Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[Bert]

>
China: Weather Satellite Could Have Other Capabilities

Summary

China has launched its latest weather satellite. The new satellite might have
the clandestine capability to detect missile launches, if undisclosed sensor
and telemetry equipment has been built into its payload. If the satellite has
that equipment, two planned follow-on launches could complete a regional
launch detection and missile warning capability for China by 2006.

Analysis

The Fengyun (Wind and Cloud) 2C weather satellite was launched Oct. 19 from
China's Xichang Satellite Launch Center on a Long March 3A booster. The
satellite has both infrared (IR) and visual imagery sensors and is in
geostationary orbit.


China's new satellite could be the beginning of a rudimentary launch
detection and early warning system. Visual and IR sensors are not uncommon on
meteorological satellites, but IR sensors can also be used to detect and
track ballistic missile launches by their exhaust plumes. Minimal
modifications or enhancements to the satellite's IR sensor suite would be
required for it to be able to detect ballistic missile launches in Asia.

China has launched seven weather satellites since 1988. The Fengyun 1 series
consisted of four satellites in polar orbits, which are not useful for launch
detection/warning. The Fengyun 2 (FY-A and FY-B) satellites were placed into
geostationary orbits, similar to the Fengyun 2C. The Fengyun 3 series,
scheduled to be launched by 2006, will carry more sensors and be more
advanced than the previous satellites.

The Fengyun 2C has been touted as China's first modern meteorological
satellite, and is the third in a series of geostationary weather satellites.
It was developed and built entirely in China. Its geostationary orbit -- it
remains over a single point on the earth -- is necessary for constant
observation and monitoring of an area. The satellite's position at 105
degrees east longitude enables it to view the entire Asian landmass. Its
orbit altitude of 22,300 miles (35,786 km) makes the Fengyun 2C an
impractical satellite for imaging anything smaller than clouds, but it would
be capable of detecting heat anomalies -- which could indicate missile
launches -- in the region.

The satellite's position would limit any potential launch-detection coverage
to the Asian landmass. It could detect launches from India, Taiwan, Pakistan,
Russia (east of the Ural Mountains), the Koreas and Japan, for example, but
would be unable to detect events in the Western Hemisphere.

Currently, China has acknowledged no dedicated space-based launch detection
capability. At least three satellites are required for reliable, accurate
launch detection. China's plans to launch two additional Fengyun 2 satellites
by 2006 would give them such a capability. Launch detection from space can be
used to provide warning against incoming missile attacks and to track foreign
missile tests.

If the Chinese have built a launch detection/warning capability into their
latest satellite, it would be consistent with their emerging role as a more
serious regional power -- and be in step with their program of modernizing
their military and making it more technologically advanced. Having the
ability to track missile developments in the region and to warn against
theater ballistic missile attacks is a further and necessary step in this
direction.

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.stratfor.com
<

 

[bossi]

Well, in a nutshell ... Star Wars is way over my head (no pun intended, although ...)
If missiles are going to be raining down on us, things are probably going VERY poorly ...

Until then, there are so many other more useful chores we could and should be looking after
(i.e. coastal defence, against smuggling and one-way tourists ...).

Another more practical use of this money would be items which we could use in the event of large-scale emergencies and disasters here at home in Canada, or internationally ...

And, in terms of "bang for the buck" ... the mantra of NATO was "they needed more boots on the ground" (i.e. for Afghanistan and other invitational events).

So, it's a gamble - which will kick in first - my official CF pension for reservists (a.k.a. Lotto 6/49), or the pressing need for a missile shield ... ?  (heck - it's only a toonie ... )

 

[2Charlie]

No US Missile Defense Program in Canada

This was sent to me, feel free to comment, sign or forward. 


http://www.petitiononline.com/NIMBYUSA/petition.html

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

No thanks, I'll take the protection they wish to afford us.[and economic spin-offs]
Thanks anyways.

 

[Boydfish]

Hmmmm.  Let's see, I live in South West BC and are likely already in range of the DPRK's ICBM program, I'll keep my support firmly for a system that might well keep me alive someday.

