Unfortunately, the Chinese ASAT test appears to have reignited, rather than settled, the US domestic debate concerning space weapons programs. The expected voices have emerged to demand that the US enter negotiations to bar weapons from space rather than redevelop and extend capacities similar to those of the Chinese ASAT. See:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/242gg8 in the Boston "Globe" or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2cqkum in the "New York Times" ("Sen. Biden Warns Against Space Arms Race") or
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/opinion/20sat1.html ("Some experts suggest that China’s latest test is intended to prod the United States to join serious negotiations. The way to counter China or any other potentially belligerent space power is through an arms control treaty, not a new arms race in space.")

The American polity seems to be too deeply divided against itself for opinions to be changed by anything so trivial as what a rival power and possible enemy might do.

The arguments against space weapons are the same arguments made against putting weapons on aircraft. There are too many advantages inherent to controlling space, and too many disadvantages of having your enemy control space for a burgeoning power like China to accept the status quo. It’s inevitable that space will be weaponized, but the decisions made in the next few years may determine who has a decisive advantage in this new realm.

Of course David L is correct in that the US is too deeply divided, and I would add over confident in its eternal position on top of the world, to consider the actions of its enemies. This is just too bad, since China is willing to tell the US public exactly what it wants to hear while working tirelessly to end our dominance of the ultimate high ground.

Space WILL be the next battleground. It remains to be seen whether we will be players or not.

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis' excellent website, armscontrolwonk.com, broke this story before anyone else. There's lots of good analysis and commentary over there, check it out.

The speculation/reconstruction on armscontrolwonk as to the technical nature of the recent Chinese action is plausible.

A direct ascent point-in-space interception (no homing, but using satellite or other navigation signals to arrive at a point in the target's predicted path) would not be too difficult technically.

It would not be too difficult to dodge either, given some warning and a plan in place, but evasive maneuvers would severely disrupt satellite operations and fuel used would shorten satellite life. For details of the technical tradeoffs see Minimum impulse orbital evasive maneuvers

David L and CardEE,

It's a prisoner's dilemma game. After China's test, the United States is much more likely to 'defect' and escalate the arms race before stability returns. So the thing about the debate being 'settled' is my assessment.

Andy, Molon Labe,

Thanks. Some of the links in the post above point to Jeff's posts. Looks like Arms Control Wonks have a lot of work to do now.

WRT: "Actually, these weapons may belong to the family of advanced weapons known to professionals as Vertically Aligned Polar Omnidirectional Uniform Radioactive Weapon And Re-entry Equipment", VAPOUR WAR is this an actual name?

"Vaporware" is jargon for products that have been detailed or announced but do not actually exist. I assume the added "u" in the acronym is due to the UK Commonwealth heritage of India.