Last week the U.S. Navy conducted quite a technological feat in destroying one of our own defunct satellites that was losing orbit and posed a serious enough potential risk to justify its targeting.

The Navy was tasked to shoot it down, and beyond the technical risk, there was at least some political risk.

I recently read an article that discussed how technically different the Chinese destruction of one of its satellites and our surfaced launched shoot down of one ours is different. There is also the open question of intent. I recently saw where Secretary Gates responded to Chinese and other states calls for openness regarding the details, something to the effect of "we'll be happy to share what we can". Even though the statement certainly preserves the right to withhold elements that could jeopardize our security, the statement itself is a narrative on openness. Indirectly I think it shows that our internal lines of communication within the U.S. Government allow its members to interact when events call for it - it gets to the issue of relative transparency in our foreign policy.

We've had discussions here about "hybrid", "blended", MCO, IW, UW, SSTRO, full spectrum, etc. We often discuss the influence of third parties - Iran, Russia, China, India, Israel, etc. We often discuss the need to build coalitions and regional capacity. We often discuss technology here - this was certainly a capability built on technology - a technology arguably beyond that of other states.

So when we "demonstrate" a capability like this, does it change things? How?Where does this fit? What are the positive and negative implications? Are there opportunities? How does it affect expectations? Ia this something we could see as complimentary to some of our other capabilities? How about deterrence - who would it deter, or not deter - why?

I don't think we should see this in a vacuum - I think if somebody else would have demonstrated this, we'd have brought it and discussed it along the lines of what direction should we take in our own military development - in that regard it makes me wonder how this event shapes military development of friends and enemies? From an enemy (or competitor) Do more resources go into developing, buying or stealing like or counter capabilities - or do you look for something along a niche or maybe the asymmetric line? Finally, how does a capability like this support us in ways beyond the obvious?


Best Regards, Rob