As Russia Stalks US Satellites, a Space Arms Race May Be Heating Up (thebulletin.org) 123
Russia "is now challenging the United States' long-standing supremacy in space and working to exploit the U.S. military's dependence on space systems for communications, navigation, intelligence, and targeting."
That's the argument made in The Bulletin by a former U.S. Air Force intelligence officer who writes about technology and military strategy, Cold War history, and European security affairs (in an article shared by Lasrick). Moscow is developing counter-space weapons as a part of its overall information warfare strategy. For example, Russia just tested an anti-satellite missile system designed to destroy satellites in low earth orbit. Moreover, military leaders in Russia view U.S. satellites as the key enablers of America's ability to execute rapid, agile, and global military operations; they are intent on echoing this success and modernizing their own military satellites to more effectively support Russian forces.
Since the end of the Cold War, the number of countries with space programs has markedly increased. Many of them are actively developing space weapons. China, for example, has an operational ground-launched anti-satellite system, according to the U.S. intelligence community. India successfully tested its own space weapon in 2019. France announced that it will launch a series of armed satellites. Even Iran is believed to be able to develop a rudimentary anti-satellite weapon in the near term... Space systems are essential for warfighting on Earth and the large growth in the number of countries fielding space weapons means the likelihood that outer space will be transformed into a battlefield has increased... Russia is the only country, however, that is reportedly approaching U.S. satellites in an aggressive manner...
Moscow's destabilizing behavior could prompt the United States to take a more aggressive posture in space in the future... Russia has been taking advantage of the lack of international consensus on what constitutes acceptable behavior in space... It seems clear that Russia is likely testing how the United States and its allies might react to aggressive space behaviors and is gaining important insights into American national security space capabilities...
In 2019, former Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson said that at some point, the United States needs the ability to "hit back." Russia's destabilizing actions in space could, therefore, fuel a dangerous arms race in space.
That's the argument made in The Bulletin by a former U.S. Air Force intelligence officer who writes about technology and military strategy, Cold War history, and European security affairs (in an article shared by Lasrick). Moscow is developing counter-space weapons as a part of its overall information warfare strategy. For example, Russia just tested an anti-satellite missile system designed to destroy satellites in low earth orbit. Moreover, military leaders in Russia view U.S. satellites as the key enablers of America's ability to execute rapid, agile, and global military operations; they are intent on echoing this success and modernizing their own military satellites to more effectively support Russian forces.
Since the end of the Cold War, the number of countries with space programs has markedly increased. Many of them are actively developing space weapons. China, for example, has an operational ground-launched anti-satellite system, according to the U.S. intelligence community. India successfully tested its own space weapon in 2019. France announced that it will launch a series of armed satellites. Even Iran is believed to be able to develop a rudimentary anti-satellite weapon in the near term... Space systems are essential for warfighting on Earth and the large growth in the number of countries fielding space weapons means the likelihood that outer space will be transformed into a battlefield has increased... Russia is the only country, however, that is reportedly approaching U.S. satellites in an aggressive manner...
Moscow's destabilizing behavior could prompt the United States to take a more aggressive posture in space in the future... Russia has been taking advantage of the lack of international consensus on what constitutes acceptable behavior in space... It seems clear that Russia is likely testing how the United States and its allies might react to aggressive space behaviors and is gaining important insights into American national security space capabilities...
In 2019, former Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson said that at some point, the United States needs the ability to "hit back." Russia's destabilizing actions in space could, therefore, fuel a dangerous arms race in space.
Only one thing is heating up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Only one thing is heating up (Score:4, Insightful)
"Russia saved us from Hitler, " I see you didn't grow up in one of the Eastern Bloc countries then. The tender loving mercies of their secret police were mere copies of Stalin's terror squads.
And last we checked, it was Daesh, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Syrian government trying to exterminate the Syrian people.
Re: (Score:2)
I did and I agree, the USSR saved us from Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
the USSR saved us from Hitler
With all due respect to the Russkies - who I have tremendous respect for - an argument could be made that Hitler saved us from Hitler... by starting a second war on the Eastern Front. (An argument could also be made that the West saved the Russians, by sending them shitloads of materiel.)
Patton was right, however; we should've kept moving east and taken out Stalin.
Re: Only one thing is heating up (Score:4, Informative)
an argument could be made that Hitler saved us from Hitler... by starting a second war on the Eastern Front.
Somewhat. The Wehrmacht had laid out timetables for the invasion and despite what we keep being told, they hit those dates/times and in several instances were ahead of schedule. The Russians were so unprepared, so lacking in modernized (for then) warfare, the Germans were listening in on Russian commanders far behind the lines telling units where to fall back to not realizing the Germans had already taken those locations days earlier. Entire Russian units were behind the German lines not realizing their situation and unable to relay information back to their superiors.
There is a fantastic book called Hitler's Panzers East (Stolfi) which shows that had Hitler followed the plan laid out, had he not meddled, it was a virtual certainty Germany would have taken Moscow and the all-important railheads. With Moscow secured, Russia would have had no capability to fight back as its industrial capacity was removed beyond the Caucuses, much too far for forces to build up unnoticed. This is a great quote from the book in relation to the advance on Moscow in July:
Almost perversely, with extraneous alarms, excursions, and halts, Hitler did more than any man to prevent the Germans from smashing the main concentration of the Soviet armed forces in front of Moscow. He attempted to ensure more certain half-successes in the early weeks of the war and did irreparable damage by preventing the Germans from fighting a timely, decisive engagement before the Soviet capital.
Finally, it should be noted that forward elements of Army Group Center could see the onion domes of Moscow, they were that close. Had Hitler not diverted much of the Army Group's units to the south to take Ukraine and remove the Soviet pocket, but instead continued on with resupply and reinforcement, this would not have allowed the Soviets the six weeks given to prepare the defense around Moscow and would have resulted in defeat by October of 41 (Stolfi). Even captured Soviet officers, almost to a man, said in June-July the Germans would be able to take Moscow after heavy fighting and win the war.
Re: (Score:3)
This obviously assumes that Zhukov and his crack troops would not be pulled out of Asia to face them sooner should this hypothetical scenario occur, alongside many other aspects that Soviet Leadership would have had to change in their response.
It's really easy to say "but if this one side did something different, while other side didn't react to those changes, this would occur". It's a mark of a poor historian, who starts with outcome and jury-rigs events to fit it. Good historians take note of what changes
Re: (Score:2)
And Germans had no hope of ever getting there. Too much distance.
And yet, they did. Operation Typhoon got them to within 23 km of Moscow, and that was during the time inclement weather hit. Had they pressed on in July - August as Bock had wanted, they would have been in Moscow by October at the latest. At one point, 7th Panzer traveled 100 km in one day. Distance was not an issue.
Their supplies were at their breaking point with what they managed to grab in 1941 AND Wermacht command was shocked at the a
Re: (Score:2)
>And yet, they did. Operation Typhoon got them to within 23 km of Moscow.
Remind me, how close did they get to Leningrad, and how well they fared on that front?
Against, this is a mark of you reading poor historians with an ideological axe to grind. Soviets could not defend ground. Take a map of Soviet Union, and note the utter flatness of European part going all the way to the Urals. This is not defensible terrain, and excellent tank country.
Until you hit a built up massive city. And then those excellent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rolling from one world history-class dictator to another is not saving anyone from anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Only one thing is heating up (Score:1)
There is that huge attack in the Iranian navy he didn't launch. Then there were the US troops he wanted to pull out of Syria. And the troops he's trying to get out of Afghanistan after 20 years of pointless fighting. And also there's the invasion he launched in uh all those other places that didn't happen!
And then there was the well planned and executed and highly targeted drone strike that killed a murderous piece of
Re: Only one thing is heating up (Score:4, Interesting)
Because other countries were not honoring them!
