U.S. Deploys Satellite Jamming System 342
CNN has an article about a ground-based satellite jamming system that "uses electromagnetic radio frequency energy to knock out transmissions on a temporary and reversible basis, without frying components". Is this just another old school EM jamming technique, or something new? Of course they won't say, citing "operational security" concerns.
Thin ice (Score:5, Insightful)
While USAF claims this "ground-based jammer uses electromagnetic radio frequency energy to knock out transmissions on a temporary and reversible basis, without frying components", it will only take one mistake (and it's not that unusual) to fry someone's $500mil baby.
If other countries even dare to think about developing a similar jammer to "neutralize" US's satellite communication and its space-based capabilities, it's likely that US will simply launch another pre-emptive attack to destroy those jammers in these countries.
Hoo boy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thin ice (Score:4, Insightful)
Right... just like the US pre-emptively attacked Russia because they build GPS jammers. Now if a country started using (rather than just developing) such a system, I would agree with your position.
Re:Thin ice (Score:4, Insightful)
Commercial satellites? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thin ice (Score:5, Insightful)
And because any ground-based emitter of EM is going to show up as a pretty big honking target when it's turned on...
a) blowing up the jammer is not a pre-emptive attack, and
b) your jammer will get blowed up real good, real quick.
Keep in mind that part b) applies to both sides in the conflict. If you're fighting an adversary capable of launching satellites, you're (by definition) fighting an adversary capable of detecting and lobbing anti-radiation missiles at any EM emitter you own that's more powerful than a microwave oven.
Re:Thin ice (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah... yes, well I'll assume you meant that YOU are getting annoyed.
While USAF claims this [...] jammer [...is...] temporary and reversible [...] it will only take one mistake (and it's not that unusual) to fry someone's $500mil baby.
How often does this particular jamming technology fry satellites? Really, how often? Heck, you don't even know what this *is*, must less what its failure modes are. ANY complaint about this technology must be on the grounds of lack of information (kind of strange to complain about THIS instead of the dozens of other, far more problematic items that the US military refuses to discuss) or on the grounds that the US feels it has the right to unilaterally develop technology to disable other country's communications (again, I'd start with the MONITORING of communications which is ONGOING rather than the chance that the US MIGHT block communications in the future).
Anything else is arm waving.
If other countries even dare to think about developing a similar jammer to "neutralize" US's satellite communication and its space-based capabilities, it's likely that US will simply launch another pre-emptive attack to destroy those jammers in these countries.
Doubtful. Of the countries that have the capabilities to do so, only one is not an ally, and I don't think we'd invade China over THIS.
Tactics and strategy in electronic warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
The capability of locating an uplink based on signals received from a satellite is of much greater strategic value then destruction of the satellite. This is true for all engaged parties.
So why jam at all?
Suppose something like a cruise missle with partial guidance from a satellite is on it's way to your ship. Ideally you would want to co-opt the satellite and take some control. However, when the time comes, the last thing you want is the correct information to reach the missle. Here jamming makes sense. Without jamming capability a situation might arise in which the strategic value
to you, of your oppositions satellite, is greater than the value of your ship!
Come on
Have they actually thought this one through ? (Score:1, Insightful)
After all there are quite a few countries around with the capability to launch satellites: Russia, China, various EU, India, I even seem to remember Brazil having a sat. These are all reasonable technical adept countries - who would get VERY pissed off, and even consider it an act of war, for the US to start zapping satellites (even reversibly).
And why would you attempt to zap a satellite? To hamper comms, to stop remote sensing, maybe because you don't like them overflying? What would be the reaction of the country concerned?
If you get the stage where you might think of using such a weapon, you've reached the stage where you never should - the temperature would go way up and there are a hundred and one ways of making the temperature go up to several million degrees without the use of satellite technology.
A relic of cold war thinking that would hurt those pulling the trigger more than those who owned the satellite. The world's too connected a place for it to be used against a country, and its worthless against asymetric threats.
Re:Thin ice (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thin ice (Score:0, Insightful)
It's pretty worrying watching history repeating itself only a few decades on. Don't think the free nations of the world will sit back and put up with the USA's fascistic idiocy forever.
Re:Thin ice (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. is making this threat public to send a signal to the Europe/China that if they proceed with a GPS system free of U.S. domination the U.S. is going to counter with the technology necessary to cripple it.
China's Xinhua has a pretty biting commentary [spacedaily.com] on the subject that appeared on SpaceDaily a couple days ago.
It is a further indicator that as the U.S. continues to seek its global empire and world dominion it is going to continue to place itself against and at odds with the entire rest of the world.
Apparently only the U.S. is allowed to decide who can use and deploy basic technology.
Line-of-sight... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Always fighting the last war... (Score:1, Insightful)
If that was the case then the country would have been depopulated by now (genocide).
Tens of people is more likely.
Can't blame them for being pissed at having an occupying army in their country. We call them "insurgents" to hide the fact that it is a popular fight against us by mainstream iraqis.
Re:Can we use it.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thin ice (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the other part, have you ever considered the possibility that the parent poster chose to make a post complaining about satellite jamming rather than something else because the article is about satellite jamming, and not something else? And therefore that the OP is on topic, while you are just ranting?
I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)