When most people think of military hotlines, it is safe to say, the Cold War movie images of a red telephone sitting at the ready in the White House and the Kremlin still dominates. As China and the United States move to set up a line between militaries, the real question is: how is a hotline technically different from a telephone?
News reports refer to a "direct dial" telephone between military establishments. Are we talking here about a dedicated line? Does the telephone use regular undersea cables? Is there a military satellite link being used for this purpose? Are the Pentagon and the People's Liberation Army just trading private phone numbers? If reporters are asking, no one's answering.
Already, there has been a direct phone between U.S. and Chinese heads of state since the 90s, and between the U.S. secretary of state and the Chinese foreign minister since 2004, according to AFP.
Let's do the what if game for a minute, realizing that I'm coming up with some pretty absurd situations:
- What if these hotlines use the regular undersea cables, either by regular encrypted phone transmission or IP-style networks?
Someone working on a Tomorrow Never Dies-style war could cut a line or two, and with the right intelligence, they may be able to cut off contact. Presidents and generals would be reduced to calling each other's switchboards, which though less secure would probably work quickly to get each other on the phone. - What if they lay a new wire, an unlikely if intriguing idea?
It would be even easier to sever the ties, but if general communications went down the unique connection would still work. - What if, as with the last implementation of the U.S.-Soviet hotline, military satellites were used (seemingly a lot more likely)?
This is where the modern era gets interesting. This only works so long as no one blows the satellites out of the sky. It seems to me a weakness in a strategic communications plan if for instance one or both sides decided to blast some military satellites as a precursor to any terrestrial war. Worse yet, if something like terrorism makes it to space, more Tomorrow Never Dies trouble could result from a third party severing the link. Heads of state would still probably want the option of talking to each other in hopes of preventing a full blown mutual destruction.
Which leads me to my proposal: Follow the lead of the first implementation of the Soviet-U.S. line (as explained at Wikipedia).
The first generation of the hot line had no voice element at all; the memorandum called for a full-time duplex wire telegraph circuit, based on the idea that spontaneous verbal communications could lead to miscommunications and misperceptions. This circuit was routed Washington - London - Copenhagen - Stockholm - Helsinki - Moscow. The Washington - London link was originally carried over the TAT-1, the first submarine transatlantic telephone cable. A secondary radio line was routed Washington - Tangier - Moscow.
The key is the redundant link, and keeping facilities guarded. Keeping a terrestrial radio line open may be the only reliable fall-back in an age of spy movie paranoia.
All this absurdism, tongue firmly in cheek, comes by way of asking: What are these folks really trying to accomplish here? Could it be that the tech-heads in both militaries just want a new toy to play with? Your guess is as good as mine.
You really have to hand it to the United States. After putting up a remarkable ruckus in November when a Chinese rocket annihilated an old satellite and spread undetermined amounts of debris orbiting Earth, the United States government has decided to do the same to a malfunctioning spy satellite that could rain sizable and toxic debris somewhere on the planet if not destroyed. And China's government urges caution.
The situation is hard to grasp. According to the International Herald Tribune, China and Russia have recently called for a ban on all space weapons, which the United States has opposed. Meanwhile the United States castigated China for shooting down its satellite and thereby demonstrating that Chinese rockets could disable, say, GPS or communications satellites that are essential to U.S. military operations.
Then, when the United States has a broken spy satellite that contains toxic fuel and likely some sensitive technology that it wants to blow out of the sky, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson urges the United States to act responsibly on the issue of safety in space.
I'm pretty sure authorities in both the United States and China would be better off if they read their previous statements before making new ones. It would sure be less confusing for the rest of us.
A Chinese expert in arms control at the prestigious Tsinghua University is not a fan of the plan. "In my opinion, this decision is imprudent and ill advised," Li Bin, the expert, told the IHT. "If this satellite is shot down, the toxic fuel will still be there. Therefore, the pollution still exists." But Li did say the shoot-down would be a good way to keep spy technology from landing in someone else's back yard.
The United States showed its near-space marksmanship in 1985 during the Cold War, and the Soviets did the same, so it's no new show of force for U.S. President George W. Bush to shoot this one down. After reading several articles, the most realistic reasons I've seen for shooting it down are an authentic concern about a toxic fuel tank landing on Earth or a fear of compromising sensitive spy technology.
Either way, even the best-calculated low-orbit explosions are going to hurl debris in unpredictable directions. I hope all this doesn't end in a hole punched in someone's heat shield.
- prev
- 1
- next