A treaty that only one country upholds is not a treaty at all.
And you "know" no such thing. Russia had been habitually violating Open Skies. We tracked them violating it right here over the U.S.!!!
Russia violated SALT back in the day, with it's phased-array radar near Krasnoyarsk.
They have a history of entering into treaties and then cheating on them.
If you are my next door neighbor, and make a "treaty" with me to respect each others' property, then I catch you shitting on my lawn, I'm tearing up the treaty. Thanks very much.
And Russia is pretty famous for doing that kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
There were NO violations, because they did not block us and we did not block them.
Re: (Score:3)
They were caught, many times, instead scoping out potentially vulnerable civilian targets. Things like dams, etc.
That is very definitely taboo. Clear violations of the agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
The Open Skies regulations covers the territory over which the parties exercise sovereignty, including mainland, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The treaty specifies that the entire territory of a member state is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety and not for reasons of national security.[2]
Both Russia and the west are allowed to scope out the ENTIRE NATIONS. That is why it is CALLED OPEN SKIES. Open Skies over Russia, has been CRITICAL to our ability to spot what Russia AND CHINA has going on.
And as to violations, this is from Trump's ppl that 1 violation occurred under W, and another 1 when Russia was conducting an exercise. 2 violations supposedly.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cited for example Russia's access refusal in the Russian-c [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
American officials have long complained that Moscow was violating the Open Skies accord by not permitting flights over a city where it was believed Russia was deploying nuclear weapons that could reach Europe, as well as forbidding flights over major Russian military exercises. (Satellites, the main source for gathering intelligence, are not affected by the treaty.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, my memory is not perfect, so I get some things turned around sometimes. You are upset that I am human?
Re: (Score:2)
when Hitler asked for Stalin's help and they said no, then Hitler attacked.
No, the intention all along was to attack the USSR. Hitler knew that, Stalin knew that. It was a question of timing, and the USSR expected it in 1942 or 1943, not 1941.
Re: (Score:2)
But, you think expect to fight each other. Uh no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Literally worse than pubescent toddlers. (Score:2)
Yeah, I know that's not a thing outside of Olympic sports.
What is the point of this ridiculous "arms race"? Did the US and Russian arms industries shake hands on making a load of money for nothing again? Or is it just because somebody's cock is too small again?
You know, if we invested all those billions into the well-being of our people and humanity in general (cause fuck the people I just happen to be born around, we got nothing in common), then nobody would feel interested in this shit, as we could solve
Re: (Score:2)
''Seriously, quite often I *wish* there was an alien invasion, so we'd have an actual reason for a space force. Because we really fuckin deserve to realize the value of our fellow human beings, or be eradicated!''
That's it.. please turn in your tinfoil hat and any Star Trek memorabilia in your possession. Everyone knows The Borg don't eradicate.. they assimilate.
Re:Literally worse than pubescent toddlers. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the point of this ridiculous "arms race"?
To quote the ultimate expert in arms races, General Buck Turgidson, "You can't allow a mineshaft gap!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering for a moment as to why this was supposedly "news", since the US has had anti-satellite systems since at least the 1970s and a spy satellite blinding system since ~1980. Every country with a LEO launch capability, including Israel, has an anti-satellite capability already, this is not news. Then I remembered that the Space Farce needs a "mission" to justify a budget that will dwarf NASA by 2022. (Their 2021 budget is already over $15 billion, and all of NASA is only $22 billion.)
Re: (Score:2)
Much of NASA's budget was to keep the tech of rocketry at the forefront of the world, so was really about military-as-justification anyway. See also interstate highway system, which was about moving troops and equipment quickly without having to rely on finicky and easily-disrupted train scheduling.
