3 ms·

- "Biden administration officials contend that if Russia were to field a nuclear EMP, it would be the first-ever violation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, wh

- "Biden administration officials contend that if Russia were to field a nuclear EMP, it would be the first-ever violation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which bans stationing weapons of mass destruction in outer space." - “It would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty to which more than 130 countries have signed up to, including Russia,” Kirby said Thursday, without providing details." Why would they intend to put nuclear weapons in orbit? That's not necessary for anti-satellite weapons.

serf 3y ago
>Why would they intend to put nuclear weapons in orbit? That's not necessary for anti-satellite weapons. I think the standing theory is that every superpower has some type of weapons platform lurking about in orbit for a 'best-attempt' at first strike capability. Russian accuse the US of putting a bomber in space (X37), Americans accuse China of the same (Shenlong), presumably Russia either has an equivalent or a deterrent for their perceived threat.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
Maybe such a weapon would violate MAD? So it becomes destabilizing? Also, one such Russian weapon would lead to massive budget boots for the US DoD. The MIC loves a good Red scare narrative. As for the 130 counties, that's kinda comical. Only a handful of countries have nukes. Only a handful can put one in orbit. And only one of those countries has actually used nukes.
- jmpman 3y ago
  Wouldn’t you simply put Kamala Harris permanently in a bunker? I believe these types of weapons are for first strike decapitation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Given there are deep ocean subs with nukes, unless you can decapitate those there's no such thing. Moi? The whole idea (survival nuclear war) is so absurd that any such discussion borders on (political) theatre. It's the narrative power dreams up to maintain a state of fear; to justify their existence to the proles. It's a page(s) out of 1984, while the masses are distracted into submission a la Brave New World.

serf 3y ago

>Why would they intend to put nuclear weapons in orbit? That's not necessary for anti-satellite weapons. I think the standing theory is that every superpower has some type of weapons platform lurking about in orbit for a 'best-attempt' at first strike capability. Russian accuse the US of putting a bomber in space (X37), Americans accuse China of the same (Shenlong), presumably Russia either has an equivalent or a deterrent for their perceived threat.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Maybe such a weapon would violate MAD? So it becomes destabilizing? Also, one such Russian weapon would lead to massive budget boots for the US DoD. The MIC loves a good Red scare narrative. As for the 130 counties, that's kinda comical. Only a handful of countries have nukes. Only a handful can put one in orbit. And only one of those countries has actually used nukes.

jmpman 3y ago
Wouldn’t you simply put Kamala Harris permanently in a bunker? I believe these types of weapons are for first strike decapitation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Given there are deep ocean subs with nukes, unless you can decapitate those there's no such thing. Moi? The whole idea (survival nuclear war) is so absurd that any such discussion borders on (political) theatre. It's the narrative power dreams up to maintain a state of fear; to justify their existence to the proles. It's a page(s) out of 1984, while the masses are distracted into submission a la Brave New World.