4 ms·
I have yet to see any ASAT tech, from any country, that isn't mutually destructive. Kinetic ASAT weapons create debris that affects everyone in space. EMP ASA
by TrackerFF 3y ago
I have yet to see any ASAT tech, from any country, that isn't mutually destructive.
Kinetic ASAT weapons create debris that affects everyone in space.
EMP ASAT weapons would also affect nearby satellites. For example, if they wipe out their own Glonass satellites, their own weapons systems (which are dependent on Glonass) would suffer - and their ground-based systems (Loran) has limited cover and accuracy. Goodbye to weapons that need accurate navigation/guidance.
It is mentioned that these would be some absolute last ditch measures...so do keep that in mind. About as last ditch as conventional use of nuclear weapons. If that time comes around, we're all going to be pretty screwed either way.
- baybal2 3y ago[dead]
- anon-sre-srm 3y agoASAT that doesn't involve strong mechanical capture like a net and deorbiting is a bad idea™ from the outset. That's not really feasible and there are very, very few legitimate needs to shoot down any satellite. Plus, the prospect of an arms race or open conflict in the final frontier doesn't help global security or anything else except murderous, megalomaniacal autocrats intent on say destroying a GNSS that would only have the effect of escalating painful reprisals.
- LargeTomato 3y agoI can think of a few extremely good reasons to go "Deathcon 3" against military satellites. For example, if the enemy derives more benefits from space than you do.