Re: (Score:2)
While hitchhiking in Florida during the early '80s I caught a ride and stayed overnight with the recently-retired head of security for Oak Ridge (when it was still one of the leading nuclear research labs). He said that they had developed orbital nukes in the mid-70s and manufactured "a number of them" that he had to provide security for. I asked if they had been launched, and he replied that he didn't know but that they had been shipped out after a year or two and he couldn't imagine that they hadn't bee
Don't you get tired of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't you get tired of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do you think Russia is a democratic country with a benevolent leader who has the best interests of his people in mind while being keen on making the world a better place too?
Re: (Score:1)
Hold my beer... er, apple. [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:1)
a democratic country with a benevolent leader
You have very intriguing ideas about "democracy". Where can I subscribe to your newsletter?
Re: (Score:2)
Russia may not exactly be a friend, but they are a shadow of what they were during the Soviet era, Putin notwithstanding. Their population is less than 150 million and shrinking! They are a one trick economy: oil - a Saudi Arabia sans the desert, and sans the islam. Their economy is about the size of Italy, which is a disgrace for a country that's 2.5 times larger (in population)
The problem w/ the obsession w/ Russia is that it pretends that we're still in the 80s, and it ignores everything that has ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you keep painting Russia as an enemy?
Because it's a fact (an important one).
Who dictates this?
Common sense.
What do you get in return for doing this?
Awareness.
What is the goal?
Survival.
Why don't you know when to stop?
Stopping awareness and preparations while the danger increases is not an option.
Russia had the chance to come clean after the fall of the USSR and say
"Russia as a country was also a victim of the murderous totalitarian imperialist Soviet Union"
then build up a vibrant democracy with a tolerant and open society. Unfortunately, under Boris Yeltsin they choose the opposite, a process accelerated and expanded under Vladimir Putin.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why do you keep painting Russia as an enemy?
Because it's a fact (an important one).
Who dictates this?
Common sense.
Little to do with common sense, more to do with a large number of officials in Washington and Langley ensuring that they do not lose their pension funds and college funds for their kiddies in the 1990es.
To quote retired general and ex-director of CIA David Paetreaus: "Putin is our creation".
During the 1990es Russia was happily fading into the oblivion lead by an alcoholic surrounded by Bladerinas in short skirts at rallies. If we would have left it, it would have disintegrated by itself with the oligarc
Re: (Score:2)
Kot Begemot? What kind of a handle is this?
It seems like you like reading Soviet classics.
Art thou a very sikrit agent of Russia perchance?
That you, Colonel Isayev? Or is it Mr. Tikhonov?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be you that's crazy and not all of slashdot. Seriously, Russia's anti western actions are well documented, from election hacking to invading anyone (Georgia and Ukraine) in their sphere on influence that tries to go pro-western.
Given all the press their countless anti-western efforts have gotten it really baffles me that there are still people like you out there unless you're being paid by the Russian state.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia in the 90s was struggling, and the fact that their power was irrelevant was clearly seen by the NATO action in Yugoslavia. During the Cold War, there's no way NATO would have dared to do that, for fear that it would evoke a Soviet retaliation (despite Yugoslavia being a non-aligned country). But NATO happily first helped Bosnia break away, and later, more controversially, Kosovo as well. Oh, and supported the Chechen jihad against Moscow as well. Showed the limits of Russian power.
After that, w
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off you paid troll.
Yugoslavia was absolutely not neutral, it was soviet block. Its decay was due to a lack of authoritarian leadership from Russia, the various ethnicities which had been forced to live together peacefully suddenly found themselves free to hate each other over past offences, hence the war.
Russia wanted to join NATO but was declined
Nice, an outright lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
if NATO put missile defenses in Belarus, Moscow would easily be within their striking distance
Your poor grasp of geography haunts you. NATO territory already extends far closer to Russia than Belarus.
Re: (Score:2)
Little to do with common sense, more to do with a large number of officials in Washington and Langley ensuring that they do not lose their pension funds and college funds for their kiddies in the 1990es.
To quote retired general and ex-director of CIA David Paetreaus: "Putin is our creation".
During the 1990es Russia was happily fading into the oblivion lead by an alcoholic surrounded by Bladerinas in short skirts at rallies. If we would have left it, it would have disintegrated by itself with the oligarchs stealing all the family jewels just like Ukraine. However, every single one of the above mentioned f*cking idiots would have lost their jobs, so they continued to prod the nearly dead bear with an electrified cattle prod. Some money for militants here, some money for militants there. Millions for campaigns to paint them as a threat to promote NATO expansion via the parent company of Cambridge Analytica (SCL): https://www.fagain.co.uk/node/... [fagain.co.uk]
As a result at some point one of the many prods instead of finishing off the bear defibrillated it. That is not surprising - a multi-ethnic imperial state comes together under external threats and disintegrates when left to its devices. Something we are seeing with Russia at present.
It arose because of the external threats we created. It being an enemy (in fact its existence at present) is OUR CREATION.
This has a point. Russia was a total non factor in much of the 90s, and nowhere was that more glaringly evident than in Yugoslavia: the wars that Serbia fought against first Bosnia, and later in Kosovo. NATO intervened on the behalf of the Bosniaks and the Kosovar Albanians, and carved out a state that half the world doesn't recognize, but which, unlike the Palestinians, is a real de-facto state w/ no control from Belgrade. Russia was completely opposed to this politically, but couldn't do a thing about
Re: (Score:1)
They didn't choose Boris Yeltsin. The Americans colluded and altered the result. Here's TIME magazine in 1996 bragging about how we interfered in the Russian election. [i.redd.it]
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, that's remarkably subtle inteference for the 20th century USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure I do. It was still remarkably subtle, for the US. They didn't invade [wikipedia.org], nor did the CIA assassinate [wikipedia.org] anyone (at least not anyone high up).
Re: (Score:2)
Enemy? No. Potential future enemy? Certainly. They are one of America's big rivals in the global struggle for power, and currently lead by a person and a party with expansionist ambitions. Currently they compete economically and diplomatically, and conduct programs of espionage against each other, rather than militarily - but a lot can change in a year or two, and it's only prudent of both countries to be prepared to fight the other. If nothing else, they need to make sure they would be too expensive to fig
Re: (Score:3)
Enemy? No. Potential future enemy? Certainly.
And there you have it. "Cet animal est tres mechant; Quand on l'attaque, il se defend". Or, as an American cartoonist put it: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rtq... [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There is a usually more substantial motive for the many US "preemptive" attacks. Cf. "War is a racket", etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Afghanistan? No, we were attacked from there.
Libya? No, Germany, France, and Italy pushed NATO to invade there
Serbia?
No, Western Europe pushed us into that,
How about recent Iran attack? No, because Iran has been attacking Americans for years.
Seriously, where are the preemptive attacks? I can think of only 1 war/attack that we had NO RIGHT to do, was Iraq Desert Storm 2. W, like Trump, was a HORRIBLE liar. CIA/NSA all disavowed his WMD (and I knew that
Re: (Score:2)
How is Trump, on this issue, a horrible liar, when he has tried to get US troops out of both Syria and Afghanistan? Also, if the US could be made to attack Libya and Serbia at the behest of NATO, it clearly shows why NATO, for US, has served its Cold War purpose and is irrelevant to our security now, and in fact counter-productive, since it's forcing us to dedicate troops for issues not in our interests. Also, NATO was a mutual defense organization: Article 5 commits the alliance to go to war if any membe
Re: (Score:2)
Enemy? No. Potential future enemy? Certainly
IMHO that is only only true if you consider enemies only those who are using bombs and bullets.
As things stand, whenever there is any meaningful political struggle in the USA and in Europe, Russian agencies are there in force, influencing debate or distracting conventional mass media and steering the social media interactions to make it more likely that problems escalate.
Having civilians at each others' throats in other countries can be quite useful for Russia, as it gives them time to catch up with technol
Re: Don't you get tired of this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be a huge topic, but it surely comes back to life every time elections go the wrong way!
Imagine another 4 years with DjT, 2 or 3 more Supreme Court judge appointments and a lot of other stuff festering... who knows?
The safe good bet is that this sort of political issue will be used by Russians (and others) to get more americans to fight each other. The conflict and discord is more important than the outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully you're right. International relations make countries less likely to fight. However, the US is currently trying to bully the rest of the world into isolating both Iran and China. If the US and Europe won't trade with China, that simply confirms their fears and leaves them no choice but to carve out an economic sphere of influence in east Asia at any cost. Isolating Russia would have the same effect. Iran is even more dangerous, since they cannot build such a sphere of influence by conventional mean
Re: (Score:2)
Isolating China makes sense: in fact, much of the world, including their allies, like Turkey, are unhappy about them spreading the Wuhan virus. There are other reasons that the US and Europe shouldn't trade w/ China, but this one just exposes the dangers of China becoming too powerful.
Isolating Iran is a redundant exercise today: first of all, Iran's influence was already being resented by their supposed puppets - the Arab shi'a of Iraq and Lebanon before this Wuhan virus outbreak, and after Qom became t
Re: (Score:2)
China has two main motivations: 1) they want to be recognized as a great power and 2) they want to secure their trade routes. China has noticed that they're kind of surrounded by US allies and perilously vulnerable to a blockade since they depend on resource imports and manufactured goods exports.
There are some resources in the South China Sea that would lead to territorial claims, but the big reason China is disputing crappy islands in the area is because they want to have defensible (legally and militaril
Re: (Score:2)
Before we go accusing Russia of interfering with our satellites / shadowing our satellites - - - maybe we should find out what the X-37B has been doing all these years in orbit - hmmm?
Here's a quick run-down of fast-found sites worth a quick read -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.space.com/25275-x3... [space.com]
https://www.airspacemag.com/sp... [airspacemag.com]
https://www.livescience.com/48... [livescience.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/sc... [theguardian.com]
https://www.popularmechanics.c... [popularmechanics.com]
That little autonomous mini-shuttle can remain in orbit for over 2
Re: Don't you get tired of this? (Score:2)
We can image every satellite from the ground in high detail. We can get the plans for them with hacking and traditional spying.
Whatever that thing is doing up there it's not "checking out everyone's satellites".
Re: (Score:2)
What-a-butt the Alamo? Whatabutt that? How can we talk about space after the Alamo?
Don't be a dumbass.
"Before we go accusing Russia of interfering with our satellites / shadowing our satellites" we would only need to check if they are "interfering with our satellites / shadowing our satellites," as the case may be. But I'd also note that only one of these actually the observation of what they're doing. The other is bait that included.
Why would you need to know anything about the X-37 to check on that? Russi
Re: (Score:2)
he asks in suggestive voice while moving eyebrows up and down suspiciously?
Save that crap for some tin foil hat youtube channel, you've got nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is the “hot” boogeyman at the moment. Remember ISIS? Al Queda? Pedophiles around every corner? Color coded terror alert days?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you keep painting Russia as an enemy?
Because it is. Or, more accurately, Putin is.
As for the russian people, well, they're just gullible, easily manipulable, clueless morons. Just like americans, canadians, french, germans, etc.
They are nice and friendly morons. But they are morons anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderbirds are GO! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Democrats incoming! Go to orange alert!"
One country unilaterally quits agreements... (Score:1, Troll)
Moscow's destabilizing behavior could prompt the United States to take a more aggressive posture...
The US of A makes me laugh. They unilaterally quit agreements then blame others for "destabilizing." This is in addition to fomenting chaos/mayhem in distant lands.
And BTW, they were recently threatening IRAN's [oil] commerce with Venezuela. For some reason, they backed down.
I wonder whether their intelligence told them that the Russians were nearby.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely the Joint Chiefs were nearby. The pols in DC have been itching to go into Venezuela for two decades and the generals keep slapping them back down. Vietnam would have been a walk in the park in comparison to an invasion of Venezuela, a quagmire of enormous proportions and likely to bring terrorism in the mainland US. I can almost hear them, "Want to see the economy collapse because our electrical grid is in shambles? Invade Venezuela."
Re: One country unilaterally quits agreements... (Score:2)
Glad to have fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
You meant to say, "quit agreements the other party has blatantly violated since first signing".
[...bold mine...]
Hope you don't remind us of Iraq's WMDs, otherwise citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes perfect sense for the US to quit agreements made w/ the Soviet Union. The latter country no longer exists, so just b'cos Russia said they'd honor them (b'cos they wanted the biggest prize of all - the permanent seat in the UN Security Council) is no reason to keep it. Besides, the biggest threat to the US is not Russia: it's China. So any arms reduction agreements should be w/ Beijing, and it's up to US whether Moscow needs to be a part of it.
I do agree that since the US has sanctions on both
I guarantee however... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that whatever the US does to counter it, will be framed as "Trump militarizing space and breaking 50 year old treaties".
Re: (Score:3)
...that whatever the US does to counter it, will be framed as "Trump militarizing space and breaking 50 year old treaties".
To be fair that is Trump's pattern, when the international treaty / trade deal / institution doesn't work perfectly his first response seems to be to throw it away and then demand a better one.
The issue with this approach is that the old treaty / deal / institution wasn't the problem, it was getting other parties to fully adhere to it.
With Russia it's a classic case of "know your enemy".
Assuming that Trump does have US interests at heart (and isn't somehow beholden to Russia) then Russia's objective is Puti
Re: (Score:2)
We all know that Russiagate is a complete conspiracy theory, right? It was lies for years by people who knew the truth.
In other words, an arms race with the US is exactly what he wants.
What, you kidding? The price of oil collapsed, Russia is in deep shit. An arms race is the last thing they need right now. That's how we defeated the Soviet Union, by spending them into the ground. Our capitalist economy could afford it, their socialist economy creaked and groaned and finally collapsed in on itself.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know that Russiagate is a complete conspiracy theory, right? It was lies for years by people who knew the truth.
Actually we don't know that.
There was a lot of damning circumstantial evidence which triggered an investigation that should have resolved the question.
Unfortunately Trump was allowed to obstructed the hell out of the investigation, meaning we don't actually know if people in his campaign (potentially including him) colluded with the Russian government.
In other words, an arms race with the US is exactly what he wants.
What, you kidding? The price of oil collapsed, Russia is in deep shit. An arms race is the last thing they need right now. That's how we defeated the Soviet Union, by spending them into the ground. Our capitalist economy could afford it, their socialist economy creaked and groaned and finally collapsed in on itself.
The Soviet Union collapsed because it was extremely corrupt, dysfunctional, and unpopular. The fact it wasted a bunch of money in an arms race probably didn't
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately Trump was allowed to obstructed the hell out of the investigation, meaning we don't actually know if people in his campaign (potentially including him) colluded with the Russian government.
This is classic conspiracy theory thinking. "I can't prove it because your conspiracy is hiding the evidence!" Even Crowdstrike admits there was nothing there. [redstate.com] Clapper, of all people, admits there was nothing there. [twitter.com] Then, after being asked about leaking to the press, he disconnects his video connection,
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately Trump was allowed to obstructed the hell out of the investigation, meaning we don't actually know if people in his campaign (potentially including him) colluded with the Russian government.
This is classic conspiracy theory thinking. "I can't prove it because your conspiracy is hiding the evidence!" Even Crowdstrike admits there was nothing there. [redstate.com]
You should be embarrassed to link that article on a site like slashdot.
Oddly, the DNC had refused to allow the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security to conduct their own analysis of the server. The FBI was forced to accept the report from CrowdStrike.
The DNC servers were on the cloud so CrowdStrike imaged the servers and analyzed the images, and gave those images to the FBI [crowdstrike.com].
All this BS about "physical servers" is incoherent, it makes less sense than characters in movies smashing monitors to destroy com
Re: (Score:2)
However, turn the other cheek does not work well when you have ppl that want to control all other nations. BOTH, Putin and Xi's goals are not dissimilar. They are working on economic control of the globe, and if not, then military control. China uses BRI to gain control of a number of nations (and sadly, quite effectively). Putin works the old way which is to try and offer up a carrot, and if not, then the stick.
If America tries to sit it ou
Re: I guarantee however... (Score:3)
If the shoe fits.
Re: (Score:2)
However, his working against CHina, and now, focusing on Space and the ocean, is NOT a bad thing. He has it right.
Re: I guarantee however... (Score:2)
Re: I guarantee however... (Score:2)
Blatant aggression... in space? Did they build an orbital ion cannon or something?
They maneuver close to our satellites, our aircraft, our boats, like a schoolyard bully. Taking a swing is what they're goading us to do, it's not the best response.
Re: (Score:2)
Both Russia/China have ground based lasers, designed to take out a few 100 sats each.
Both Russia/China have other anti-sat weapons that are ground, air and apparently space based.
Re: I guarantee however... (Score:2)
There are numerous times, even in recent history of this. For example, in the Sinai when Egypt and Israel were still at war, the Egyptians would fly towards Israel every day at the same time on an attack vector and then veer off. Day after day after day until the Israelis got complacent. Then Egypt launched a full scale assault across land and air and caught the Israelis o
Come again? (Score:2)
Re: Come again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Come again? (Score:3)
A) is probably 20. Self launched is even smaller number
B) is about 2-3. China, Russia. Maybe 1-2 others could do it. Maybe.
C) is 0. Would love to see the citation for the US stalking foreign satellites.
But nice virtue signaling "whataboutism" anti-Americanism, Boris.
Please, this has been going on for a LONG TIME (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WHy? Because Russia/China have been at work developing space arms for over a decade.
That's right Ivan, we said no because they were already violating the old treaties! Duh.
Obama said that at the time. If they wanted to comply with the existing treaties, they were told that we'd also then be willing to expand them. But we're not going to expand a treaty that we're following and you're not! That's just crazy talk.
They can't afford a space race. They'd have benefited more by simply unilaterally coming into compliance with their past agreements than to try to antagonize the US into spending mo
Re: (Score:2)
Because of reagan, W, and now Trump, we are seeing massive increases in deficit spending, We can NOT afford that.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, right, Ivan, our money might not spend as well as we think after you look down your nose at us, right?
But you don't realize the difference between soft currency and hard currency.
Anti-satellite weapons (Score:2)
Assuming you don't have satellites (thinking Iran here) then the smart thing to do is just put a bunch of debris into the orbit of the satellites you want to take down, let the orbiting speed of the satellite do the rest of the work.
Wouldn't that work?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, to be in the same orbit means moving at the same speed as satelites... that won't do a thing. A piece of junk ahead or behind your satellite at some plus or minus fraction of the orbital period will stay that way indefinitely.
On the other hand, have something explode and have debris cross the orbit, that can get interesting.
what a laugh (Score:2)
"Moscow's destabilizing behavior"
"stalking our satellites"
Oooo, the big red boogieman is lurking!
Meanwhile, in the real world, Trump is the one breaking treaties, shooting his mouth off about super duper weapons and space force, committing acts of war against countries that didn't attack us.
Instead of the Red Menace, let's talk about the Orange Menace.
Re: (Score:2)
The ASAT weapon referred to in the article is one of the S500 longer range missiles (same as S400 there is a plan for it to fire a variety of missiles). It was tested recently.
The Russians claiming that it is not anti-satellite disingenuous at best. While its official targets are ballistic missiles mid-flight (something nobody has managed so far), the capabilities needed to intercept a missile mid-flight are the same as anti-satellite - 300km+ intercept altitude, 500km range.
Will it work? Who
Re: (Score:2)
I had an astronomy prof who was convinced the IRAD satellite was sacrificed in an anti-satellite test in the 80s.