villa89 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Awol said: US Defence officials now confirm it’s a new space based capability that’s causing concern. Nukes in space. Haha, FFS. I'm not an expert but isn't it more likely to be some form a laser weapon rather than a nuclear warhead. There are many obstacles to getting nuclear material launched into space and getting it back out of space safely (if needed). Also if it is a weapon in space then why don't Russia just announce it? Not much anyone can do about it once it's already up there. Edited February 14 by villa89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted February 14 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14 I can't believe Russia would have the technical capacity to fire Nuclear Weapons from space, especially with any kind of accuracy. All of their wonder tech seems to be nothing more then a mirage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 7 minutes ago, sidcow said: I can't believe Russia would have the technical capacity to fire Nuclear Weapons from space, especially with any kind of accuracy. All of their wonder tech seems to be nothing more then a mirage. In fairness they can fire them now from under water, into space, and then back into the atmosphere to hit a target 1000’s of Kms away. Dropping it to earth 160km up (with a little bit of booster and guidance to re-enter the atmosphere in the right place) doesn’t seem beyond their technical capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 31 minutes ago, villa89 said: I'm not an expert but isn't it more likely to be some form a laser weapon rather than a nuclear warhead. There are many obstacles to getting nuclear material launched into space and getting it back out of space safely (if needed). Also if it is a weapon in space then why don't Russia just announce it? Not much anyone can do about it once it's already up there. It could just be an anti-satellite weapon like a new type of laser, yes. What doesn’t make sense is why, in that case, it would cause such a big flap? Countries don’t always advertise their newest weapon systems, because if the enemy doesn’t know you have it, they can’t start preparing counter measures or trying to build one of their own. We call those, secrets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Wednesday - Russia puts nukes in Space. Thursday - The Clangers apply for NATO membership. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 15 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Wednesday - Russia puts nukes in Space. Thursday - The Clangers apply for NATO membership. Friday, latest Russian tech disabled in mystery soup based attack. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, chrisp65 said: Friday, latest Russian tech disabled in mystery soup based attack. Saturday: Falls to earth, sinks just off the coast of Crimea. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Awol said: At least that suggests it hasn’t happened yet. A nuke seems overkill doesn’t it? Surely a regular missile could comfortably take out satellites. Edited February 14 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Cool. Can't wait to see how the MAGA types spin this as another reason to make sure we don't send any more aid to Ukraine. Nukes in space are interesting. They're relatively ineffective in a vacuum because they can't create the pressure wave that actually causes most of the damage inflicted by a nuclear weapon, but I wonder if the idea is to generate some kind of EMP effect? I'd have thought having a satellite-based nuke would be a scarier prospect; I imagine it'd be much harder to shoot down than a traditional ICBM where you can detect it on the way up and extrapolate the trajectory. Although to be honest I suspect the idea was more just "launch a nuke into space on a satellite and watch the rest of the world shit themselves about how scary we are" than having a specific use case for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 8 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: I'd have thought having a satellite-based nuke would be a scarier prospect If true then yes, I reckon it’s more the fear factor backed up with a load of bullshit from Putin about being able to destroy any city at a moments notice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 18 minutes ago, Genie said: At least that suggests it hasn’t happened yet. A nuke seems overkill doesn’t it? Surely a regular missile could comfortably take out satellites. As expected it's much ado about nothing. Most likely it's someone (the military) trying to scare congress to pass the aid for Ukraine bill. Russia thinks they might like to put a nuke in space, maybe, sometime, somehow, we think...at least some signs point to that being the case ... sort of... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 14 Administrator Share Posted February 14 3 hours ago, villa89 said: That doesn't sound realistic to me. Can't imagine launching a nuclear warhead on a rocket made of combustible fuel is hugely safe. And how do you decommission the satellite at its end of life? Can't just crash a nuke into the sea. My guess is election interference or Russian funding Trump/MAGA indirectly. It's extraordinarily difficult to set off a nuclear weapon. Putting one on a rocket is not particularly risky. It's how missiles work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 hour ago, Genie said: At least that suggests it hasn’t happened yet. A nuke seems overkill doesn’t it? Surely a regular missile could comfortably take out satellites. Setting off a nuke in low earth orbit would make low earth orbit unusable indefinitely. What it didn’t destroy would be destroyed over time by the accumulated debris - like the movie Gravity. It makes zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982am Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 hours ago, sne said: Mmm... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Awol said: Setting off a nuke in low earth orbit would make low earth orbit unusable indefinitely. What it didn’t destroy would be destroyed over time by the accumulated debris - like the movie Gravity. It makes zero sense. That's an exaggeration. Admittedly I'm not an expert but I reckon it'd probably generate far less debris than a conventional missile would - it'll vaporise everything within its range, which isn't that big in space because there's no air to make a pressure wave, rather than destroying it with shrapnel like missiles do. They mostly generate radiation, which there's plenty of in space anyway. But even if you assume it does act exactly the same way as a conventional missile, a single nuke really isn't going to make low earth orbit unusable (just like the anti-satellite missile tests didn't render space unusable), and certainly not indefinitely. Remember NASA seriously considered using a spaceship engine that was powered by nuclear explosions (called Project Orion), which should indicate how much less of a problem nukes are in space compared to in atmosphere. Edited February 14 by Panto_Villan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 Elon Musk's Starlink will require 42,000 satellites to provide worldwide coverage. There are already over 5,000 in orbit. How could Russia take out a significant percentage very quickly? I think we can guess. Let's see how the childish Musk reacts to a threat that will. requires the US government to protect his asset. Hopefully the US military will charge him an exorbitant fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 15 Moderator Share Posted February 15 I wonder how the Chinese are reacting to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 This is an interesting development Quote Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he would rather a Joe Biden presidency over Donald Trump ahead of the US election this November. Mr Biden was the more experienced, predictable person, he said in remarks sure to raise eyebrows. Before Mr Trump's first run for president in 2016, Mr Putin had praised him as "outstanding and talented". Mr Biden has been a fierce critic of Mr Putin for years, calling him a "killer" before the invasion of Ukraine. Is he being genuine? Or does he not believe Trump can win it and doesn’t want to be seen to lose himself by backing the wrong horse? link 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts