40
submitted 2 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Vorticity@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Didn't China also demonstrate their ability to destroy a satellite from a different satellite about a decade ago? I remember it creating a huge uproar because of the massive amount of space debris it created.

Also, given our military budget, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we did go to the expense of putting massig tungsten rods in orbit.

[-] moth@anarchist.nexus 1 points 13 hours ago

perhaps, but this is one of the instances where I actually believe it didn't happen. not because the US is trustworthy, but because tungsten rods of that size would weigh incredible amounts. how many of those could be lifted at once? and every time you launch one, you have to spend more time and money putting it back. why do that when there are cheaper and easier ways to strike a target? the cost benefit ratio is just so out of proportion that I believe even the US military, which is famous for stupid ideas, would decide against going through with it.

not to mention that space weapons are only really viable so long as your adversaries aren't sure they're a weapon. Russia has anti-satelite missiles they can launch from the ground. china has "tug boat" satellites that can push other satellites out of orbit. these space-based weapons are incredibly vulnerable to counterattack. they can reliably work exactly once. I don't think either country would allow the US to have a reloadable kinetic strike platform in space if they could destroy it. the US population isn't likely to be willing to go to war because a space gun was blown up. that would be a pretty hard sell, especially since the nation responsible would probably throw their hands up and deny it.

this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
40 points (95.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

9473 readers
823 users here now

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS