3 ms·
As long as they're OK with China and other countries having space weapons then all is fine. Everyone is equal with - they all have nukes in space sitting over
by wewewedxfgdf 2mo ago
As long as they're OK with China and other countries having space weapons then all is fine.
Everyone is equal with - they all have nukes in space sitting over each other's countries waiting to drop.
This is fine.
- consensus1 2mo agoYou actually think they don't already?
- markdown 2mo agoNo, of course they don't.
- MattPalmer1086 2mo agoWhat would be the point? MAD relies on everyone knowing you can take them out if they attack you. What does a space weapon offer additionally that makes the huge expense worthwhile?
- porridgeraisin 2mo agoAre you serious? Just because you have nuclear weapons doesn't mean all other forms of military are useless. I don't even know how to parse that argument to respond in more detail.
- MattPalmer1086 2mo agoI was responding to this comment specifically about nukes: >Everyone is equal with - they all have nukes in space sitting over each other's countries waiting to drop
- porridgeraisin 2mo agoMy bad
- nonethewiser 2mo agoI think he was saying China already has weapons in space. Not necessarily nukes.
- trelane 2mo agoKilling opponents' satellites comes to mind. Not every target is on the ground.
- edgyquant 2mo agoSpace based weapons have been discussed as one of the ways to break MAD eg space based systems can see and stop a nuclear missile before it could land
- dingaling 2mo agoMAD is not military doctrine and never has been. It's a philosophical concept that arose in the mid 1960s and gained column-inches in the press because it had a cool and ironic name. Even McNamara rejected it. USA, China and Russia all plan to fight and win wars, not go out in a blaze with the other guy. And that includes 'nuclear warfighting' which involves the ability to command and control nuclear exchanges and come out the other side victorious.
- MattPalmer1086 2mo agoI would argue that despite not being military doctrine, it has been effective. Nuclear deterence is demonstrably real. It is a form of Nash equilibrium. I am not sure there is any limited nuclear exchange that is not so risky as to be worthless unless you just want to die. Space based nuclear weapons do not improve your survivability. Space based nuclear missile interception might - if you could pretty much ensure you could take out the majority of your opponents missiles (star wars). The problem there is it destabilises the Nash equilibrium of MAD and makes it more likely someone will initiate a first strike before your defensive capability is complete...
- consensus1 2mo agoControlling the high ground has been a critical element of warfare ever since the primary weapons were spears. If you want to claim that isn't the case then the burden of proof is on you.
- _djo_ 2mo agoThere have been detailed and credible claims of Chinese space weapons for some time now. https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/202... https://www.ifri.org/en/studies/current-and-future-trends-chinese-counterspace-capabilities https://www.ifri.org/en/studies/current-and-future-trends-ch... https://www.swfound.org/publications-and-reports/2026-global-counterspace-capabilities-report https://www.swfound.org/publications-and-reports/2026-global... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2024.2388658#d1e1232 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2024.2... https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4431/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4431/1 https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Annual_Report/Chapters/Chapter%202%2C%20Section%202%20-%20China%27s%20Space%20and%20Counterspace%20Programs.pdf https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Annual_Report/Chapt...
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- wayeq 2mo ago> they all have nukes in space sitting over each other's countries waiting to drop. The Nukes of Damocles