this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
204 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
73534 readers
2457 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- 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
view the rest of the comments
I suppose most space-tier countries make research on the theme of muting/blinding the satellites. It is just common sense.
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.
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.
Yes. For a non space-tier power. Their utility for space/LEO comms are valuable, but peripheral. Never going fully high tech, keeps the legacy systems in use and in current practice. Whereas a power like the US doesn’t do shit without a LINK net established and maintained, because we’ve forgotten/are unwilling to use the old methods.
It’s the Ukraine-Russo problem in the Black Sea, but applied to space. Denial is easier than presence, and even easier than dominance. If you can’t compete, why let them use it they way they want, or at all?
But China IS a space-tier power...
I am still not convinced because you are missing the political implications: Blocking LEO for your opponent means blocking it for everyone, friend or foe alike.
Unless we are talking about an all out two sided world war with no neutral parties blocking space is out of the question. It's the same reason we don't see nations using nuclear weapons: Their use would cause world wide condemnation and at best sanctions against you, at worst more enemy combatants.