Wilshire@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 months agoWhite House confirms Russia developing 'anti-satellite capability'abcnews.go.comexternal-linkmessage-square11fedilinkarrow-up1142arrow-down17
arrow-up1135arrow-down1external-linkWhite House confirms Russia developing 'anti-satellite capability'abcnews.go.comWilshire@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 months agomessage-square11fedilink
minus-squareoriginalucifer@moist.catsweat.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·11 months agowhy would you need a Nuke against a satellite? youd think a good laser would do pretty well in close proximity with a lot less debris
minus-squareDave@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·11 months agoThe magic part is that you launch the nuke through the satellite, then it falls back to earth on top of your enemy. Or perhaps the debris is the point?
minus-squareEdibleFriend@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·11 months agoI mean… The nuke would work though
minus-squarelemmylommy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·11 months agoToo big and too high power requirements
minus-squareAllonzeeLV@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·edit-211 months agoWidespread EMP could take out many satellites at once. A nuclear detonation is just the only practical way to generate a giant one.
why would you need a Nuke against a satellite? youd think a good laser would do pretty well in close proximity with a lot less debris
The magic part is that you launch the nuke through the satellite, then it falls back to earth on top of your enemy.
Or perhaps the debris is the point?
I mean… The nuke would work though
Too big and too high power requirements
Widespread EMP could take out many satellites at once.
A nuclear detonation is just the only practical way to generate a giant one.