45
US confirms it has weapons in space (www.dw.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/usa@lemmy.ml
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Wasn't their a longstanding no weapons in space treaty signed. What a surprise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    no, that treaty only covered nuclear weapons. it's a poorly kept secret that the US, Russia, and China all have weaponized satellites, the US is just the first to admit to it. there was even a proposal around the turn of the century to put 20ft tungsten rods on satellites for precision kinetic strikes, since that wouldn't violate the treaty. they called them "rods from god". I'm guessing that since we know about it, they didn't actually do it. probably because of the logistics of getting such heavy projectiles into orbit.

    we also know of weapons tests that Russia has done for anti-satelite weapon platforms. presumably they are capable of shooting down NATO communication and GPS satellites if a war ever breaks out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Didn't China also demonstrate their ability to destroy a satellite from a different satellite about a decade ago? I remember it creating a huge uproar because of the massive amount of space debris it created.

    Also, given our military budget, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we did go to the expense of putting massig tungsten rods in orbit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    perhaps, but this is one of the instances where I actually believe it didn't happen. not because the US is trustworthy, but because tungsten rods of that size would weigh incredible amounts. how many of those could be lifted at once? and every time you launch one, you have to spend more time and money putting it back. why do that when there are cheaper and easier ways to strike a target? the cost benefit ratio is just so out of proportion that I believe even the US military, which is famous for stupid ideas, would decide against going through with it.

    not to mention that space weapons are only really viable so long as your adversaries aren't sure they're a weapon. Russia has anti-satelite missiles they can launch from the ground. china has "tug boat" satellites that can push other satellites out of orbit. these space-based weapons are incredibly vulnerable to counterattack. they can reliably work exactly once. I don't think either country would allow the US to have a reloadable kinetic strike platform in space if they could destroy it. the US population isn't likely to be willing to go to war because a space gun was blown up. that would be a pretty hard sell, especially since the nation responsible would probably throw their hands up and deny it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent