And did they not also then ask the UN to ban weapons in space?
We die because of this abhorrent and malicious juvenile and people like him in other positions of power.
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
53 points (100.0% liked)
Spaceflight
535 readers
74 users here now
Your one-stop shop for spaceflight news and discussion.
All serious posts related to spaceflight are welcome! JAXA, ISRO, CNSA, Roscosmos, ULA, RocketLab, Firefly, Relativity, Blue Origin, etc. (Arca and Pythom, if you must).
Other related space communities:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Please keep memes contained to [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 27 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Great, now we're at much greater risk of Kessler syndrome. Thanks Russia ๐.
Assuming they actually did launch a space weapon of course.
So, how many to one is it now?
:-)
This is a first for humanity I believe unless you have an example on hand? There are military satellites for communication and recon but no weapons because it's understood that it's not worth the risks.
They had a satellite with a cannon onboard at some point.
Yeah you're right. First for humanity then for space to ground weapons only, seems the soviets launched a space to space cannon back in the 60s like you said
a first for humanity
hahaha... good one
Ok..? I'm open to being wrong about that, do you have any examples?
[deleted]
"my source is that I made it the fuck up"
To be fair, it's something else than "made the fuck up" when they do provide a line of reasoning.
"Logic insists" is imo too strong of a formulation for that level of speculative reasoning, but it's still not entirely made up, especially when they provide a reason why you'd have to be speculative about the subject.
I think for perfect fairness of discussion that last part would have to be challenged before attacking them speculating that harsh
The last part being their misunderstanding of Occam's razor?
No, the "if it were true we probs wouldn't have evidence"- part
Right, lack of evidence is evidence that they exist because wavy hands circumstances.
If I was a country, I would factor it into my threat model. I'd be remiss not to. But it would be on the level of "a satellite malfunctioned" as opposed to "all of our satellites have been deleted".
Oh man this is kinda tiring... Of course it's not evidence. I'm trying to foster fair culture of discussion that's all
After all, we're trying to have a "better internet" in this niche community of lemmy, don't we?
Ok. Occam's razor of this scenario:
Russia did a sneaky launch of weapons and there are news articles about Russia putting weapons into space.
Why do we think the US is better at secrecy?
Why aren't there articles about the US putting weapons in space?
The US hasn't put weapons into space.
Besides, I just don't see any benefit for the US to have weapons in space.
Any country with a space program that is a potential threat is going to have multiple layers of redundancy with their satellites, just due to the nature of satellites. So, to make a noticeable difference the US would need quite a few weapons in space.
I can understand Russia having weapons in space, because they are all about pushing the line, poking and provoking. If they destroy a satellite and deny it, that is in line with their playbook.
If the US does that, it would massively escalate both foreign and domestic issues.
The US can already hit anywhere on earth with massive firepower, they can already deploy special operations teams to take out ground stations, and they claim to have programs to "hard and soft kill" satellites. And it's sensible to think they have a space weapon system with a deployment program ready to go. It could probably be in orbit within a few hours.
I just don't see the reason for them to have deployed space weapons at this time, and risk provoking such an escalation for such miniscule (if any) benefits.
And if the US is caught putting weapons in space, everyone is going to want to do it and we will have to abandon human space travel.
At the moment, space is science and observation. The benefits of it remaining science and observation vastly outweighs the risks of trying to dominate it and turn it into a warzone.
[deleted]
Suspicion is one thing, but acting like suspicion is fact is dangerous.
Facts need evidence.
[deleted]
Kk. I'll do the same when it turns out the goldfish have slowly been taking over the whole world.
Why else would they be so quiet? Stands to reason, right? Something something razor.
I see where you're coming from, but I still don't think it's likely personally.
It's simply not worth it. We can already hit any target on earth with a nuclear strike without the added risks and complications that come from putting weapons in space. If you put these targets in space, and an enemy attacks them, globally humanity loses all access to space indefinitely.
That's simply not worth it even just from a pure military perspective given the value to communications, navigation and intelligence that space access provides.
So you have no evidence. All you do is pull shit out of your ass to defend the one situation where we seem to have evidence.
If only there was a way to track objects in orbit, boosts with payloads, or maybe even look at them through a telescope...
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are wrong in believing it when there's no evidence and plenty of ways to get it.
[deleted]
You fundamentally misunderstand Occams Razor. In the choice even between classified satellites and classified satellites with weapons, the former clearly has fewer presuppositions.
Show us evidence, until then it's just a conspiracy theory.