Live data from Hacker News

US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

bbc.com

351–360 of 397 posts

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#351
post #252

>"We urge the US side to stop expanding its military capabilities and preparing for war in outer space," AFP quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying. I'm no geopolitics whiz but "we urge the USA to be unprepared for war" is a pretty comical statement to me.

The next logical step is to use AI to influence US voters with "no data centers in space" outrage.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#352
post #271
post #252

>"We urge the US side to stop expanding its military capabilities and preparing for war in outer space," AFP quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying. I'm no geopolitics whiz but "we urge the USA to be unprepared for war" is a pretty comical statement to me.

Being the first country to put weapons in space, is far from comical. Weapons in space is like putting nukes and missiles in international waters 12 miles from coast of all other countries, to reduce strike time.

"Putting" weapons in space, like in orbit (otherwise they won't stay in space for long) is not like putting weapons in international waters close in to the target. Any weapon that relies on moving some (projectile) mass from there will have to deal with the costly orbital mechanics, where the projectile will have to be pulled out of orbit with a lot of mass and time to reach anywhere on the planet. It's... not that good of an option for attack, compared even to existing ballistic ground-to-ground trajectories. For non-projectile orbital weapons, i.e. energy weapons, the physics are brutal, because the amount of energy necessary to reach any degree of destructive effect to a target on the ground is way too large. And all that has to also be weighted against the risk of having such weapon staying exposed in the orbit, like a sitting duck, for anyone on the ground to disable it in numerous ways. If there would be any case for having weapons in space, I don't think it will be to attack anything on the ground.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#353
post #321
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politely ask them to stop seems like a great idea to try first before you actively attack a space capable nuclear superpower!

If they did supply images, to supporting the attacks, that did or even didn't result in the death of soldiers, then they were first to commit an act of aggression towards a nuclear superpower. This is a measured response to that act of aggression. Asking politely, in that context, doesn't necessarily make sense, especially when you can just burn a few hundred million of their dollars to demonstrate why they shouldn't…

There is a meaningful difference between „providing information to a country currently being attacked“ and „blowing stuff up in orbit“.

One is significantly more risk to the rest of the world than other.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#354
post #8

Space really should be a neutral ground like Antarctica. Especially since the consequences of space debris might trigger the Kessler effect [1], denying humanity future access to low-earth orbit for the considerable future. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

We do things in response to the actions of others; I'll leave it there.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#355
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, this move is coming after fairly strong evidence that Russia and China have been breaking the treaty by deploying weapons into space for years. Which the US has highlighted many times in the past. At some point you have to acknowledge that the treaty is no longer being respected, and match capabilities to avoid being left at a disadvantage. That said, I'm sure there were tons of people in the US military…

Neither Russia nor China's known weapons deployment is likely to breach the very narrow restrictions of the Outer Space Treaty, and the latest capability the US has vaguely claimed probably doesn't either. In practice, the US has had practical counter space and electronic warfare capabilities in space for decades (even a regular satellite with enough delta V is a viable weapon, but superpowers have more targeted capa…

Your comment on Russia and China is false.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#356
post #8

Space really should be a neutral ground like Antarctica. Especially since the consequences of space debris might trigger the Kessler effect [1], denying humanity future access to low-earth orbit for the considerable future. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Regulations are only as strong as the power to enforce them.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#357
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything in low Earth orbit is moving at 7600m/s. A ~10g projectile moving that fast has an energy of 580,000 joules. What matters is the relative velocity of the projectile towards the target. I practice it will be smaller or larger (if the bullet is incoming). But steering an incoming projectile is way harder.

What matters is the relative velocity of the projectile towards the target. True. If you really want to mess space up forever you need to launch a rocket full of sand, slingshot around the moon, and gently sprinkle it in an retrograde orbit. That would be fast enough for something as small as a grain of sand to create pinhole-sized punctures in anything put in orbit, and after a few years the sand would be spread out…

> you need to launch a rocket full of sand

You want an accretion disc around the planet like Saturn?

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#358
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone launched a nuke in space how would other nuclear powers react? I doubt they would assume "this is probably just an EMP and not a direct nuclear strike on our territory"

If you had time to plan it, you'd probably want to put the warhead on a satellite launched by a normal satellite launcher. It'll look benign until you detonate it.

Yes. I assume this is why there's a treaty against stationing the weapons in orbit or on the moon etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

I don't know how someone like me would even tell if this treaty is taken seriously. For example, going to space is really hard and has historically been somewhat unreliable at the best of times, which may mean that back in 1967 everyone was thinking "we don't even want a 1% chance that someone's failed launch to drop a 99%-usable warhead on a random location where some tiny country or organised crime group can find it".

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#359
post #8

Space really should be a neutral ground like Antarctica. Especially since the consequences of space debris might trigger the Kessler effect [1], denying humanity future access to low-earth orbit for the considerable future. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Space is more like international waters legally. The outer space treaty is rooted in maritime law principles. The Chinese and Russians are in no mood to slow down relative to the US. There will likely be some escalation in debris and damage resulting from that might eventually result in some kind of action. But most of the damage here would be economical and sending more stuff up is now very cheap. Manned flight is r…

> The Chinese and Russians are in no mood to slow down relative to the US.

Typical boogeyman fearmongering to justify the existence and expansion of the US military industrial complex.

Out of all these three (US, China, Russia), a simple count of who has started more wars and conflicts is a clear indicator of who is the one initiating the vicious cycle of aggression and "defense" budgets.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adding a few thousand more pieces of debris would not be even remotely as bad as using a tactical nuclear weapon in war would be. The worst effect would be a nuclear weapon in space. The resulting EMP would probably fry more than enough electric and electronic devices to throw back whatever country is hit by it by decades .

The US famously did that in the 60s (detonating nukes at roughly the height of today's ISS)[1]. Also some less famous ones, including a Soviet test that resulted in the EMP destroying a power plant [2]. Properly aimed at a populated area it would be devastating. And you can detonate bombs far from your enemy's country, then let earth's magnetic field lines transfer the EMP pulse to their territory. Good luck defendin…

Depends? Think southern part of the United Kingdom with London and some harbours, Belgium, Netherlands, German Rhine-Ruhr Area. All with one 'stone'. Use some more stones for other large agglomerations, like Frankfurt am Main, Paris. While were at it: Hamburg+Denmark+southern Sweden. Moscow, St.Petersburg. Greater Los Angeles would be as bad. Silicon Valley/Bay Area. As would be anything around NYC/Washington DC/Philly/Baltimore. Seattle+Vancouver? Great Lakes? Any Chinese megacity? India? All of this wouldn't need that much nukes.

All of these are more vulnerable today, because of more dependency on electronics, even if they are hardened against shit like that, or in general, but many of them aren't. Which leads to cascades of dominoes falling, taking others with them.

I really wouldn't like to see that tested today at those scales.

Post reply on HN