Think about how much we in the United States use, if not depend on, satellite technology.

I’m not just talking about Dish Network. There are civilian and and military applications for satellites: communication, navigation, reconnaissance, etc. Think about GPS, smart bombs, satellite phones, weather maps, etc. It’s probably safe to say that satellite technology impacts us every day.

Now read this from the latest issue of The New Atlantis:

On January 11, 2007, a missile was launched from Chinese territory. It arced upwards into space to an altitude of about 537 miles, where it slammed directly into its target, an obsolete Chinese weather satellite. The target was destroyed, reportedly producing some 900 trackable pieces of space debris in orbits from 125 miles to about 2,300 miles and resulting in an increase of 10 percent in the total amount of manmade debris in orbit.

This demonstration of an anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) was just the latest in a series of tests of China’s space weapons program, and was a warning sign the United States should take very seriously. […]

“Far more than any other country, the U.S. depends on space for national and tactical intelligence, military operations, and civil and commercial benefits,” as Robert L. Butterworth, president of the space consultancy Aries Analytics, recently put it. This “provides a clear incentive for attacking American spacecraft.” Such an attack on American satellites would not have to be very extensive to be devastating—as long as it were well-planned. “Even a small-scale anti-satellite attack in a crisis against fifty U.S. satellites (assuming a mix of targeted military reconnaissance, navigation satellites, and communication satellites) could have a catastrophic effect not only on U.S. military forces, but [on] the U.S. civilian economy,” according to a recent report by China analyst Michael Pillsbury.

Chilling, isn’t it? The U.S. is, in fact, taking the threat seriously. Just today DefenseNews.com reports:

Five months after the Chinese proved they could destroy a satellite in orbit, U.S. lawmakers are responding with a surge in spending on Pentagon space programs aimed at protecting U.S. satellites. […]

“The Chinese anti-satellite test in early 2007 highlighted the vulnerability of our space assets,” House members said in a report on the 2008 Defense Authorization Act they passed in May.

News of China’s weaponization of space gets worse. The missile that was launched in January isn’t the only anti-satellite weapon at China’s disposal. They also have ground-based lasers that can jam or blind U.S. reconnaissance satellites, and there’s evidence they may be investing in space-based anti-satellite weapons.

No one is suggesting the Chinese are planning to take over the U.S. (yet, at least), but China’s neighbors are worried. There is speculation that jamming reconnaissance satellites could be a tactic China could use in an effort to take over Taiwan (to keep other countries, notably the U.S., in the dark until the takeover is well underway or even completed), and India is a bit wary of what these new weapons tests portend for the region, too. Such technology could act as a deterrent to any international action against China should they decide to, shall we say, annex some land.

Of course, the Chinese are outspoken opponents of the weaponization of space. That’s not surprising. What was it Sun Tzu said? “All warfare is based on deception.” Aviation Week reported on May 24:

Gen. Kevin Chilton, the head of U.S. Air Force Space Command […] said Chinese calls for a new space treaty even after their ASAT test were the definition of chutzpah. “The contradictions between China’s statements and its actions raise legitimate questions about the credibility of their declaratory policies, statements and security commitments,” said Air Force Maj. Gen. James Armor Jr., director of the National Security Space Office.

Don’t kid yourself — this is no small incident. It’s surprising to me that it hasn’t been more widely reported. I found one or two references to it in the Chicago Tribune, but none in the Journal Star’s archives. This could be the start of a significant arms race, although U.S. officials would be quick to pooh-pooh that idea.

Well, I don’t know a whole lot about the military, but I do know there is a strategic advantage to holding the high ground, and there’s no higher “high ground” than space. We can’t afford to let China hold it. So, maybe some don’t want to call it an emotionally-charged term like “arms race,” but I say we call a spade a spade. We might want to start rethinking that $76 billion trade deficit with China, too, while we’re at it.

美夢. (Sweet dreams.)

I listened to the Democratic candidates for President debate each other on CNN Sunday night. Suffice it to say none of them have the “spirit and power of philosophy,” as Plato phrased it.

They spent a good portion of their precious on-air time imprecating President Bush. You’d think they were running against him. They spent the rest of their time trying to differentiate themselves from each other — unsuccessfully, for the most part. There are some subtle differences, but they’re largely indistinguishable.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Republican debate on Tuesday will be no better.

It’s too bad there aren’t more confidence-inspiring candidates out there today. But my guess is that those best-qualified to be President just aren’t electable in a country that elevates image over depth, witty retorts over reasoned dialogue, and one-dimensional sound-bytes over nuanced policy discussions.

I suppose it’s always been that way to some extent, but it’s worse than ever now. Consider the fact that a candidate can get knocked out of the race by simply shouting “Yeeaah” on camera. There were lots of reasons not to vote for Howard Dean, but showing exuberance at a political rally wasn’t one of them.

Authorities have identified the killer in yesterday’s Virginia Tech shootings:

The Virginia Tech Police Department identified him as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a senior in the English department.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the students and families at Virginia Tech. This is an open thread for any thoughts or comments anyone would like to express about this tragedy.

Did anyone watch the State of the Union address last night? What are your thoughts on it?

I was happy to hear the President’s comments about congressional earmarks — that they not only should be transparent and actually in the bills on which the House and Senate vote (not inserted later into conference reports anonymously), but that they should be reduced by at least half as a matter of fiscal responsibility. I wonder if Mr. LaHood got the message:

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour – when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate – they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process … expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress … and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

As far as the mechanics of the speech, I thought it sounded a lot less stilted this year than in past years, and I like how they moved the traditional “the-state-of-our-union-is-strong” line to the end of the speech this year. Bush sounded the most relaxed this year of any of the speeches of his I’ve watched. Outside of what I just mentioned, however, the speech was pretty formulaic. It had the usual laundry list of policy initiatives and a few too many special guests in the gallery. I’m looking forward to the day that a president either (a) submits his state of the union message in writing and skips the speech, or (b) delivers a speech that is a stark departure from the usual mold.

The big topic, of course, was the war in Iraq. I’m of the mindset that we should fight wars to win. This is shaping up to be just like the way we left Vietnam — and I’m afraid the fragile government in Iraq is going to fall just like Saigon did if we start pulling our troops out now. I think that would be immoral; it’s imperative for our country to finish what we started and not leave Iraq until the government is stable enough to stand on its own without U.S. military help. Thus, I think a troop surge is appropriate, and should be funded.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

What about you? What was most interesting to you about the speech? With what did you agree or disagree? Ethanol? No Child Left Behind reauthorization? Immigration policy? There were a lot of issues covered last night; take your pick.

According to the Times Online (London), “Britain is to build the first new generation of nuclear power stations for 20 years to avoid becoming dependent on foreign gas imports.” Right now, nuclear power accounts for 22% of Britain’s electricity, similar to the United States where nuclear power provides about 20% of our nation’s electricity. No nuclear power plants have come online in the U.K. since 1988 or in the U.S. since 1996, according to the Times and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, respectively. In contrast, France relies on nuclear power for 80% of their electricity.

With natural gas prices high and local electricity prices forecasted to go up 20-35% in 2007, is the U.S. planning to exploit nuclear energy as an alternative? The President wants to explore it, apparently. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has published a nice summary of U.S. nuclear policy which includes this information on the administration’s stand:

The Bush Administration has called for an expansion of nuclear power. For Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear energy research and development, the Administration is seeking $632.7 million for FY2007, an 18.1% increase from the FY2006 appropriation.

Believe it or not, Illinois leads the nation in nuclear capacity (source: EIA). In fact, our state has almost as much nuclear capacity all by itself as the United Kingdom. There are 11 reactors among the six plants located in the Land of Lincoln. Those plants are located in Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, LaSalle, and Quad Cities. All the plants/reactors are owned by Exelon Corporation, the parent company of AmerGen, Commonwealth Edison, and other power companies in Illinois.

The plant in Clinton, however, cost over $4 billion to build, “leading the plant to produce some of the most expensive power in the Midwest.” And there are also concerns over safety and radioactive waste. CRS reports that “each nuclear reactor produces an annual average of about 20 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel and 50-200 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste.” Where does it all go?

Spent fuel and other highly radioactive waste is to be isolated in a deep underground repository, consisting of a large network of tunnels carved from rock that has remained geologically undisturbed for hundreds of thousands of years. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.), Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the only candidate site for the national repository.

So there are trade-offs. Do the pros outweigh the cons for using more nuclear power in the U.S. to reduce our dependence on gas and oil? Or would we just be trading one problem (scarcity, emissions) for another (safety, radioactive waste), at a negligible economic advantage?