5 ms·

What? It's only a 'weapon' if you intentionally de-orbit debris with a real chance of hitting something of value. We have a hard time calculating where current

What? It's only a 'weapon' if you intentionally de-orbit debris with a real chance of hitting something of value. We have a hard time calculating where current space junk will de-orbit because we don't control any variables. With this thing, we would control enough variables to calculate when/where the space junk will impact the earth (assuming it doesn't burn up..), with sufficient accuracy that we could (for example) always hit the middle of the Pacific.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> It's only a 'weapon' if you intentionally de-orbit debris with a real chance of hitting something of value. A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger. Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'. I suppose you think hammers, shoestrings, pebbles, carrots, and and a rotting fish are all weapons too, since they could cause damage if used in anger?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > > A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger. > Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'. No, by the standard definition. A gun is a weapon even before you shoot someone with it, it doesn't transform from a non-weapon to a weapon when that happens.
    - lettergram 8y ago
      Based on the standard definition of weapon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon A firearm is not a weapon it is an armament. An armament only becomes a weapon when it is used to inflict harm.
      - jfk13 8y ago
        I don't think that matches the common understanding of "weapon" in English. A sword, spear, gun, etc., is considered a weapon whether or not it is actually used. An object not normally regarded as a weapon -- a walking-stick, perhaps, or a kitchen knife -- might become a weapon by virtue of its use as one. But military arms are inherently weapons, whether in use or not.
      - guelo 8y ago
        That's not what the link you posted says.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Your link starts with: "A weapon, arm or armament is any device that can be used with intent to inflict damage or harm." Which is means a bat is a weapon even if it's never used in anger.
      - nategri 8y ago
        peak hacker news
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        Posting a link that directly contradicts your argument is not an effective means of supporting it. Well, it can be if your audience doesn't actually follow the link, but that trick is more effective with references in hardcopy where there is non-trivial effort involved in checking references.
    - losteric 8y ago
      So we're all perpetually carrying around weapons, by virtue of having hands/legs/clothing/cellphone batteries/bags/etc?
      - ema 8y ago
        In a sense, yes absolutely. OTOH in another sense this is clearly ridiculous. I suspect this ambiguity is irreducible.
        andrewflnr 8y ago
        Whether something "is a weapon" is about the intent of the maker or the wielder.
      - excalibur 8y ago
        Fun little tangent: https://www.quora.com/Do-martial-artists-have-to-register-their-hands-and-feet-as-weapons https://www.quora.com/Do-martial-artists-have-to-register-th...
  - jerf 8y ago
    "Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'." You're looking at things through the lens of a ground-dweller, where by default, all high-energy events diffuse their energy through the environment in a matter of moments. Even nuclear explosions or asteroid impacts will diffuse in relatively short periods of time. Thus, it is an exception to encounter a configuration of matter that can deliver the sort of concentrated energy and/or mass meant to hurt somebody, and we can assume that they are deliberately created by an intelligence, place such exceptional objects into exceptional cognitive categories and create special laws for them, and so on. In space, there is no such energy diffusion. Anything put into orbit is going much faster than all but the fastest bullets and are much larger to boot, and thus put any firearms you've ever seen to shame. If it's in orbit, and it's still useful which implies it has the ability to maneuver, it's a weapon. It may also be other things, but it is certainly a weapon; everything could be used at the very least to threaten something else. (Think chess here; even threats have real impact.) Even if you can't agree with that, it doesn't matter, because everybody involved with space does and will continue to act accordingly. (The signed agreements not to militarize space are quite pointless, really, and I doubt there's a single signatory to any such agreement that is actually abiding by it even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that a "mere satellite" isn't a weapon despite the manifest untruth of such a stipulation.)
    - unholythree 8y ago
      I think this comment is being downvoted unreasonably. Regardless of the (im-)morality of weaponizing space I'm fairly certain the only binding treaty signed by the space powers addressing weapons in space was The Outer Space Treaty of '66. That only banned nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. As far as the definition of weapon; popular opinion isn't germain if we're discussing a legal matter, only the legal definition and how loose it might be. In the past few decades the US, Russia, and China have all shot down a satellite with missles from Earth, and generated more space junk in the process I might add. If that didn't run afoul of a treaty I don't see how this project could.
- rdtsc 8y ago
  Alright then, what physical object isn't a weapon then? A brick is a weapon, a chair, a hand even. We've just redefined everything as a "weapon", not sure if that is useful. Though, I think we are slightly more afraid than before, which might be the intended goal here.
  - deepsun 8y ago
    Hi, sorry, I should've elaborated. I was referring to US Munitions List: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt22.1.121#se22.1.121_11 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt22.1.121#se22.1... > *(2) Autonomously detect and track moving ground, airborne, missile, or space objects other than celestial bodies, in real-time using imaging, infrared, radar, or laser systems; and maybe other points around it are also applicable.
ch4ch4 8y ago
What if you intentionally de-orbit a critical piece of infrastructure? It could indirectly cause bodily harm, e.g. cause autonomous cars suddenly lose GPS lock and crash into things.
- kornork 8y ago
  I get your point, but in particular GPS satellites are not in LEO.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  GPS is quite redundant. Losing one satellite should not cause crashes. Actually a car that responds to GPS outages by crashing will not be very useful e.g. in tunnels or among tall buildings.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It's only a 'weapon' if you intentionally de-orbit debris with a real chance of hitting something of value. A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger.

craftyguy 8y ago
> A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger. Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'. I suppose you think hammers, shoestrings, pebbles, carrots, and and a rotting fish are all weapons too, since they could cause damage if used in anger?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > > A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger. > Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'. No, by the standard definition. A gun is a weapon even before you shoot someone with it, it doesn't transform from a non-weapon to a weapon when that happens.
  - lettergram 8y ago
    Based on the standard definition of weapon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon A firearm is not a weapon it is an armament. An armament only becomes a weapon when it is used to inflict harm.
    - jfk13 8y ago
      I don't think that matches the common understanding of "weapon" in English. A sword, spear, gun, etc., is considered a weapon whether or not it is actually used. An object not normally regarded as a weapon -- a walking-stick, perhaps, or a kitchen knife -- might become a weapon by virtue of its use as one. But military arms are inherently weapons, whether in use or not.
    - guelo 8y ago
      That's not what the link you posted says.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Your link starts with: "A weapon, arm or armament is any device that can be used with intent to inflict damage or harm." Which is means a bat is a weapon even if it's never used in anger.
    - nategri 8y ago
      peak hacker news
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Posting a link that directly contradicts your argument is not an effective means of supporting it. Well, it can be if your audience doesn't actually follow the link, but that trick is more effective with references in hardcopy where there is non-trivial effort involved in checking references.
  - losteric 8y ago
    So we're all perpetually carrying around weapons, by virtue of having hands/legs/clothing/cellphone batteries/bags/etc?
    - ema 8y ago
      In a sense, yes absolutely. OTOH in another sense this is clearly ridiculous. I suspect this ambiguity is irreducible.
      - andrewflnr 8y ago
        Whether something "is a weapon" is about the intent of the maker or the wielder.
    - excalibur 8y ago
      Fun little tangent: https://www.quora.com/Do-martial-artists-have-to-register-their-hands-and-feet-as-weapons https://www.quora.com/Do-martial-artists-have-to-register-th...
- jerf 8y ago
  "Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'." You're looking at things through the lens of a ground-dweller, where by default, all high-energy events diffuse their energy through the environment in a matter of moments. Even nuclear explosions or asteroid impacts will diffuse in relatively short periods of time. Thus, it is an exception to encounter a configuration of matter that can deliver the sort of concentrated energy and/or mass meant to hurt somebody, and we can assume that they are deliberately created by an intelligence, place such exceptional objects into exceptional cognitive categories and create special laws for them, and so on. In space, there is no such energy diffusion. Anything put into orbit is going much faster than all but the fastest bullets and are much larger to boot, and thus put any firearms you've ever seen to shame. If it's in orbit, and it's still useful which implies it has the ability to maneuver, it's a weapon. It may also be other things, but it is certainly a weapon; everything could be used at the very least to threaten something else. (Think chess here; even threats have real impact.) Even if you can't agree with that, it doesn't matter, because everybody involved with space does and will continue to act accordingly. (The signed agreements not to militarize space are quite pointless, really, and I doubt there's a single signatory to any such agreement that is actually abiding by it even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that a "mere satellite" isn't a weapon despite the manifest untruth of such a stipulation.)
  - unholythree 8y ago
    I think this comment is being downvoted unreasonably. Regardless of the (im-)morality of weaponizing space I'm fairly certain the only binding treaty signed by the space powers addressing weapons in space was The Outer Space Treaty of '66. That only banned nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. As far as the definition of weapon; popular opinion isn't germain if we're discussing a legal matter, only the legal definition and how loose it might be. In the past few decades the US, Russia, and China have all shot down a satellite with missles from Earth, and generated more space junk in the process I might add. If that didn't run afoul of a treaty I don't see how this project could.
rdtsc 8y ago
Alright then, what physical object isn't a weapon then? A brick is a weapon, a chair, a hand even. We've just redefined everything as a "weapon", not sure if that is useful. Though, I think we are slightly more afraid than before, which might be the intended goal here.
- deepsun 8y ago
  Hi, sorry, I should've elaborated. I was referring to US Munitions List: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt22.1.121#se22.1.121_11 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt22.1.121#se22.1... > *(2) Autonomously detect and track moving ground, airborne, missile, or space objects other than celestial bodies, in real-time using imaging, infrared, radar, or laser systems; and maybe other points around it are also applicable.

ch4ch4 8y ago

What if you intentionally de-orbit a critical piece of infrastructure? It could indirectly cause bodily harm, e.g. cause autonomous cars suddenly lose GPS lock and crash into things.

kornork 8y ago
I get your point, but in particular GPS satellites are not in LEO.
jessaustin 8y ago
GPS is quite redundant. Losing one satellite should not cause crashes. Actually a car that responds to GPS outages by crashing will not be very useful e.g. in tunnels or among tall buildings.