AeternusDoleo t1_ixmf2nh wrote
"Ion cannon ready."
I do wonder if this kind of thing does not violate the conventions about the weaponization of space.
ohiotechie t1_ixmjmm6 wrote
Hasn’t communication satellite killing missiles already done that? (Serious question not sarcasm).
AeternusDoleo t1_ixmju3b wrote
Those are surface to space. Not space based as far as I'm aware. This is potentially a weapon that can strike from orbit, if it can deliver enough concentrated power at a specific location.
ohiotechie t1_ixmlqge wrote
Ok that distinction makes sense.
ToastyMustache t1_ixpo96y wrote
Hell, it doesn’t even need to do orbital strikes; if the beam is powerful enough it can affect other satellites.
Aero-Nautic t1_ixo7p8m wrote
The Outer Space Treaty only bans the stationing of WMDs in space and military activities (establishing of bases, military maneuvers, minefields, etc) on the surfaces of other celestial bodies.
Edit: See Article IV of the treaty for reference
>States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
>The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manœuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
PussyMassage t1_ixpeybq wrote
It is top secret, but the US already has space-borne nukes. I learned this from a person I know and trust who should NOT have told me. That this is denied and that no other nation on Earth has criticized the US for violating this treaty likely indicates that other nations are in defiance as well.
AeternusDoleo t1_ixqvdcn wrote
Sadly, that's a little heavy on the severity of a claim, and a little low on the backing up of that claim. Not to say that I don't expect the major powers to have space based satellite interception at the very least by now. That recent "secret military" payload on the Falcon Heavy for example... wouldn't be surprised if that was something like that.
PussyMassage t1_ixrdq5y wrote
I could never conceivably back up this claim, and if I could, it would mean I was involved in espionage. I don't know this to be true for certain, but again, I was told this directly by a person I know to be trustworthy, who would have reason to know, and who made a very grave error in telling me. It is, however, such juicy information that flies in the face of what folks "know to be true" that I feel like it's my duty and honor to expose this information.
If folks want to believe our national security is dependent on ICBMs, sub-launched missiles, or airborne bombers alone, that's fine. However, there are already nuclear warheads deployed in space.
AeternusDoleo t1_ixsaba7 wrote
Then we're in for interesting times during a solar storm...
PussyMassage t1_ixsetap wrote
Probably a well-mitigated consideration, if it truly exists.
Vecna_Is_My_Co-Pilot t1_ixoz6o0 wrote
It’s like Iran making highly enriched uranium for civilian power generation only. That’s all they want it for. Honest.
No-Satisfaction3455 t1_ixn9l6x wrote
those are like guidelines and as long as the weapons are for "science" not war then it's fair game. we have a few weaponized up there ourselves, for "science" of course.
plus i think the beam will be indistinguishable to the average human at the power level in the article. so not scary space lasers
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments