2 ms·
US military reveals it has weapons in space
- Avicebron 1mo agoDo we need a new MAD treaty? Maybe agree on doing something positive for once?
- ygjb 1mo agoNo one is signing an arms reduction treaty or giving up weapons while Russia has troops in Ukraine. That's an object lesson in relying on paper barriers that the whole world is watching.
- mikeyouse 1mo agoI mean, true, but also, nobody is going to give up weapons while the US is kidnapping heads of state, launching decapitation strikes and invading a half dozen new countries.
- treapassing-sil 1mo agoTrue, It will be a decade before it'll even be considered. Even then...I wouldnt trust my country.
- nickff 1mo agoThe Libyans gave up their WMD program shortly after the USA invaded Iraq…
- mainecoder 1mo agoand look what happened to them ....
- ButlerianJihad 1mo agoWhat if Reagan and Gorbachev signed while the Soviet troops were fighting in Afghanistan? [Mongolia… Cambodia…] What object lesson was that? M.A.D. … “treaty”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction#Official_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction#O...
- MiroslavPokorny 1mo agoDont worry it doesnt work, just ask the Houthis or Iranians. If it worked both straits would be open yesterday.
- NickHirras 1mo agohttps://archive.ph/KnfSn https://archive.ph/KnfSn
- aghuang 1mo agoSituations like this just get unfortunately more worse as time goes on. Just more escalation which is not good.
- treapassing-sil 1mo agoOnly direction this goes is towards escalation now. All for ego. People like,Troy Meink, should never be allowed to speak on behalf of our future. No country will ever trust a US led disarmament treaty. Unless entire population stands up to show we won't put up with this ever again. And that the military and leaders back the people's will.
- gregglain 1mo agoNor one from Russia.
- x______________ 1mo agoWhen humanity's interests will matter more than a single country or handful of peoples' interests, stuff like this will stop.
- pacifika 1mo agoI thought our climate survival would have been that.
- HDBaseT 1mo ago[flagged]
- dang 1mo agoSince we asked you not to post like this and you've done it anyhow, I've banned the account.
- bionade24 1mo agoThis is gonna reignite X-37B purpose speculations. Can't wait for the new ridiculous stuff internet people will come up with.
- vintagedave 1mo agoI remembered the 1967 Outer Space Treaty as preventing militarisation of space. It turns out, not wholly. Celestial bodies (the moon, asteroids, etc) are out of bounds completely and are only for 'peaceful purposes'. For space itself, the ban is on WMDs, like nuclear weapons, in space anywhere.[0] But the US has maintained a polite fiction that space is not weaponised/militarised. This is a break from that. The wording[1], > The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action. is stated as 'That phrase was very well thought out.'. It looks like they're positioning it as purely defensive. Which is allowed but being open about it legitimises the concept of weapons in space. It's worrying, and potentially destabilising. I expect they mean it as a deterrent but I frankly this it's irresponsible in that it invites an open presence from other countries too. [0]: You can download a PDF here: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280128cbd https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000... and the relevant section is Article IV. [1] https://aviationweek.com/defense/missile-defense-weapons/us-has-space-weapons-orbit-now-air-force-secretary-says https://aviationweek.com/defense/missile-defense-weapons/us-... (I can't read the FT link, paywall, but the FT is not a great source these days anyway.)