:

 

[clasper]

Even if you're skeptical about the effectiveness of the missile defense systems, it's very important to participate in the process of continental defense.  If we just stamp our feet and refuse to play like a petulant child, we won't have ANY say about how we should defend North America.

 

[Dogboy]

who will shoot at us tho ?

N Korea no we are not a threat
Russia no there a trade partner now

no one else has the ability to shoot at us anyways its a distraction and money pit that i don't want my tax dollars paying for that dose not work to start with

really is it not better to make Sure you don't get shot at in the first place the to need a sistom that dose not quit work to start with

 

[Cloud Cover]

who will shoot at us tho ?

no one else has the ability to shoot at us anyways its a distraction and money pit that i don't want my tax dollars paying for that dose not work to start with

really is it not better to make Sure you don't get shot at in the first place the to need a sistom that dose not quit work to start with

You obviously have no idea what objectives BMD is directed at, or what the system is about.  Try objectively researching the system, rather than focussing on political bantering on the subject, and I am quite certain you will conclude your assertions are without any justifiable basis.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

who will shoot at us tho ?

N Korea no we are not a threat
Russia no there a trade partner now

no one else has the ability to shoot at us anyways its a distraction and money pit that i don't want my tax dollars paying for that dose not work to start with

really is it not better to make Sure you don't get shot at in the first place the to need a sistom that dose not quit work to start with

Under that logic we should avoid persecuting the war on terror as well as it certainly makes us a much greater target.

Bottom Line:   We can't always leave it to the Americans to stand up to the world's tyrants and terrorists.   We should be taking principled stands and in this case providing strategic defence to our greatest friend and ally qualifies.



Matthew.    

 

[Guardian]

who will shoot at us tho ?

N Korea no we are not a threat

We're allies of the US, and the North Koreans consider themselves to be at war with them. I'll also point out that there has been no peace treaty signed between the UN and North Korea - as we were a combatant under the UN, we are still, technically, at war with them.

who will shoot at us tho ?

Russia no there a trade partner now

Germany's biggest trading partner at the start of WW1 was - guess who? - France. Don't count on this.

no one else has the ability to shoot at us anyways its a distraction and money pit that i don't want my tax dollars paying for that dose not work to start with

What about China? They've got ICBMs, and a rather nasty set of rulers. People who run over their own civilians with tanks aren't people I would trust to keep the peace.

really is it not better to make Sure you don't get shot at in the first place the to need a sistom that dose not quit work to start with

I like the idea, but in the real world not everyone thinks rationally. Especially people like Kim Jong Il.... When it comes to defence, assume the worst and make preparations on that basis. Since the US is paying for the system, we have nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain from this.

 

[Gryphon]

The question that everyone should be asking is that if Canada does sign a missile defence pact with the United states, how much say would the Canadian government/military have in the matter... That's the more important aspect of it... sure, it may be more comfortable to let the US take care of everything, all we have to do is sign a small scrap of paper saying that they can put missiles in Canada... and then US acts with Canada as Big Brother, dictating our forgien affairs, our affairs of the military, and the affairs at home... for the interest of "Security" next thing we know, we're told to wear the US flag on our shoulder, kids are saying the pledge of alliegiance, and we've become the 51st state.

Or, the total opposite... Mr. Martin goes to the bathroom and uses the contract for toilet paper... and then what? Mr. Bush goes on a Crusade against the "ignorant Canadians", boycotts, tarrifs, a new defended frontier, visas to travel to the states, expulsion from NATO, and from NAFTA, American carriers patroling our waters, and basically just stirring sh*t in Canada and internationally...

OK.. these are the two extremes... but unteathered, it's a real possibility... unfortunatly...

My take on the issue... who is dumb enough anyways to launch a Nuke? as soon as one gets launched.. good bye world... kablewy.... so do we really need MORE flying death as a deterrant?

