4 ms·

Combine this technology with the launch cadence and pricing of SpaceX and the implications are astounding. First of all, security. If your opponent has that ki

Combine this technology with the launch cadence and pricing of SpaceX and the implications are astounding. First of all, security. If your opponent has that kind of capability, you cannot meaningfully deploy tanks or any other vehicles anymore. Even infantry will suffer massively once the resolution goes up a notch. On a much smaller level, one could easily detect brake-in attempts on unguarded property. Second, industrial espionage. Want to know how much the competition buys/sells? Plug this data into some form of image recognition. Third, government control. From traffic over demonstrations to "unsocial" behavior, governments at the municipal level could easily inspect "their" people and control their behavior much more efficiently.

shubb 6y ago
Worth noting that we don't know what most spy satellites are, but the US has revealed that it has had a constellation of 5 satellites like this since about 2000. So this is bringing the technology into the civilian sphere with an API 'only'. But yeah, I agree with you about the potential. Also, presumably a constellation imaging the same location from multiple angles could synthesize a super high resolution 3D image?
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
I thought tanks and infantry were already basically done against equiv-tech opponents. They are not sufficiently mobile to dodge the various smart weaponry we have available today.
- choeger 6y ago
  Just look at the Syrian civil war or the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. In both cases, Russia deployed (various quantities of) conventional forces and overwhelmed their (more or less) equally equipped opponents with tanks, vehicles, and infantry by employing better organization, tactical and strategical mobility and, to some degree, air superiority. In both cases, live satellite images at the tactical level would have made such an offensive practically impossible.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Hrm. I don't know enough about the exact makeup of those offenses, but it seems to me that Russia is at least a tier above the other two countries you mentioned in terms of military capability. Especially, it seems like Russia has much more ability to project power via long range guided weapons, and that Russia would be able to establish air superiority over the other two countries if they did try to take the fight to the sky.
- giantg2 6y ago
  As those offesive technologies advanced, so too have the countermeasures. Another part is that you have equal-weight matchups occurring at each level. Your expensive and highly capable platforms will be busy targeting the adversarial platforms that pose the most threat to them (usually expensive systems as well), leaving less time/resources to commit to the lower weight targets. For example, you're not going to get as much air support from either side if the planes are dealing with each other. Of course that is highly generalized as the whole system works as an interdependent mesh.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Maybe? I feel like most of the countries at the top present tech levels could not really absorb the kinds of infantry and mechanized losses that would ensue if they tried to have an actual ground war. Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable. This is to say nothing of the losses that could be inflicted with strategic weaponry (either nuclear or non-nuclear) in a total war. This is part of why I don't expect any future direct wars between world powers.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      "Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable." Even infantry to infantry conflicts against a peer-like adversary would result in unacceptable losses for today's society. "This is part of why I don't expect any future direct wars between world powers." I somewhat agree with that. I think it could be possible in a scenario similar to that video game (Solid Snake?) where countries fight each other in highly mechanized/autonomous fashion - limited loss of life, but high economic costs until one collapses. But yeah, probably more likely to be a cyber war or cold war scenario. Technically we are in a loose proxy war with Russia based on what's going on in Syria.
credit_guy 6y ago
> governments [...] could easily inspect "their" people Governments can now spy on their people via old fashioned surveillance: wire-tapping, informants, social media analysis, etc. If a nation has the checks and balances to prevent that, then it's very likely they'll be able to prevent satellites peeking into your home. If not, it could potentially be another tool in their oppression toolkit, but not terribly efficient compared to the mountains of tools they already have, like traffic light CCTV cameras, highway tollbooths, tracking of credit card payments, tracking of internet-connected personal devices, etc, etc.
- giantg2 6y ago
  There may not be specific laws preventing this sort of surveillance because it is unknown. Sure, you could have it considered as a general 4th ammendment violation which would protect the general population. You'll still have it used against small numbers of high-value targets. I think the main thing preventing widespread use is that once you start using these technologies on a larger scale, then people can identify it's capabilities (making it less effective, especially against the highest value targets) and also creating public backlash once a sufficient number of 'normal' people have been targeted (without getting 'disappeared').
  - EricE 6y ago
    Even if there were laws would they bother to comply? I’m still shocked by how little people understand what Snowden exposed about what the NSA is already doing - if you are concerned about these satellites you should be even more concerned about the other crap already going on that we KNOW the NSA has been lying about.
thesuitonym 6y ago
Doesn't even need to be as high profile as a space launch, we've had high altitude balloons that can do this for some time. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/02/pentagon-balloons-surveillance-midwest https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/02/pentagon-bal...

shubb 6y ago

Worth noting that we don't know what most spy satellites are, but the US has revealed that it has had a constellation of 5 satellites like this since about 2000. So this is bringing the technology into the civilian sphere with an API 'only'. But yeah, I agree with you about the potential. Also, presumably a constellation imaging the same location from multiple angles could synthesize a super high resolution 3D image?

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

I thought tanks and infantry were already basically done against equiv-tech opponents. They are not sufficiently mobile to dodge the various smart weaponry we have available today.

choeger 6y ago
Just look at the Syrian civil war or the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. In both cases, Russia deployed (various quantities of) conventional forces and overwhelmed their (more or less) equally equipped opponents with tanks, vehicles, and infantry by employing better organization, tactical and strategical mobility and, to some degree, air superiority. In both cases, live satellite images at the tactical level would have made such an offensive practically impossible.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Hrm. I don't know enough about the exact makeup of those offenses, but it seems to me that Russia is at least a tier above the other two countries you mentioned in terms of military capability. Especially, it seems like Russia has much more ability to project power via long range guided weapons, and that Russia would be able to establish air superiority over the other two countries if they did try to take the fight to the sky.
giantg2 6y ago
As those offesive technologies advanced, so too have the countermeasures. Another part is that you have equal-weight matchups occurring at each level. Your expensive and highly capable platforms will be busy targeting the adversarial platforms that pose the most threat to them (usually expensive systems as well), leaving less time/resources to commit to the lower weight targets. For example, you're not going to get as much air support from either side if the planes are dealing with each other. Of course that is highly generalized as the whole system works as an interdependent mesh.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Maybe? I feel like most of the countries at the top present tech levels could not really absorb the kinds of infantry and mechanized losses that would ensue if they tried to have an actual ground war. Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable. This is to say nothing of the losses that could be inflicted with strategic weaponry (either nuclear or non-nuclear) in a total war. This is part of why I don't expect any future direct wars between world powers.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    "Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable." Even infantry to infantry conflicts against a peer-like adversary would result in unacceptable losses for today's society. "This is part of why I don't expect any future direct wars between world powers." I somewhat agree with that. I think it could be possible in a scenario similar to that video game (Solid Snake?) where countries fight each other in highly mechanized/autonomous fashion - limited loss of life, but high economic costs until one collapses. But yeah, probably more likely to be a cyber war or cold war scenario. Technically we are in a loose proxy war with Russia based on what's going on in Syria.

credit_guy 6y ago

> governments [...] could easily inspect "their" people Governments can now spy on their people via old fashioned surveillance: wire-tapping, informants, social media analysis, etc. If a nation has the checks and balances to prevent that, then it's very likely they'll be able to prevent satellites peeking into your home. If not, it could potentially be another tool in their oppression toolkit, but not terribly efficient compared to the mountains of tools they already have, like traffic light CCTV cameras, highway tollbooths, tracking of credit card payments, tracking of internet-connected personal devices, etc, etc.

giantg2 6y ago
There may not be specific laws preventing this sort of surveillance because it is unknown. Sure, you could have it considered as a general 4th ammendment violation which would protect the general population. You'll still have it used against small numbers of high-value targets. I think the main thing preventing widespread use is that once you start using these technologies on a larger scale, then people can identify it's capabilities (making it less effective, especially against the highest value targets) and also creating public backlash once a sufficient number of 'normal' people have been targeted (without getting 'disappeared').
- EricE 6y ago
  Even if there were laws would they bother to comply? I’m still shocked by how little people understand what Snowden exposed about what the NSA is already doing - if you are concerned about these satellites you should be even more concerned about the other crap already going on that we KNOW the NSA has been lying about.

thesuitonym 6y ago

Doesn't even need to be as high profile as a space launch, we've had high altitude balloons that can do this for some time. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/02/pentagon-balloons-surveillance-midwest https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/02/pentagon-bal...