4 ms·

Not that the US ever gave a shit about international treaties.

_djo_ 11d ago
To be fair, this move is coming after fairly strong evidence that Russia and China have been breaking the treaty by deploying weapons into space for years. Which the US has highlighted many times in the past. At some point you have to acknowledge that the treaty is no longer being respected, and match capabilities to avoid being left at a disadvantage. That said, I'm sure there were tons of people in the US military establishment who had been pushing for this for decades and were ecstatic at being allowed to do it at a broad scale.
- aa-jv 11d ago
  >fairly strong evidence Got some?
  - _djo_ 11d ago
    Sure. 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...
    - aa-jv 11d ago
      I see a lot of fear-mongering reports from sources claiming authority. I don't see any evidence.
      - _djo_ 11d ago
        What kind of evidence are you expecting? Detailed photographs of the satellites on orbit? These are credible institutions, with their statements regarding unusual orbital movements backed up by observations made by several independent groups.
        aa-jv 11d ago
        I'd like to see evidence which supports the claims and not have to rely on a call to authority fallacy[1] in order to agree with this collective-derived reality. I have no doubt that there are weapons in space - Russian, Chinese, American - why wouldn't there be? - but I still want to see actual evidence. None of the sources you give are impartial - all of them serve to profit from perpetuating fear of Chinese space activities. Too often, xenophobic movements rely on authority figures to perpetuate their myths. Don't you agree? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
        voidUpdate 11d ago
        What evidence would satisfy you that there are weapons in space? You either have to check yourself somehow, or trust a third party. Is there a third party you trust to provide evidence?
        aa-jv 11d ago
        The article from The Space Review comes pretty close to providing some actual evidence. There are no trustworthy third parties when it comes to xenophobic agitprop.
        voidUpdate 11d ago
        What extra would you want from the space review article that would constitute actual evidence for you?
- voidUpdate 11d ago
  Russia was at least planning to launch a space-to-space laser back in 1987, but the prototype (essentially just a mass simulator, no lasers inside) failed on launch quite spectacularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft)
  - _djo_ 11d ago
    Russia also seems to have tested the release of a sub-satellite from another satellite, perhaps a precursor to a kinetic space-launched weapon. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secretive-russian-military-satellites-release-mystery-object-into-orbit/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secretive-russian...
- Gregkion 11d ago
  [flagged]
  - _djo_ 11d ago
    If they did, then all three are equally guilty of breaching the treaty and making weapons in space a new norm. That's plausible, sure. If they didn't, it makes sense why they'd choose to compete on the same playing field now, as the norm is already broken. None of what I'm posting is about saying the US are the 'good guys' here. Neither the US, Russia, nor China are 'good' for creating a new space arms race that puts everyone at more risk. It might be something we can understand from a purely rational perspective while disliking that it's happening.
    - maxglute 11d ago
      >equally guilty Not really, LBH, if RU and PRC ask US to kneecap US launch tempo or set some Washington naval treaty tonnage to space limits, US would lol. Rationally US (hegemonic stability) is incentivized to be uniquely bad, i.e. significantly MORE guilty of introducing new/more escalatory arms race conditions by virtue of having most space capability/tech stack, and incentivized to maintain capability gap. US typical the one pushing boundaries to seek absolute security because it cannot (and currently does not have to) accept parity. Followed by RU simply because they're broke and have to do desperate shit like Cosmos 2542. Meanwhile PRC counterspace rollout has been within norm, i.e. match capability of others, land->space direct ascent ASAT, coorbital rendezvous / proximity ops, EW/dazzlers (land+space). PRC cooking from the regular menu, partly because catchup, but PRC also way past RU in space now, but hasn't introduced any destabilizing novel counter space tech that would escalate space arms race except doing normal stuff at scale that triggers US anxiety over size of gap. But ultimately, no one is forcing US to break meta continuously because it rationally won't accept vulnerability. DoD/W didn't have to weaponize SpaceX... but they did, so we should not be surprised in future if general international space admin/order breaks down in future. i.e. US/SpaceX got first come first serve dibs on favourable civilian LEO orbital shells assignment from UN/ITU, but now SpaceX now civil military fusion platform, so probably expect PRC counter space mega constellations to simply ignore US space entitlements in future.
- notahacker 11d ago
  Neither Russia nor China's known weapons deployment is likely to breach the very narrow restrictions of the Outer Space Treaty, and the latest capability the US has vaguely claimed probably doesn't either. In practice, the US has had practical counter space and electronic warfare capabilities in space for decades (even a regular satellite with enough delta V is a viable weapon, but superpowers have more targeted capabilities than that), and the observable difference is that the current administration's approach leans more towards bragging.
  - sesteel 10d ago
    Your comment on Russia and China is false.
    - hunterpayne 10d ago
      The Chinese have been bragging about taking out one of their own satellites in a test of their capabilities for 8 years now. Russia would but they don't have the money to even try. This place is no better than X...seriously...it is just too small for the propaganda operations to target and yet it is still just as bad. I don't even think it is HN's fault, just the skew of the population HN attracts.
      - notahacker 10d ago
        yawns Not even sure who I'm supposed to be propagandising for here, but as the person that actually works on European dual use satellite tech I can assure you it's well established fact that all superpowers have taken out their own satellites with ASAT weaponry (Russia more recently than China fwiw, though China's in-space capabilities are likely a lot better). None of those are a violation of the very narrow anti-WMD proscriptions in the Outer Space Treaty, and whatever counterspace capability the US is vaguely announcing here (or indeed the capability they and their adversaries have had for years) is unlikely to be either.
- PorciiVorbesc 11d ago
  >after fairly strong evidence that Russia and China have been breaking the treaty by deploying weapons into space for years. The US invasion of Iraq was also based on "strong evidence" of WMDs.

_djo_ 11d ago

To be fair, this move is coming after fairly strong evidence that Russia and China have been breaking the treaty by deploying weapons into space for years. Which the US has highlighted many times in the past. At some point you have to acknowledge that the treaty is no longer being respected, and match capabilities to avoid being left at a disadvantage. That said, I'm sure there were tons of people in the US military establishment who had been pushing for this for decades and were ecstatic at being allowed to do it at a broad scale.

aa-jv 11d ago
>fairly strong evidence Got some?
- _djo_ 11d ago
  Sure. 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...
  - aa-jv 11d ago
    I see a lot of fear-mongering reports from sources claiming authority. I don't see any evidence.
    - _djo_ 11d ago
      What kind of evidence are you expecting? Detailed photographs of the satellites on orbit? These are credible institutions, with their statements regarding unusual orbital movements backed up by observations made by several independent groups.
      - aa-jv 11d ago
        I'd like to see evidence which supports the claims and not have to rely on a call to authority fallacy[1] in order to agree with this collective-derived reality. I have no doubt that there are weapons in space - Russian, Chinese, American - why wouldn't there be? - but I still want to see actual evidence. None of the sources you give are impartial - all of them serve to profit from perpetuating fear of Chinese space activities. Too often, xenophobic movements rely on authority figures to perpetuate their myths. Don't you agree? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
        voidUpdate 11d ago
        What evidence would satisfy you that there are weapons in space? You either have to check yourself somehow, or trust a third party. Is there a third party you trust to provide evidence?
        aa-jv 11d ago
        The article from The Space Review comes pretty close to providing some actual evidence. There are no trustworthy third parties when it comes to xenophobic agitprop.
        voidUpdate 11d ago
        What extra would you want from the space review article that would constitute actual evidence for you?
voidUpdate 11d ago
Russia was at least planning to launch a space-to-space laser back in 1987, but the prototype (essentially just a mass simulator, no lasers inside) failed on launch quite spectacularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft)
- _djo_ 11d ago
  Russia also seems to have tested the release of a sub-satellite from another satellite, perhaps a precursor to a kinetic space-launched weapon. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secretive-russian-military-satellites-release-mystery-object-into-orbit/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secretive-russian...
Gregkion 11d ago
[flagged]
- _djo_ 11d ago
  If they did, then all three are equally guilty of breaching the treaty and making weapons in space a new norm. That's plausible, sure. If they didn't, it makes sense why they'd choose to compete on the same playing field now, as the norm is already broken. None of what I'm posting is about saying the US are the 'good guys' here. Neither the US, Russia, nor China are 'good' for creating a new space arms race that puts everyone at more risk. It might be something we can understand from a purely rational perspective while disliking that it's happening.
  - maxglute 11d ago
    >equally guilty Not really, LBH, if RU and PRC ask US to kneecap US launch tempo or set some Washington naval treaty tonnage to space limits, US would lol. Rationally US (hegemonic stability) is incentivized to be uniquely bad, i.e. significantly MORE guilty of introducing new/more escalatory arms race conditions by virtue of having most space capability/tech stack, and incentivized to maintain capability gap. US typical the one pushing boundaries to seek absolute security because it cannot (and currently does not have to) accept parity. Followed by RU simply because they're broke and have to do desperate shit like Cosmos 2542. Meanwhile PRC counterspace rollout has been within norm, i.e. match capability of others, land->space direct ascent ASAT, coorbital rendezvous / proximity ops, EW/dazzlers (land+space). PRC cooking from the regular menu, partly because catchup, but PRC also way past RU in space now, but hasn't introduced any destabilizing novel counter space tech that would escalate space arms race except doing normal stuff at scale that triggers US anxiety over size of gap. But ultimately, no one is forcing US to break meta continuously because it rationally won't accept vulnerability. DoD/W didn't have to weaponize SpaceX... but they did, so we should not be surprised in future if general international space admin/order breaks down in future. i.e. US/SpaceX got first come first serve dibs on favourable civilian LEO orbital shells assignment from UN/ITU, but now SpaceX now civil military fusion platform, so probably expect PRC counter space mega constellations to simply ignore US space entitlements in future.
notahacker 11d ago
Neither Russia nor China's known weapons deployment is likely to breach the very narrow restrictions of the Outer Space Treaty, and the latest capability the US has vaguely claimed probably doesn't either. In practice, the US has had practical counter space and electronic warfare capabilities in space for decades (even a regular satellite with enough delta V is a viable weapon, but superpowers have more targeted capabilities than that), and the observable difference is that the current administration's approach leans more towards bragging.
- sesteel 10d ago
  Your comment on Russia and China is false.
  - hunterpayne 10d ago
    The Chinese have been bragging about taking out one of their own satellites in a test of their capabilities for 8 years now. Russia would but they don't have the money to even try. This place is no better than X...seriously...it is just too small for the propaganda operations to target and yet it is still just as bad. I don't even think it is HN's fault, just the skew of the population HN attracts.
    - notahacker 10d ago
      yawns Not even sure who I'm supposed to be propagandising for here, but as the person that actually works on European dual use satellite tech I can assure you it's well established fact that all superpowers have taken out their own satellites with ASAT weaponry (Russia more recently than China fwiw, though China's in-space capabilities are likely a lot better). None of those are a violation of the very narrow anti-WMD proscriptions in the Outer Space Treaty, and whatever counterspace capability the US is vaguely announcing here (or indeed the capability they and their adversaries have had for years) is unlikely to be either.
PorciiVorbesc 11d ago
>after fairly strong evidence that Russia and China have been breaking the treaty by deploying weapons into space for years. The US invasion of Iraq was also based on "strong evidence" of WMDs.