Talk:2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test

message: The Aviation Week & Space Technology article does seem to suggest that the U.S. does have an ASAT weapon(s) in the arsenal.  But I don't think that's accurate.  The ASM-135 ASAT may or may not be operational or simply STUFFED into an ordinance bunker someplace.  Nevertheless the claim that the U.S. HAS an ASAT weapon seems out of place and unverified.
:Perhaps whatever the US possesses isn't operational. If you do make a change, I'd suggest at most removing the phrase "in its space weapon arsenal". Of course, the term arsenal and ordinance bunker are synonymous—the former no more suggesting live capability than the latter. Maybe someone can do some verification research. ~ Rollo44 02:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASAT in the arsenal? 

message: It should be mentioned that the US has had a similar (anti-satellite) military capacity for twenty years now, to provide context to the precipitation of an arms race comment. Sad mouse 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right,I agree,like USA,Russia also got the Anti-satellite Weapons.I think the best effort to make is that all the counties with Anti-satellite  weapons signing a treaty like Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and declaring the no-first using.If not,all the counties will try to develop the same weapons.--Ksyrie 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I heard the American response, or even that the US had made a response, all I could think is, "Who are you to talk? Twenty years ago, we were all positive you'd be doing this." Who knows; some friends of mine say the US is just trying to ressurect anti-communism to create a new cold war after their first attempt at a second cold war, the War on Terror, failed miserably. VolatileChemical 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the major concern over this type of test is that the satellite was destroyed using a kinetic kill vehicle, with the resultant debris implicatons, whereas the US years ago switched from a hard-kill to soft-kill ASAT solution.  The Chinese weapon, by contrast, is an orbital denial, not control weapon.  In any case, the discussion should be focussed on making the article better, not personal reaction to the test or the militarization of space. Banality 21:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if many people know it, but orbital space debris is highly disruptive and destructive, leaving its debris for many many years. -- "Who are you to talk?" lol - Rollo44 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that the response to the test was unbalanced, if we allow the US to condemn the test without noting that the US already possesses similar (actually more advanced) technology. It is one thing for Australia to condemn the tests, with no space capacity, another thing for the US to condemn the test, considering they have the most militarised space program of any nation. Essentially, this is only notable because of the response of other countries, we should ensure that we make NPOV statements of other countries rather than repeat government-endorsed sound bites. Sad mouse 06:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, wikipedia should not follow the agenda of any individual country, rather we should put the test in context, and the response of different states in context. Leave it to Fox News to give only verbatim comments from the US government, if any government, US, China or any other, is to be cited here the context and critical analysis should be next to the quote. Sad mouse 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll defer to the majority; it's certainly not my intention to support (or condemn) the defense policies of the United States or China.  I would simply note that this article should be about this particular test - if readers are interested in the general history and politics of ASAT warfare, these issues are already amply covered in the excellent articles Anti-satellite_weapon and Militarisation_of_space. Banality 07:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am enormously interested in international, political reaction to this test.  I couldn't care less about the opinions of various editors as to whether this was a 'moral' test or not.  As long as we stick to the former, it's all good. Banality 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms Race and Article Neutrality

message: Here are two links to good NYT articles which someone can use to add more information:
*Flexing Muscle, China Destroys Satellite in Test
*China Shows Assertiveness in Weapons Test
~ Rollo44 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Resources

message: The article said SC-19 is based on DF-21. Any references? I think it derived from DF-31. Sinolonghai 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SC-19 

message: I added a page link to an MIT page with downloads and graphics of the ASAT test 
Yale Simkin  Yale s 16:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some links 

message: Hi.  This might be relevant to the article: http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2008/04/space_debris_viewed_in_google_earth.html
It has a link to a Google Earth layer tracking the fragments of Fengyun-1C, with updates in realtime.
Ben W. Bwyutai 17:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Earth fragment map 

message: "Compared with the USA 193's bus-like size, the main body of Fengyun meteorological satellite only had a size similar to an incubator (except wings), which also illustrates the accuracy of the test."
-What the hell is a sentence like this doing in an encyclopedia article?  It doesn't address the huge differences in altitude, attitude, and orbital predictability between the two tests.  "Size similar to an incubator"?   This is ridiculous Chinese propaganda, written in Chinglish, masquerading as encyclopedic material.  I tried to remove this ridiculous sentence but was overruled 10 times by idiots with a revert button at their disposal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.40.177 (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trash in the Article

