3 ms·

Why would we? It seems the only reasonable place to wage war. Much better, at least, than on land occupied by people.

krapp 6y ago
We should, because the purpose of war in space would be to cripple an enemy's communications and data infrastructure, which would create massive civilian casualties and financial chaos and make terrestrial war even easier.
- enriquto 6y ago
  Not sure how this can be worse than straight up bombing cities as we do today.
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  I can see this being a big thing for China or N. Korea who already don't communicate much outside their country and are more protectionist and have parts of the country that are 3rd world. I mean, what do they have to lose? Not a whole lot, they already censor tons, and I'm sure they'd have redundancies in place on earth to replace tech they'd lose in a space war. While whoever they attack, will not be as prepared for those losses. If a country could control space -- as in destroy all satellites that they don't sanction, or require 'taxes' for satellites, could be hugely profitable endeavor as well for the country. Space itself is a resource.
_iyig 6y ago
Best to avoid Kessler syndrome, where debris in low Earth orbit - such as space warfare might produce - knocks out satellites and makes space travel more hazardous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Say you're china, where part of your country is 3rd world, part industrialized. Say all your competitors are 1st world countries reliant on technology. You already censor the internet, if you could 'survive and thrive' without satellite/space tech, while other countries couldn't (or would have a hard time), wouldn't you be the winner if you could simply knock out space satellites by creating a Kessler effect? You move the countries tech back space-wise and communications wise, but you make it easier to win wars/battles on land potentially and expand your territory, or at the least cripple adversaries like the U.S. or Russia.
yodelshady 6y ago
Yup. We are not going to spend less if you cut aerospace money from the military budget. We'll spend it on some other ill-advised "peacekeeping" venture. The intent may well really be peacekeeping, but frankly that's moot if the results aren't peace.

We should, because the purpose of war in space would be to cripple an enemy's communications and data infrastructure, which would create massive civilian casualties and financial chaos and make terrestrial war even easier.

enriquto 6y ago
Not sure how this can be worse than straight up bombing cities as we do today.
gremlinsinc 6y ago
I can see this being a big thing for China or N. Korea who already don't communicate much outside their country and are more protectionist and have parts of the country that are 3rd world. I mean, what do they have to lose? Not a whole lot, they already censor tons, and I'm sure they'd have redundancies in place on earth to replace tech they'd lose in a space war. While whoever they attack, will not be as prepared for those losses. If a country could control space -- as in destroy all satellites that they don't sanction, or require 'taxes' for satellites, could be hugely profitable endeavor as well for the country. Space itself is a resource.

_iyig 6y ago

Best to avoid Kessler syndrome, where debris in low Earth orbit - such as space warfare might produce - knocks out satellites and makes space travel more hazardous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

gremlinsinc 6y ago
Say you're china, where part of your country is 3rd world, part industrialized. Say all your competitors are 1st world countries reliant on technology. You already censor the internet, if you could 'survive and thrive' without satellite/space tech, while other countries couldn't (or would have a hard time), wouldn't you be the winner if you could simply knock out space satellites by creating a Kessler effect? You move the countries tech back space-wise and communications wise, but you make it easier to win wars/battles on land potentially and expand your territory, or at the least cripple adversaries like the U.S. or Russia.

yodelshady 6y ago

Yup. We are not going to spend less if you cut aerospace money from the military budget. We'll spend it on some other ill-advised "peacekeeping" venture. The intent may well really be peacekeeping, but frankly that's moot if the results aren't peace.