this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
205 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

73602 readers
3009 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 39 points 4 days ago (10 children)

I suppose most space-tier countries make research on the theme of muting/blinding the satellites. It is just common sense.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 14 points 4 days ago (9 children)

I thought it was denial of capacity. Satellites loaded with small ball bearings wrapped around high explosives to not only destroy satellites in a short term low orbit version of kessler syndrome, but to keep LEO full of satellite destroying shit for a while to deny relaunching new satellites.

A 500km orbit like Starlink means unassisted objects can stay up for almost 10 years. Long enough for war, short enough to not permanently damage space.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 7 points 4 days ago (8 children)

Is this scorched ~~earth~~ space tactic viable though?

Looking at the sort of tech militaries are heavily investing in at the moment, many require long range communication to work to their full potential. Sure, there is also the push to add object recognition and other smart systems to unmanned vehicles, but those are mainly intended to take care of the final approach where potential interferences are strongest.

Also surveillance satelites are irreplaceable in their capabilities.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Is it viable?

If your opponent's use of the LEO space and satelites is more effective, more critical and beneficial to their operations than yours by a wide enough degree, then yes, scortched space is viable.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, the advantage has to be colossal because not only are you denying your opponent the use of LEO but the whole world. This is guarantied to make some new friends.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] einkorn@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

More than a little naive, the Geneva Conventions, and nuclear M.A.D. Have been proving it wrong for decades.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)