3 ms·

Whenever I see an X-37B post, I like to remind people its real purpose is to keep one or more nukes on-orbit at all times. Do I have proof? No. Why not a satell

by BMc2020 4y ago

Whenever I see an X-37B post, I like to remind people its real purpose is to keep one or more nukes on-orbit at all times. Do I have proof? No. Why not a satellite? Satellites run out of fuel, eventually break and need to be de-orbited before they do. It's against treaty to keep nukes in space. X-B37 has plausible deniability, and the nukes don't take up the whole cargo bay so you can still have room for experiments. Why? It's a great first strike weapon without a detectable missile launch. If terrorists are building a nuke you can drop it on them and make it look like they blew themselves up. Last ditch asteroid defense. Am I against it? Not really. But I do believe in an informed citizenry. YMMV.

vinibrito 4y ago
I thought the same, and I agree that treaties wont keep nations from using orbit and space based weapons, but I also think that this nuke idea is too simple to be the truth. Perhaps something more complex is in play.
- euroderf 4y ago
  Heck, it could be a negotiating "table" (i.e. environment) where we meet f2f with the silicon-based entities behind the tic-tac UAPs.
PaulHoule 4y ago
What's the point? A nuclear weapons satellite could drop down on a target that close to its path very quickly. With wings it could divert itself a few hundred miles one way or another, but it could wait a long-long time before it gets near a target. It takes 90 minutes to complete one orbit, it might 20 or so orbits before you get close to a given target. Compare that to an ICBM or SLBM which can hit any target in 30 minutes or less. The enemy can see it coming, but ICBMs can be delivered in a great big volley whereas an X-37B could carry a very limited number of warheads. The X-37B could deliver a sneak attack planned far ahead of time but it would be unlikely to be decisive, particularly when the Russians have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_s... covering Moscow Oblast.

vinibrito 4y ago

I thought the same, and I agree that treaties wont keep nations from using orbit and space based weapons, but I also think that this nuke idea is too simple to be the truth. Perhaps something more complex is in play.

euroderf 4y ago
Heck, it could be a negotiating "table" (i.e. environment) where we meet f2f with the silicon-based entities behind the tic-tac UAPs.

PaulHoule 4y ago

What's the point? A nuclear weapons satellite could drop down on a target that close to its path very quickly. With wings it could divert itself a few hundred miles one way or another, but it could wait a long-long time before it gets near a target. It takes 90 minutes to complete one orbit, it might 20 or so orbits before you get close to a given target. Compare that to an ICBM or SLBM which can hit any target in 30 minutes or less. The enemy can see it coming, but ICBMs can be delivered in a great big volley whereas an X-37B could carry a very limited number of warheads. The X-37B could deliver a sneak attack planned far ahead of time but it would be unlikely to be decisive, particularly when the Russians have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_s... covering Moscow Oblast.