• Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

      • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        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

            • kwomp2@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              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
                    cake
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Right, lack of evidence is evidence that they exist because wavy hands circumstances.

                    If I was a country, I would factor it into my threat model. I’d be remiss not to. But it would be on the level of “a satellite malfunctioned” as opposed to “all of our satellites have been deleted”.

          • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.