message: :I have re added the part about the accuracy of the test part, because compared to USA 193, it is more small, however I added "vaguely" in front of the word "illustrates". I have also left the countering sentence saying that ballistic warheads would be harder to hit. However, I think that part is not exactly relevant to the ASAT test, as the missile was meant to take down satellites, not a ballistic missile. I have left both sentences on, so that people can read it and make up their own minds. We don't want to make wikipedia anti chinese or pro chinese. Show both sides of the argument and therefore it will be balanced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's just leave it as it is

message: I'm just curious about the satellite image featured at the bottom of the article currently in the International Response section.  What exactly is the relevance of this image?  I can't figure it out.  Feels kinda random and unnecessary to me. Glandrid (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant picture? 

message: According to the Space debris page (debris growth section), 19,000 items were  known to be in orbit in 2006 (and presumably being tracked). Presuming that that number didn't jump before the missile test, another 2300 pieces would be a 12% increase.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkonc (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debris increase 

message: I'm not sure if this was right, but I'm pretty sure that on the Hong Kong news, the explanation given by China for destroying the satellite was that it was an old weather station, and needed to be brought down or else it would malfunction in orbit (barely believable). Was this true, or are we simply assuming that it was a weapon's test regardless? I personally don't believe that kind of story (its BS), but I swear that's what they said about the test. 203.213.40.129 (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course that isn’t true. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of old malfunctioning / completely dead satellites circling the earth right now and they pose almost no threat whatsoever because they are large enough to be easily tracked allowing other satellites and space craft to be manoeuvred away from them if their orbits ever get too close. In situations where a satellite malfunctions and can no longer manually de-orbit, currently the safest option by far is to just leave it be. Instead, the Chinese simply turned one trackable and easily avoidable piece of space debris, into many thousand pieces of space debris that have fanned out in all directions, and most of which are too small to be tracked and therefore impossible to avoid (but because of their immense velocity still have enough energy to severely damage anything they crash into). There is absolutely no conceivable reason that a weather satellite would ever ‘need’ to be shot by anti-satellite missile, it has made space far more dangerous, not less.  Currently almost one third of all trackable sized pieces of space debris in low earth orbit are the result of this incident.2A00:23C8:2688:A401:1961:EB33:494E:1996 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's Explanation? 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070119/ts_afp/chinaspacemilitaryfm
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-05-26 02:41:46, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-05-27 14:59:49, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-06-15 11:40:59, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269792
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-05-26 02:41:47, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-05-27 14:59:46, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-06-15 11:41:08, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://project2049.net/documents/the_great_game_in_space.pdf
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-05-26 02:41:44, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-05-27 14:59:47, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-06-15 11:41:43, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.vor.ru/index.phtml?id=4452
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-05-26 02:41:45, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-05-27 14:59:48, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-06-15 11:42:04, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://orbitingfrog.com/blog/files/Fengyun1CDebris.kmz
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-05-26 02:41:46, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-05-27 14:59:48, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test on 2011-06-15 11:42:29, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/fury-at-space-destruction/2007/01/19/1169095981210.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6289519.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1996689,00.html
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5YmNOX588?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjir.janes.com%2Fpublic%2Fjir%2Fchinawatch.shtml with https://web.archive.org/web/20070305030425/http://jir.janes.com/public/jir/chinawatch.shtml on http://jir.janes.com/public/jir/chinawatch.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Britain_Concerned_By_Chinese_Satellite_Shoot_Down_999.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6923805
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5whITsteH?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unoosa.org%2Foosa%2FSpaceLaw%2Fouterspt.html to http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107075114/http://orbitingfrog.com:80/blog/files/Fengyun1CDebris.kmz to http://orbitingfrog.com/blog/files/Fengyun1CDebris.kmz
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/fury-at-space-destruction/2007/01/19/1169095981210.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6289519.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/china/story/0%2C%2C1996689%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news%2Faw012207p2.xml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402175150/http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/pdfs/ODQNv19i1.pdf to http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/pdfs/ODQNv19i1.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Britain_Concerned_By_Chinese_Satellite_Shoot_Down_999.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6923805
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://orbitingfrog.com/blog/files/Fengyun1CDebris.kmz
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified