4 ms·

> By this logic, every nation needs to ramp up space combat capabilities, because their perceived or real enemies could also do so. It is a typical arm race. I

> By this logic, every nation needs to ramp up space combat capabilities, because their perceived or real enemies could also do so. It is a typical arm race. It going on for other types of warfare at the moment, now there is another dimension. Regarding Petrov, I think there were more than one such cases. I remember reading about a similar case on the US side, afaik the operator that decided against pulling the trigger was disciplined for not following protocol or disobeying orders. This seems benign compared to nuclear though, as mutual strikes don’t lead to mutual destruction.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> This seems benign compared to nuclear though, as mutual strikes don’t lead to mutual destruction. Not necessarily. A core component of the nuclear deterrent is the satellites that detect launches from Russia/China/etc. If someone took a bunch of those out, the fingers on the nuclear button would be significantly twitchier than usual.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Any skirmish in space will give us kessler syndrome, destroy all satellustes and render nost orbits inaccessible for hundreds of years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    As the article notes, blowing things up isn't the only option. Blinding / hacking / deorbiting / etc. a bunch of early warning satellites of one of the major nuclear powers would be a majorly destabilizing move.
    - bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
      But it only takes one losing side to decide - Fuck it, we're losing so 'fire all your guns and explode all in space' to destroy everything in orbit with a massive amount of debris that'll last for years. Russia's little test a few weeks ago showed how that might be. So hopefully that's the MAD scenario that will keep peace in orbital space for a while yet.
- neltnerb 5y ago
  It bears repeating that the US wanted Russia to have earlier warning of launches so that there was a longer time buffer built in before they'd have to decide whether or not a blip was real or not. They still only have five of the six satellites up they'd need to get full coverage. There is no tactical advantage gained by your enemy having less time to react (we're talking minutes-hours right?) unless you are actually attacking, in which case civilization is "dramatically changing" very soon. If nukes are flying, people need to be on the red phone ASAP!!!

ceejayoz 5y ago

> This seems benign compared to nuclear though, as mutual strikes don’t lead to mutual destruction. Not necessarily. A core component of the nuclear deterrent is the satellites that detect launches from Russia/China/etc. If someone took a bunch of those out, the fingers on the nuclear button would be significantly twitchier than usual.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Any skirmish in space will give us kessler syndrome, destroy all satellustes and render nost orbits inaccessible for hundreds of years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  As the article notes, blowing things up isn't the only option. Blinding / hacking / deorbiting / etc. a bunch of early warning satellites of one of the major nuclear powers would be a majorly destabilizing move.
  - bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
    But it only takes one losing side to decide - Fuck it, we're losing so 'fire all your guns and explode all in space' to destroy everything in orbit with a massive amount of debris that'll last for years. Russia's little test a few weeks ago showed how that might be. So hopefully that's the MAD scenario that will keep peace in orbital space for a while yet.
neltnerb 5y ago
It bears repeating that the US wanted Russia to have earlier warning of launches so that there was a longer time buffer built in before they'd have to decide whether or not a blip was real or not. They still only have five of the six satellites up they'd need to get full coverage. There is no tactical advantage gained by your enemy having less time to react (we're talking minutes-hours right?) unless you are actually attacking, in which case civilization is "dramatically changing" very soon. If nukes are flying, people need to be on the red phone ASAP!!!