@Wilshire to World NewsEnglish • 8 months agoWhite House confirms Russia developing 'anti-satellite capability'abcnews.go.comexternal-linkmessage-square12arrow-up1161arrow-down110
arrow-up1151arrow-down1external-linkWhite House confirms Russia developing 'anti-satellite capability'abcnews.go.com@Wilshire to World NewsEnglish • 8 months agomessage-square12
minus-squareoriginaluciferlinkfedilink18•8 months agowhy 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
minus-square@AllonzeeLVlinkEnglish29•edit-28 months agoWidespread EMP could take out many satellites at once. A nuclear detonation is just the only practical way to generate a giant one.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish10•8 months agoThe 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?
minus-squarelurch (he/him)linkfedilinkEnglish1•8 months agorussians need some margin when aiming. they always hit kindergardens, when they aim for military facilities. /s
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
Widespread EMP could take out many satellites at once.
A nuclear detonation is just the only practical way to generate a giant one.
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?
I mean… The nuke would work though
Too big and too high power requirements
russians need some margin when aiming. they always hit kindergardens, when they aim for military facilities. /s