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.
So, how many to one is it now?
:-)
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.
They had a satellite with a cannon onboard at some point.
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
hahaha… good one
Ok…? I’m open to being wrong about that, do you have any examples?
deleted by creator
“my source is that I made it the fuck up”
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
The last part being their misunderstanding of Occam’s razor?
No, the “if it were true we probs wouldn’t have evidence”- part
deleted by creator
Suspicion is one thing, but acting like suspicion is fact is dangerous.
Facts need evidence.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator