3 ms·
Just a side note: The BBC article isn't about anti-satellite weapons generally. It's about a satellite that is itself an anti-satellite weapon. The key differen
by DFHippie 6y ago
Just a side note: The BBC article isn't about anti-satellite weapons generally. It's about a satellite that is itself an anti-satellite weapon. The key difference is that this is a weapon in orbit. Blowing up satellites is bad no matter where the weapon sits, but this is the difference relevant to treaty obligations.
- vkou 6y ago> The key difference is that this is a weapon in orbit... but this is the difference relevant to treaty obligations. Conventional weapons in orbit aren't illegal, and there are no treaty obligations that prohibit them. The BBC either didn't do the most rudimentary research, or is engaging in misleading propaganda. (It is quite ironic to find that a subthread about Russian propaganda is rooted in a such a fundamental error of fact. We are well and truly in the post-truth era.)