Washington Eyes Offensive Strike on China's Space Arsenal

As the United States continues to push the militarisation of space, competition between Chinese and American satellites is intensifying. According to the South China Morning Post, a former US Pentagon intelligence official said on 26 May that Washington is preparing offensive weapons designed to disable China's military satellites in any future conflict. The former official also warned that China and the US currently lack any safety dialogue mechanism. If an American satellite were about to collide with a Chinese one, the US could do little more than send an email and wait — and the responsibility for evasive action would fall squarely on Washington.

Kari Bingen, director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), was blunt at a recent event. She said Washington is actively discussing how to threaten "the satellites that underpin Chinese targeting of American forces in any Indo-Pacific conflict."

Kari Bingen, director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Bingen claimed that China currently operates more than 500 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) satellites. She alleged that Beijing has been “practising out in the Gobi Desert, targeting our ports, our ships, our airfields” by pairing space sensors with battle networks to close ‘kill chains’ against US forces. 

"We’re now having to think ... how do we, the United States, hold those assets at risk, so that they can’t use space to target us on the ground," she said. In her view, that logic is driving more open debate about offensive strategy — specifically, how the US could deny China the use of its space capabilities. Bingen further warned that even the basic safety dialogue mechanisms that still exist between the US and Russia are absent in the US-China relationship.

She painted a stark picture of communication breakdown. "We send an email," she said of a potential satellite collision. "We don’t know if it gets answered. The onus is on our side to take that evasive manoeuvre."

At the same event, Heather Williams, director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at CSIS, said the complete freeze in China-US military dialogue has now spread into the orbital domain. The message is clear: Washington fears space is becoming a new front line for strategic rivalry and potential conflict. That fear is already shaping an increasingly hardline US posture, one now aimed more frequently at China's commercial aerospace sector.

After Donald Trump returned to the White House, he committed substantial resources to advancing the so-called “Golden Dome” missile defence plan, hoping to put it into operation before the end of his term.

The reality is that Washington itself has done the most to militarise space. According to Guancha.cn, the United States has defined space as a "warfighting domain," developed and deployed offensive space weapons, and organised military offensive-and-defensive drills and technical experiments. It has even maliciously tracked and dangerously approached other countries' spacecraft, creating collision risks in orbit. The US has become the biggest driver of the "militarisation" and "battlefield-isation" of space — and the greatest threat to space security.

After Donald Trump returned to the White House, he committed substantial resources to advancing the so-called "Golden Dome" missile defence plan. The goal is to have it operational before his term ends in January 2029. Its intent against China and Russia is obvious — though whether it can deliver on its promises remains a wide-open question.

The price tag is staggering. Earlier this month, The New York Times cited a new report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimating that "Golden Dome" could cost taxpayers US$1.2 trillion over the next 20 years — far above the earlier estimate of US$175 billion.

The scale of hardware required is equally daunting. To protect the US homeland, Alaska, and Hawaii, the system would need thousands of satellites, plus radar and missile bases for intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and additional regional bases to defend against hypersonic and cruise missiles. If the US wanted to intercept up to 10 enemy ICBMs simultaneously in space, the military might need to deploy around 7,800 armed satellites.

There's a built-in obsolescence problem too. Because these interceptors would operate in low Earth orbit, atmospheric drag would cause them to lose altitude and fall out of orbit within five years. The entire system would face continuous and extremely costly replacement cycles — a financial black hole with no clear bottom.

The CBO report also found that even if the system were completed, adversaries with large nuclear arsenals — such as China and Russia — could still penetrate the shield, with some missiles successfully hitting their targets. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) had previously warned that building such missile defence systems could trigger serious strategic miscalculation and prompt China and Russia to expand their nuclear arsenals in response.

China launches a satellite.

China has pushed back firmly. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said the "Golden Dome" plan aims to build an unconstrained global, multi-layered and multi-domain missile defence system. The plan openly calls for a major expansion of outer-space combat capabilities, including the development and deployment of orbital interception systems. Mao said it carries a strong offensive character, violates the principle of peaceful use enshrined in the Outer Space Treaty, and will heighten the risks of turning outer space into a battlefield and fuelling an arms race — thereby undermining the international security and arms-control system.

