U.S. Seeks to Build World Pressure on Russia Over Space Nuclear Weapon
source link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/24/05/04/225252/us-seeks-to-build-world-pressure-on-russia-over-space-nuclear-weapon
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
U.S. Seeks to Build World Pressure on Russia Over Space Nuclear Weapon
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's nearly 20 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users downloading your project releases today!
An anonymous reader shared this report from the New York Times:
American officials are trying to increase international pressure on Russia not to deploy an antisatellite nuclear weapon in space, and have obtained information that undermines Moscow's explanation that the device it is developing is for peaceful scientific purposes, a senior State Department official said on Friday...
On Friday, Mallory Stewart, the assistant secretary of state for arms control, said that while the United States had been aware of Russia's pursuit of such a device for years, "only recently have we been able to make a more precise assessment of their progress." Ms. Stewart, speaking at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the orbit the Russian satellite would occupy is in a high-radiation region not used by other satellites, information that undercuts Russia's defense that it is not developing a weapon.
-
›
What is anyone going to do to them? Boycott them harder? The world can't be too much more passive aggressive to Russia than they already are.
The best option is to assassinate Putin and let whoever takes his place that no one cares what they do within their own borders and not terribly much what they do outside of them as long as they aren't invading. I'm sure the next dictator would welcome that opportunity to die of old age.-
What do you do when you have a bully in the play yard, you punch them hard and they stop being a bully. The problem with assassinating Putin is that you donâ(TM)t know who will take his place and it undermines the authority of whomever orders it.
The last several years, the US has been passively watching as dictators take their place. And what does the US President do, he says âoedonâ(TM)tâ and then does nothing when they do, just like Obama, draws a red line and when it gets crossed, dra
-
So you're not going to stop a sure catastrophe of fear that you can do another catastrophe? That's just silly
-
Uh, pretty sure that if you assassinate the president of one of the biggest countries in the world, people will pay attention next time you say "don't".
-
-
Historically, I don't think assassination has ever led to an improvement in government.
In general, I think it leads to a new leader who's just as bad, but more paranoid.
There was a period in the Roman empire when emperors lasted about eighteen months or so before being assassinated. There was a story that one prominent Roman had his name suggested as a good choice for emperor, and his response was "I'm not yet so tired of living."
-
Perhaps the best option is to assassinate Bush Jr instead? He's the one responsible for the current mess after all:
https://carnegieendowment.org/... [carnegieendowment.org]
But in truth calling for random assassinations is just flamebait. People in glass houses should not be throwing stones.
-
-
I am in favor of an agreement not to put nuclear weapons in space, but I think that if the US had a way to "put world pressure" on Russia, we have already used it.
The Outer Space Treaty already forbids countries from deploying nuclear weapons space, of course.
-
Yes, the world police need to enforce it.
-
If it were so easy to ban nuclear weapons in outer space then we could just have them banned on Earth.
-
-
Rick: Space Nuclear Weapon? Jesus Morty. You can't just add [*belch*] a sci-fi word to...
(Thank you Quantum Carburetor Scene [youtube.com])
-
-
The Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars program") didn't actually deploy anything during the Reagan years, but it was very much non-nuclear.
Basically, tests during the '60s showed that nuclear explosions in space would be very damaging to pretty much everything in orbit, and the purpose of SDI was to knock out incoming warheads, not destroy everything in space.
-
Wasn’t it more the “threat” of nuclear annihilation from other countries that forced taxpayers to fund imaginary “Star Wars” defenses with real dollars?
You know, kind of like how we’re supposed to believe that space arms race is raging again, so oh noes give us moar monies?
-
No, the Star Wars program was intended to defend against such threats. It was sold to the Israelis because nobody could get it to work, they made the Iron Dome system from it, it works great.
-
-
Of course banning all weapons in space would eliminate a lot of spy satellites. This is not about t nuclear weapons that would be used to attack earth targets. Those are already banned. This is about nuclear weapons designed to take out military targets in space. Specifically communication and spy satellites. I understand why we would want to protect those assets but I am not sure why using nuclear warheads to take them out is inherently worse than shooting them down with conventional weapons.
I suspect th
-
-
Russia has already said there's an Outer Space treaty that forbids nuclear weapons and WMDs in space. Why is the US grandstanding?
Russia repeatedly said they had no intention of invading Ukraine [npr.org]. Russia has also signed the Budapest Memorandum [harvard.edu] which said no parties to the agreement, of which Russia is one, would attack Ukraine except in self-defense.
Why should we believe anything Russia says?
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
-
only the stupidest motherfucker on the planet would believe a single word out of the russians
-
-
I suspect with Ukraine still utilizing Starlink that Russia will need to use slightly more than “one”.
-
> I am not sure why using nuclear warheads to take them out is inherently worse than shooting them down with conventional weapons.
I tend to agree. Conventional weaponry still gives you Kessler's Syndrome, and in space you're not typically worried about fallout or pressure waves. The advantage of a nuke might be to clear out a large volume of an orbit quickly, but then again there's a LOT of distance between things out there.
But I think maybe you're underestimating the utility of space as a platform fro
-
-
No wonder people think we're pansies.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK