This is a first for humanity I believe unless you have an example on hand? There are military satellites for communication and recon but no weapons because it's understood that it's not worth the risks.
Yeah you're right. First for humanity then for space to ground weapons only, seems the soviets launched a space to space cannon back in the 60s like you said
To be fair, it's something else than "made the fuck up" when they do provide a line of reasoning.
"Logic insists" is imo too strong of a formulation for that level of speculative reasoning, but it's still not entirely made up, especially when they provide a reason why you'd have to be speculative about the subject.
I think for perfect fairness of discussion that last part would have to be challenged before attacking them speculating that harsh
I see where you're coming from, but I still don't think it's likely personally.
It's simply not worth it. We can already hit any target on earth with a nuclear strike without the added risks and complications that come from putting weapons in space. If you put these targets in space, and an enemy attacks them, globally humanity loses all access to space indefinitely.
That's simply not worth it even just from a pure military perspective given the value to communications, navigation and intelligence that space access provides.
You fundamentally misunderstand Occams Razor. In the choice even between classified satellites and classified satellites with weapons, the former clearly has fewer presuppositions.
Show us evidence, until then it's just a conspiracy theory.
20 Comments
Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 2y
And did they not also then ask the UN to ban weapons in space?
We die because of this abhorrent and malicious juvenile and people like him in other positions of power.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 2y
Great, now we're at much greater risk of Kessler syndrome. Thanks Russia 👍.
Assuming they actually did launch a space weapon of course.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world · -21 pts · 2y
So, how many to one is it now?
:-)
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 2y
This is a first for humanity I believe unless you have an example on hand? There are military satellites for communication and recon but no weapons because it's understood that it's not worth the risks.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
They had a satellite with a cannon onboard at some point.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2y
Yeah you're right. First for humanity then for space to ground weapons only, seems the soviets launched a space to space cannon back in the 60s like you said
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world · -21 pts · 2y
hahaha... good one
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 2y
Ok..? I'm open to being wrong about that, do you have any examples?
DigitalDruid@lemmy.sdf.org · -9 pts · 2y
Localhorst86@feddit.de · 17 pts · 2y
"my source is that I made it the fuck up"
kwomp2@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2y
To be fair, it's something else than "made the fuck up" when they do provide a line of reasoning.
"Logic insists" is imo too strong of a formulation for that level of speculative reasoning, but it's still not entirely made up, especially when they provide a reason why you'd have to be speculative about the subject.
I think for perfect fairness of discussion that last part would have to be challenged before attacking them speculating that harsh
towerful@programming.dev · 2 pts · 2y
The last part being their misunderstanding of Occam's razor?
DigitalDruid@lemmy.sdf.org · -7 pts · 2y
thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 2y
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 2y
I see where you're coming from, but I still don't think it's likely personally.
It's simply not worth it. We can already hit any target on earth with a nuclear strike without the added risks and complications that come from putting weapons in space. If you put these targets in space, and an enemy attacks them, globally humanity loses all access to space indefinitely.
That's simply not worth it even just from a pure military perspective given the value to communications, navigation and intelligence that space access provides.
Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 2y
So you have no evidence. All you do is pull shit out of your ass to defend the one situation where we seem to have evidence.
KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
If only there was a way to track objects in orbit, boosts with payloads, or maybe even look at them through a telescope...
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are wrong in believing it when there's no evidence and plenty of ways to get it.
DigitalDruid@lemmy.sdf.org · 0 pts · 2y
KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee · 6 pts · 2y
You fundamentally misunderstand Occams Razor. In the choice even between classified satellites and classified satellites with weapons, the former clearly has fewer presuppositions.
Show us evidence, until then it's just a conspiracy theory.