3 ms·
Most countries don’t have the capability to shoot down a spy satellite. Spy satellites couldn’t be hiding a bomb that they could drop. People have generally a
by dave4420 4y ago
Most countries don’t have the capability to shoot down a spy satellite.
Spy satellites couldn’t be hiding a bomb that they could drop.
People have generally agreed that sovereign territorial rights don’t extend into outer space. It would be ridiculous for stars and planets to become e.g. German territory one minute and French territory half an hour later.
- Raed667 4y ago> Spy satellites couldn’t be hiding a bomb that they could drop. Someone hasn't played Call of Duty https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/ODIN_Space_Station https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/ODIN_Space_Station
- webmaven 4y ago> Spy satellites couldn’t be hiding a bomb that they could drop. Although never developed past the conceptual stage, orbital kinetic bombardment is a viable weapon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment It relies on launching significant mass to orbit though (whether that is split into larger "strategic" weapons or many smaller "tactical" ones), so it hasn't been attractive from an ROI standpoint. Interestingly, SpaceX's focus on greater payloads at lower cost may alter the feasibility of such weapons.
- carlosjobim 4y ago> Spy satellites couldn’t be hiding a bomb that they could drop. I have no doubt that several global powers have armed satellites in orbit ready to strike at any moment. And probably since before most of us were born. Are we really to believe all that investment into space flight and no weapons just because we're told that?
- brokenmachine 4y agoIt's physics. It's cheaper to have even ridiculously expensive B2 bombers than spending even more money to put bombs into space. I think it's plausible that they have satellites that can damage other satellites though.