Russia vetoes a UN resolution calling for prevention of a dangerous nuclear arms race in space
https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-arms-space-un-us-japan-russia-175d45ddb658729eff060bd8a83b8a55?taid=6629622d7eee480001a851e9
137 points · 23 comments · view on lemmy.world
23 Comments
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 2y
What the hell is absurd about limiting nuclear proliferation, Vassily?
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
Abandon all reason and logic, ye who enter the russian / MAGA rhetoric.
This place is not a place of honor.
DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe · 11 pts · 2y
What the hell is an ambassador doing calling something "political"
No shit, idiot, you're a politician.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
"It's absurd that you won't let us have the political win with our populace by looking like a strong country by putting nukes in space" is what he meant.
mindlight@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
Anything you'd get him to answer would be as good as "it's because the Russian economy is booming!"
Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
"Nu-clear weapon is very important part of foreign policy"
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 2y
Why do right wingers want nuclear arms races so badly?
NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth · 11 pts · 2y
Because then they can use the fear to get reelected or pass the laws that they want
IcePee@lemmy.beru.co · 7 pts · 2y
Some of them are Christo-fascist and they just wanna get raptured.
Some of them are nationalist and they think their country is so awesome, it can tank a few nukes.
And some of their number are so mind fucked by machismo and toxic masculinity, that they just want to wave the big stick.
Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 2y
They want to LARP Fallout.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
...why is the article picture of the AMERICAN ambassador?
Extra weird as she happens to be black, unlike 99.92% of the population of "not at all racist" Russia lol
credo@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
Why does Russia have veto power? They weren’t a founding member.
tal@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 2y
I'm pretty sure that the Soviet Union was.
googles
Yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_United_Nations
But as to why they have a veto, they have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. If the UNSC says "do X", and Russia objects, it'd probably be preferable in most cases to not do X and maintain the status quo than for it to be nuclear WW3. I don't think that that'll change unless there's a reliable counter to the Russian arsenal.
The US might be able to pull off a successful first strike, wipe out enough of the arsenal and destroy any remaining counterstrike in the air that no direct nuclear response could happen, but even in that case, it'd be risky and would have colossal costs, kill the nuclear taboo -- very bad news for the world as a whole moving forward -- kill enormous numbers of people and scatter fallout all over. You really, really don't want those things to happen.
Plus, the US cannot counter Russian weapons in a Russia-launches-first scenario.
And the other permanent UNSC seat-holders won't even have the possibility of pulling off a successful first strike, even with the attendant risks and costs.
Nothing else approaching a counter exists today, and preemptively kicking off a nuclear war is a very bad counter, so...
SteefLem@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
zephyreks@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 2y
Isn't the Outer Space Treaty ALREADY covering this exact thing? Come on, people.
miniu@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
In the article it's explained that Russia, China and few other countries voted no because they would want a ban on all of the weapons in space, not only nuclear, which US is against. Which makes the title a little unfair I think.
yetAnotherUser@feddit.de · 1 pts · 2y
NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
Terrible, nukes should've never been a thing
DdCno1@kbin.social · 0 pts · 2y
Maybe, maybe not. Their existence and the mutually assured destruction that comes with it might be the primary factor responsible for preventing WW3 during the Cold War. The "balance of terror" is still working to this day.
ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org · 2 pts · 2y
Time for SDI: Part 2 (mostly kidding)
For the young and unaware: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
tal@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 2y
SDI didn't have nuclear weapons in space.
Some proposals did include anti-ballistic-missile systems being stationed in space, but those had no nuclear payload.
This recent thing about nuclear weapons in space is about use of nuclear weapons in an anti-satellite role, which the US believes Russia is banging on a system for. Problem is that those are indeed pretty good at messing up satellites, but also horribly non-specific and will clobber many, many satellites from many countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion
The US did a test of a high-altitude nuclear explosion back when, not realizing the consequences, back when there were a tiny fraction of today's electronic and satellite infrastructure, messed up terrestrial infrastructure and satellites, and realized that doing these was a very, very bad idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
If Russia uses nuclear weapons in space in an anti-satellite role in 2024, when there's a lot of satellites up there, it's probably going to dick up a hell of a lot of satellites from a hell of a lot of countries. Not to mention any terrestrial effects.
tal@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 2y
I'd also add that, while it's not the subject of the current discussion, non-nuclear kinetic anti-satellite weapons are bad enough; depending upon the altitude of the satellite, they can create long-lasting debris clouds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
The US did one non-nuclear anti-satellite test back when there were few satellites. It took decades for debris to deorbit. India did a relatively-safe, low-altitude one. We'd really, really like to not have especially high-altitude anti-satellite kinetic weapons used, because we don't have a way to clean up the debris field.
Absent the creation of some kind of new technology that can deorbit that debris, we're going to be stuck with that one for generations to come.
subignition@kbin.social · 1 pts · 2y
I was gonna make a dark joke about a silver lining, but I don't think losing Starlink would be worth losing GPS.
ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org · 1 pts · 2y
You're totally right - SDI wasn't nukes in space. Just pointing out the similarities in concept and reaction: