https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13089227/republicans-capability-russia-anti-satellite-alarmist.html
Republicans question if the US has the capability to respond
to Russia attacking its satellites: GOP infighting continues
as some raise concern about American strength in space and
others criticize 'alarmist' warning
. . .
More panic over a currently non-existent Russian weapon.
It has already been proven that ground or air-launched
missiles can hit satellites. China and Russia made a big
mess in orbit proving this a couple years ago.
However a laser-based sat killer could zap a lot more
sats a lot quicker - with no telltale missiles rising
and the time-delay involved.
As for western mil/comm sats ... they are NOT armored.
That'd add WAY WAY too much weight. A couple taps from
a strong pulsed laser and that'd be that. Even shiny
foils might not offer much protection and in many apps
would interfere with radio transmissions and/or
solar panels. Di/Trichrotic mirror film MIGHT get
past some of those problems, but you kinda need to
know the enemy laser frequency ahead of time.
Despite sci-fi, particle beams are likely NOT very
good for long-range attacks in Earth orbit. Maybe
something like a "micro-missile", maybe the size of
a pencil, with a really smart guidance system, could
be employed.
So, the best protection is to NOT have the fuckin' war
in the first place. Nobody really wins ; they just get
the honor of rotting to death a couple weeks later on.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13089227/republicans-capability-russia-anti-satellite-alarmist.html
Republicans question if the US has the capability to respond
to Russia attacking its satellites: GOP infighting continues
as some raise concern about American strength in space and
others criticize 'alarmist' warning
. . .
More panic over a currently non-existent Russian weapon.
On 2/15/2024 8:20 PM, 68g.1509 wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13089227/republicans-capability-russia-anti-satellite-alarmist.html
Republicans question if the US has the capability to respond
to Russia attacking its satellites: GOP infighting continues
as some raise concern about American strength in space and
others criticize 'alarmist' warning
. . .
More panic over a currently non-existent Russian weapon.
From your cited article:
"White House national security spokesman John Kirby seemingly confirmed reports that the threat was related to Moscow's plan to put a nuclear
weapon into space to target and destroy satellites the world depends on
for communication."
Could be the feared EMP space weapon that could knock out electronics
and power plants in a targeted, land based area. Hardly "panic" on the
part of concerned Americans, and it seems to be speculation on your part
that the weapons are "non-existent." The Kremlin has learned valuable lessons about Western capabilities from the war in Ukraine, much to the detriment of the West, IMHO.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, 68g.1509 wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13089227/republicans-capability-russia-anti-satellite-alarmist.html
Republicans question if the US has the capability to respond
to Russia attacking its satellites: GOP infighting continues
as some raise concern about American strength in space and
others criticize 'alarmist' warning
. . .
More panic over a currently non-existent Russian weapon.
It has already been proven that ground or air-launched
missiles can hit satellites. China and Russia made a big
mess in orbit proving this a couple years ago.
However a laser-based sat killer could zap a lot more
sats a lot quicker - with no telltale missiles rising
and the time-delay involved.
As for western mil/comm sats ... they are NOT armored.
That'd add WAY WAY too much weight. A couple taps from
a strong pulsed laser and that'd be that. Even shiny
foils might not offer much protection and in many apps
would interfere with radio transmissions and/or
solar panels. Di/Trichrotic mirror film MIGHT get
past some of those problems, but you kinda need to
know the enemy laser frequency ahead of time.
Despite sci-fi, particle beams are likely NOT very
good for long-range attacks in Earth orbit. Maybe
something like a "micro-missile", maybe the size of
a pencil, with a really smart guidance system, could
be employed.
So, the best protection is to NOT have the fuckin' war
in the first place. Nobody really wins ; they just get
the honor of rotting to death a couple weeks later on.
What's the smallest size missile from orbit that would cause enough
damage to justify the costs of getting it there in the first place?
I'm thinking something sci-fi like like a cloud of small missiles
raining down on the enemy.
On 2024-02-16, Lucas McCain <Lucas_McCain@tutanato.com> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 8:20 PM, 68g.1509 wrote:It's probably a "wag the dog" ploy to get the Hur report out of the press.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13089227/republicans-capability-russia-anti-satellite-alarmist.html
Republicans question if the US has the capability to respond
to Russia attacking its satellites: GOP infighting continues
as some raise concern about American strength in space and
others criticize 'alarmist' warning
. . .
More panic over a currently non-existent Russian weapon.
From your cited article:
"White House national security spokesman John Kirby seemingly confirmed
reports that the threat was related to Moscow's plan to put a nuclear
weapon into space to target and destroy satellites the world depends on
for communication."
Could be the feared EMP space weapon that could knock out electronics
and power plants in a targeted, land based area. Hardly "panic" on the
part of concerned Americans, and it seems to be speculation on your part
that the weapons are "non-existent." The Kremlin has learned valuable
lessons about Western capabilities from the war in Ukraine, much to the
detriment of the West, IMHO.
On 2/16/24 4:42 AM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, 68g.1509 wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13089227/republicans-capability-russia-anti-satellite-alarmist.html
Republicans question if the US has the capability to respond
to Russia attacking its satellites: GOP infighting continues
as some raise concern about American strength in space and
others criticize 'alarmist' warning
. . .
More panic over a currently non-existent Russian weapon.
It has already been proven that ground or air-launched
missiles can hit satellites. China and Russia made a big
mess in orbit proving this a couple years ago.
However a laser-based sat killer could zap a lot more
sats a lot quicker - with no telltale missiles rising
and the time-delay involved.
As for western mil/comm sats ... they are NOT armored.
That'd add WAY WAY too much weight. A couple taps from
a strong pulsed laser and that'd be that. Even shiny
foils might not offer much protection and in many apps
would interfere with radio transmissions and/or
solar panels. Di/Trichrotic mirror film MIGHT get
past some of those problems, but you kinda need to
know the enemy laser frequency ahead of time.
Despite sci-fi, particle beams are likely NOT very
good for long-range attacks in Earth orbit. Maybe
something like a "micro-missile", maybe the size of
a pencil, with a really smart guidance system, could
be employed.
So, the best protection is to NOT have the fuckin' war
in the first place. Nobody really wins ; they just get
the honor of rotting to death a couple weeks later on.
What's the smallest size missile from orbit that would cause enough damage >> to justify the costs of getting it there in the first place?
I'm thinking something sci-fi like like a cloud of small missiles raining >> down on the enemy.
HUMAN/military targets ??? Mostly you're talking something
kinda larger there - plus they'd need shielding to even
survive re-entry. Satellites are fragile, even a very
small frag-charge would screw 'em up.
As for stuff "raining down", we already have those - they
are called 'cluster munitions'.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 46:14:26 |
| Calls: | 6,910 |
| Files: | 12,377 |
| Messages: | 5,429,524 |