Sorry... Both sides of the argument are valid... but the question still remains.. US missiles? or NORTH AMERICAN missiles? Ultimatly, my question is, will the President be able to push a button, launch these weapons without consulting the PMO? If yes, then I wholeheartedly disagree... We've had so much brilliant intellignece come out of the Bush Administration  : that I wouldn't trust it..

Vice versa? The PMO launching a missile off of Canadian territory without having approval from the US President... I like the thought better, but I don't know.. We've had flawed info before..

Both neccessary? or some joint command decision? Then by all means... go ahead... i guess.. i don't know where I stand 100% on this topic, but if i were to say yes, then this would be the only way that I would be happy accepting it...

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

QUOTE,
My take on the issue... who is dumb enough anyways to launch a Nuke? as soon as one gets launched.. good bye world... kablewy.... so do we really need MORE flying death as a deterrant?

You either didn't really think about the way that would read, or you've been living in a cave for 3 years.

 

[Infanteer]

Sometimes, I am in awe of the enlightenment that this board brings me; especially when insights into policy and strategy are dictated by those who have failed to grasp grammer and spelling.

:

 

[Canuck_25]

The effectiveness and cost of "star wars 2" is a total joke. If the U.S. was willing to pay for all the expenses, then i would be on board.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So Canuck_25 by your statement you believe that the US should solely shoulder the cost of continental defence? Whether the program works or not at least the US is making an attempt to protect themselves better. With your attitude its no wonder we have politicians like Carolyn Parrish in office.

 

[MissHardie]

The effectiveness and cost of "star wars 2" is a total joke. If the U.S. was willing to pay for all the expenses, then i would be on board.

As a (potential) junior partner, why shouldn't we contribute to the expenses? The purpose is to defend North America, and remember that Canada does make up a large part of that land mass. TANSTAAFL.

 

[rw4th]

Sorry... Both sides of the argument are valid... but the question still remains.. US missiles? or NORTH AMERICAN missiles? Ultimatly, my question is, will the President be able to push a button, launch these weapons without consulting the PMO? If yes, then I wholeheartedly disagree... We've had so much brilliant intellignece come out of the Bush Administration  that I wouldn't trust it..

Vice versa? The PMO launching a missile off of Canadian territory without having approval from the US President... I like the thought better, but I don't know.. We've had flawed info before..

This argument makes no sense. These are not offensive missiles. It is a defensive net meant to shoot down incomming ICBM. As for launch authority, it would probably reside in a NORAD style facility manned by Americans and Canadians.

As for people being "to smart" to use ICBMs; is it really that hard to understand that if a group willing to use children as suicide bombers ever gained control of a missile silo we would be facing just that scenario?

 

[Gryphon]

First of all, i would like to appologize for my worstening spelling and grammar.. i'm overseas learning a forgein language.. and usually by the end of the day, i'm just so wiped out, that my grammar and spelling goes out the window..

This argument makes no sense. These are not offensive missiles. It is a defensive net meant to shoot down incomming ICBM. As for launch authority, it would probably reside in a NORAD style facility manned by Americans and Canadians.

If this would be the case, then I don't see any sort of problem with it

As for people being "to smart" to use ICBMs; is it really that hard to understand that if a group willing to use children as suicide bombers ever gained control of a missile silo we would be facing just that scenario?

I'm sorry.. i didn't even think of that type of situation...

point well taken

 

[MikeM]

The effectiveness and cost of "star wars 2" is a total joke. If the U.S. was willing to pay for all the expenses, then i would be on board.

A perfect example of another "lets hitch a free ride with the US" Canadian. The US cannot pay for everything, I fully support their efforts for continental defense, and we must throw in our fair share to the pot in order for it to succeed.

 

[Dogboy]

War has changed now days and the role of a ICBM is becoming out of date

the war on terror is a asymmetrical war and a missile def. will not help at all

the Rogue nation defence is leaping at best

besides N-Korea their is no really nation with ICBMs that has anything to gain from using them agents Canada or the us for that matter


and what would N Korea gain from it ?

war is about gaining something from using force who will gain anything from attacking Canada or the US  the only thing you'd gain is the total decimation of you nation