Mao added that the United States is pursuing "America First" and remains fixated on seeking absolute security for itself — in violation of the principle that "the security of all countries should not be diminished." This harms global strategic balance and stability. China is seriously concerned, Mao said, and urges the US to abandon the development and deployment of a global missile defence system, and to take concrete steps to enhance strategic trust among major powers and safeguard global strategic stability.

Deep Throat

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

A 24-year-old "dark history" clip of Prime Minister Takaichi has resurfaced on Japanese social media. In it, she comments on Japan's war against China, and the footage has quickly drawn renewed attention.

Renowned political commentator and TV host Soichiro Tahara interviewed Takaichi on a 2002 news program. He pressed her on her support for right-wing politicians visiting Yasukuni Shrine.

When asked whether Japan's invasion of China was a war of self-preservation and self-defense, Takaichi said she believed it was. Tahara immediately denounced her on air as ignorant and naive.

Resurfaced 2002 clip shows host branding Takaichi ignorant over China war denial.

The On-Air Clash

According to Japanese media, the clip originated from "Sunday Project," an Asahi TV program broadcast on August 18, 2002. Tahara hosted the segment. He questioned guests about right-wing politicians visiting Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines 14 Class-A war criminals from World War II.

Takaichi supported such visits at the time. So Tahara asked how she viewed Japan's invasion of China. He asked whether she considered Japan's war to have been a war of self-preservation and self-defense. Takaichi said she believed it was. Her response immediately drew Tahara's resentment.

On air, Takaichi said Japan's invasion of China was self-preservation and self-defense.

Tahara raised his voice in response. This was no joke. The Manchurian Incident, he said, was instigated by the Japanese military, specifically the Kwantung Army. They fabricated the whole thing. That was clearly a war of aggression.

As Takaichi tried to respond, Tahara pressed on. He noted that even former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone had called the Manchurian Incident strange. Then he asked why Japan would invade Manchuria in the name of self-defense and establish a puppet state there.

Takaichi insisted that colonizing other countries was a widely accepted international norm at the time. Other nations were doing the same, she argued, so Japan's actions should not be considered aggression.

Takaichi claimed colonizing others was then normal, so Japan did not commit act of aggression.

Tahara rebutted her directly with historical evidence. He said the fact that she called this act of aggression self-preservation and self-defense only showed her ignorance. It was truly alarming, he added, that a member of parliament held such an ignorant view of history.

Tahara told Takaichi a lawmaker with such ignorant history views was deeply troubling.

Still, Takaichi pushed back. At the very least, she said, she believed it was a war fought for security. Tahara shot back sharply. That naïve view, he said, was simply laughable.

Neither the host nor the media could have imagined it at the time. A politician who distorted history and denied Japan's wartime crimes would, more than two decades later, become the country's prime minister.

The clip has reignited public debate, and Tahara responded to it directly. On July 26, he updated his account on X and expressed his wish to have a dialogue with Takaichi.

Right-Wing Echoes, Real-World Risk

According to Global Times' new media outlet, this 2002 video resurfaces every few years, sparking fresh rounds of controversy. What stands out this time, the report says, is how voices defending Takaichi's historical distortions are spreading.

Right-wing forces on the fringes of Japanese society are amplifying these voices through the internet and social media, wrongly influencing a growing number of Japanese people.

Online right-wing rhetoric is one problem, but the report argues something else matters more. Far more consequential is the new-style militarism Takaichi has pursued since taking office, marked by accelerated military expansion.

This is precisely why neighboring countries, including China, remain especially wary of Japan under her leadership.

Why Japan Never Faced Its Past

Citing historical analysis from authoritative mainland media, the report states that Japanese society has long been plagued by distortions of its history of aggression. Wartime crimes have been whitewashed for decades, and many far-right figures have now risen to political power. Japan, unlike Germany, never fully confronted the ideological roots of its militarism after World War II.

As the Cold War took shape, the United States substantially revised its Japan policy out of bloc-confrontation considerations. It halted mid-way efforts to purge militarist forces, and many war criminals were treated leniently and allowed to return to politics.

This, the report suggests, is the key reason for the stark contrast between the two defeated powers. Germany thoroughly reckoned with Nazi crimes and reflected deeply on the war, while Japan has long evaded its history of aggression and refused to sincerely atone for it.