubstantiated claim that the debris of blowing up a low orbit satellite will endanger the space for ages, by claiming,

• "What irony if China, which takes pride in its own recent manned space flights, were to find its ambitions to put a man on the moon and eventually to build a space station set back someday by the still ricocheting rubble from its own irresponsible action".

I am willing to bet half of my wealth against this Economist editor that it won't happen.

The simple fact is, not only the threat is tiny - consider breaking a television and throw scatter it across the Pacific Ocean, what is the chance of a swimmer finding a piece of the TV - it is also against the Newton's law of physics that any high schooler who has done physics would understand.

Let me explain this with a few facts here

1. Unpowered object surrounding the earth can only stay on the orbit when the potential (gravitational) energy (determined by altitude) equals the kinetic energy (determined by speed). Therefore, there is only one solution for altitude, the geosynchronous altitude
2. Therefore, any debris from blowing up a satellite will end up in 3 places: a) spiral down to earth and vaporize when it enters the atmosphere (low energy debris); b) spiral out to outer space and leave the earth's gravitational field for good (high energy debris); c) ends up at the synbronous orbit (just the right energy)
3. The % of debris that ends up in the geosynchronous orbit is extremely small. An analogy would be to thrown a handful of sand and count the numbers of sand that falls exactly on a very thin line 10 meters away

This is the basic physics that the Economist editor could have tried to understand, or ask a high school teacher, before writing that article. (I still have great respect for the Economist as we are all human, who makes mistakes)

----

The Newsweek has provided very good background information of this test. But it made the same wrong claim about debris as the Economist. Furthermore, it made two seriously flawed arguments.

• 1) It claimed that China's test will provide the space-hawks in US with an excuse for an arms race in space. Well, the simple fact is, for all these years, they have been racing against themselves, and it is not China's responsibility or China's business to change the mind of the US. The people in the US should be responsible for the behaviors of US hawks.
• So far the US people have been complacent on Bush's belligerent behaviors toward the rest of the world, and Bush got re-elected in 2004. Al Qaeda's claim that American people are collectively responsible for what its government does does have a point. This is like saying that if the Chinese people "behaves" then the Chinese government will give them democracy.
• Therefore, any argument that whatever China does would affect the minds or impacts of the US hawks are purely bullshits.
• 
  
• 2) The second mistake in Newsweek's conclusion is that,
• "Some pundits have argued that the test was meant merely to pressure the United States into finally agreeing to a treaty to limit space weapons. But this argument doesn't hold water. For one thing, by obliterating one of its old orbiting weather sensors, China also managed to destroy an informal two-decade-old moratorium on such tests. This would be a strange way to promote arms control, as would recent Chinese moves to develop lasers that could disable American satellites."
• I entirely disagree.

1. Firstly, this is a very valid way to begin a negotiation to limit space weapon. As so far nothing else suceeded, there could be nothing worse.
2. Secondly, if we look at this from the purely strategic point of view (i.e. disregarding political ideology and the like). The only victim in an arms race in space is US, as no one else has any real strategic in the space that can become target of such an arms race! So from China's perspective it is a great move, even though it might not have been intended as such (more likely a result of uncontrolled vneture from local/divisional commanders, as speculated by Newsweek and others).
3. Thirdly, this signifies a new application of games theory to achieve peace as first theorized by Nobel Laureate Schelling's theory. In the old context of the game theory one talks about mutual destruction. Today the balance of power has been disrupted, as the WPMD (weapon of precise mass destruction) the US is applying to Iraq and Yugoslavia runs in parallel with Hiroshima in 1945. By demonstrating that it is very cheap and easy to disable such WPMD, China has shown the world a way to control this kind of crazy warfare. When winning a war is much less easy, everybody will be more careful before waging a war. The world will be a safer place as a result.
   

All said, a brilliant demonstration of Sun Zi. Achieving the strategic objective, or alleviating the star war threat, by not waging a war -- in fact, by not even technically conducted a weapon test! Technically this is no different from using dynamite to dismantle an old building.

In the next few days, when I find time, I will write about another brilliant demonstration Sun Zi, by one of the smartest politician on the other side of the strait yesrterday. You probably guess it correctly who I am going to talk about.