Hmm… Maybe we should be helping prevent ruzzia from doing that somehow. Maybe we should offer some financial assistance to a country that is actively seeking to limit ruzzia’s ability to threaten others. That’s starting to sound like a really good idea.
How do you prevent someone who’s already space-capable from sending satellites?
By stressing their military industrial complex capabilities enough so they have to decide whether to build another tank or invest in a satellite.
Ukraine is hitting oil depots as military targets, satellite facilities would be fair game targets as well. No way they aren’t using satellites to get Intel over Ukraine.
Damn, it was the one place that hadn’t been corrupted by capitalism.
From the same country that can’t make a round ball bearing.
We need to teach them about this new technology called a “shot tower”.
That is probably what they are using now. 😂
The Republicans are going to be so confused …
one of them already demonstrated that by leaking the info
Russia can’t even keep its ships afloat
To be fair, they seem to keep them afloat okay as long as there aren’t any Ukrainians around.
Sneezes in K-141 Kursk
K-19 has entered the chat
wait, its gone again
oops, it fell apart
Did the front fall off?
Interestingly, it did when it was kinda towed out of its environment.
How many crew were on board?
At least 1.
They do good with spacecraft though.
Did someone watch Space Cowboys and get confused?
More like Putin has been in full wunderwaffen mode lately. Hypersonic missile! Tsunami torpedo! Space nukes!
Oh noez, it’s Reagan’s Star Wars system for real!
additional clear justification for invading Russia
Gravity tanks
Why would you bother with a nuke? Satellites are easy pickings if you can actually hit them.
The nukes in space aren’t intended for space targets, they are intended for earth targets.
The article clearly says the intelligence is that it is not for attacks on humans
This whole article is speculation. I’m speculating that what they are speculating about is bit incorrect, specifically the point you are making.
Probably to EMP pulse a few satellites that werent built rad hard.
Gotta be cheaper ways to generate an emp than nukes.
There are but it’s difficult to match the power of a nuke’s EMP if set off 200km above the surface. It deforms the Earth’s magnetic field, resulting in a very quick induced current from the initial deformation, and a slower one that wrecks power stations at the ends of long power lines as it slowly returns to equilibrium. There’s another surge mixed in there, too, though I don’t recall the specific mechanism that causes it, though it’s similar to a lightning strike’s effect on electronics and could be prevented with a surge protector, if the first one hadn’t already destroyed it.
That’s what I think this is really about. Not disabling satellites (though some would be), but EMPing the entire hemisphere when the grid is absolutely not capable of handling that. Imagine one of those going off Jan 6 2025. Even if government buildings are hardened against EMP (could go either way I suppose), video of what goes on would only get out if a coup fails, and even then only after the fact once the grid has been re-established and who knows what happens in every single city when the trucks can’t bring food in because their electronics are all fried.
I dunno, what you are talking about doesn’t sound new. Just put a nuke on a regular satellite. They already fly in that space. Would it even give off enough radiation to be detected?
Agreed. Something’s not adding up.
What is confusing? A nuclear weapon satellite doesn’t even have to get remotely close to the hostile sat. Which means it has to be given a lot of area to be in.
Ok so you are running a satellite that Russia hates. You know that they are violating the no nukes in space rule. You need to keep your sat far far away from any Russian one. It moves a little closer to you? You have to waste fuel putting some distance. Which decreasing the lifespan of your satellite since it now has less fuel. This is why nukes in space are a very very bad idea. It translates to less satellites up there with shorter lifespans. And since everything can be considered a viable target in war everything has to act like it is.
To make it worse other governments will honor the treaty and won’t put nukes up there. Which grants Russia control over more orbits since they can break the rules.
You don’t need to be close.
Space is big though, you need to be comparatively close to the point that the diff in distance you need between a nuke and an emp device is negligible
Space is big which is why kinetic impact is hard. Especially given that the enemy satellite can move. So the alternative to precision is to just be able to cover a large area.
Not disagreeing with you there. Just saying the difference of area between an emp device and a nuke is probably negligable in space. There was a great write up on the science of this i think on wikipedia, but my search results are now flooded with all the news about russia, so I can’t find it. But I believe it basically said nukes didn’t make sense. But it could have been “traditional” nukes that didn’t make sense.
