this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
132 points (93.4% liked)

World News

49151 readers
2002 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 17 points 2 years ago (4 children)

why would you need a Nuke against a satellite? youd think a good laser would do pretty well in close proximity with a lot less debris

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Widespread EMP could take out many satellites at once.

A nuclear detonation is just the only practical way to generate a giant one.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 10 points 2 years ago

The magic part is that you launch the nuke through the satellite, then it falls back to earth on top of your enemy.

Or perhaps the debris is the point?

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I mean... The nuke would work though

[–] lemmylommy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Too big and too high power requirements

[–] 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They could try to develop anti satellite technology like building roofs over their vehicle lots so we can't watch them pull 60 year old tanks to the front in real time but no, another doomsday weapon it is...

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Your thinking is old school and not at all dynamic enough for the modern battlefield. Mount the roofs on top of the vehicles instead. It'll fool everyone. "What's that? Oh it's just a convoy of cottages being moved south for the winter, or summer or whatever."

[–] goatmeal@midwest.social 8 points 2 years ago

From reading other stuff it seems much more likely that its a nuclear powered satellite jammer, not a nuclear satellite weapon. Nuclear powered would allow it to more effectively jam for longer distances/periods of time. We all have nuclear powered satellites in orbit which breaks no nuclear treaties so it sounds like they're being intentionally vague for some russia fearmongering.

Not to say it's not bad tho - it could take out commercial satellites like starlink very effectively and we know how critical that's been for Ukraine/would be for Taiwan

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Russia can't even make ball bearings or a modern working tank and jet, and their technology is consistently proven to be beaten by 40 year old equipment... I don't think this is going to be a serious threat.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They already have functional orbital rockets and nukes... A nuclear space-based EMP isn't much of a leap from there.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Says who? Russia?

They can’t even attend the Olympics without cheating their asses off.