• style99@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    9 months ago

    Hmm… Maybe we should be helping prevent ruzzia from doing that somehow. Maybe we should offer some financial assistance to a country that is actively seeking to limit ruzzia’s ability to threaten others. That’s starting to sound like a really good idea.

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        By stressing their military industrial complex capabilities enough so they have to decide whether to build another tank or invest in a satellite.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Ukraine is hitting oil depots as military targets, satellite facilities would be fair game targets as well. No way they aren’t using satellites to get Intel over Ukraine.

  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 months ago

    according to multiple sources familiar with the intelligence.

    Sounds like multiple sources are violating the laws about classified information. Is the urge to gossip with your reporter “friend” really that overpowering?

    • stown@sedd.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      The nukes in space aren’t intended for space targets, they are intended for earth targets.

        • stown@sedd.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          This whole article is speculation. I’m speculating that what they are speculating about is bit incorrect, specifically the point you are making.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          There are but it’s difficult to match the power of a nuke’s EMP if set off 200km above the surface. It deforms the Earth’s magnetic field, resulting in a very quick induced current from the initial deformation, and a slower one that wrecks power stations at the ends of long power lines as it slowly returns to equilibrium. There’s another surge mixed in there, too, though I don’t recall the specific mechanism that causes it, though it’s similar to a lightning strike’s effect on electronics and could be prevented with a surge protector, if the first one hadn’t already destroyed it.

          That’s what I think this is really about. Not disabling satellites (though some would be), but EMPing the entire hemisphere when the grid is absolutely not capable of handling that. Imagine one of those going off Jan 6 2025. Even if government buildings are hardened against EMP (could go either way I suppose), video of what goes on would only get out if a coup fails, and even then only after the fact once the grid has been re-established and who knows what happens in every single city when the trucks can’t bring food in because their electronics are all fried.

          • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I dunno, what you are talking about doesn’t sound new. Just put a nuke on a regular satellite. They already fly in that space. Would it even give off enough radiation to be detected?

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        What is confusing? A nuclear weapon satellite doesn’t even have to get remotely close to the hostile sat. Which means it has to be given a lot of area to be in.

        Ok so you are running a satellite that Russia hates. You know that they are violating the no nukes in space rule. You need to keep your sat far far away from any Russian one. It moves a little closer to you? You have to waste fuel putting some distance. Which decreasing the lifespan of your satellite since it now has less fuel. This is why nukes in space are a very very bad idea. It translates to less satellites up there with shorter lifespans. And since everything can be considered a viable target in war everything has to act like it is.

        To make it worse other governments will honor the treaty and won’t put nukes up there. Which grants Russia control over more orbits since they can break the rules.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Space is big though, you need to be comparatively close to the point that the diff in distance you need between a nuke and an emp device is negligible

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Space is big which is why kinetic impact is hard. Especially given that the enemy satellite can move. So the alternative to precision is to just be able to cover a large area.

          • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not disagreeing with you there. Just saying the difference of area between an emp device and a nuke is probably negligable in space. There was a great write up on the science of this i think on wikipedia, but my search results are now flooded with all the news about russia, so I can’t find it. But I believe it basically said nukes didn’t make sense. But it could have been “traditional” nukes that didn’t make sense.