The Day After a Nuke Goes Off in Space

[Doc7505]

The Day After a Nuke Goes Off in Space​

U.S. Space Force leaders are concerned about growing space capabilities from China and Russia, such as the Russian “nesting doll” satellite that can deploy a kinetic weapon. Mike Tsukamoto/staff; NASA; Pixabay​

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/08/03/the_day_after_a_nuke_goes_off_in_space_1049242.html

3 Aug 2024 ~~ By Luke Widenhouse

In February, it was revealed that Russia has been developing a nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon. The Biden administration's response has focused mainly on arms control efforts aimed at preventing Russia from acquiring a space-based nuclear weapon in the first place. These efforts are important, but they are also insufficient. Steps must be taken now to prepare for the possibility that diplomacy fails. Nuclear anti-satellite weapons have the potential to fundamentally alter existing nuclear paradigms, creating a much more destabilizing environment than exists today. The U.S. must take action now to ensure it is ready to deal with the challenges posed by nuclear weapons in space. By preparing now, before nukes are put in orbit, the U.S. can better work to prevent such a day from ever happening at all.
~Snip~
In May, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb testified that Russia's weapon would be "indiscriminate," and "pose a threat to all satellites operated by countries and companies around the globe." The U.S. would therefore likely be left without the ability to retaliate against Russia in space if it detonated its weapon. The only option would be to strike targets on the ground. At present, conventional U.S. forces rely heavily on access to satellite-provided GPS, intelligence, and communications. A conventional strike in this environment would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. A nuclear strike would be more feasible (though also challenging). A serious conversation should address whether a surface nuclear strike would be an appropriate response to a nuclear attack that does not directly kill people on Earth.
However, it is still critical that the president retain a variety of options to respond to the use of such a weapon. Thus, central to deterrence in a world of nuclear anti-satellite weapons will be the ability of conventional military forces to operate without access to satellites.
~Snip~
The U.S. should continue pursuing arms control efforts aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in space. However, it must also be prepared for the possibility that these efforts fail. By preparing conventional strike fighter assets to conduct operations in a denied space environment, the U.S. will be adequately ready for a world where nuclear weapons are orbiting the Earth.


Commentary:
In the last decade we've become even more dependent upon networked systems, GPS, and satellite coms. Not sure we could function now. Look at Ukraine war, most of our precision guided weapons are useless because of Russian Electronic Warfare.
I've also read we're beginning to field effective satellite com jammers. No idea how they work, but if we can do it...so can the enemy.
We've "bet the farm" on networked systems tied together by satcom, precision weapons, and unmanned systems. When none of them work, what then?
Does anyone believe that the U.S. and Russia haven't had such weapons since the 1960s? The fact of the matter is that the U.S. military ignited a nuclear weapon in space it was called "Operation Starfish Prime"
See: The Outrageous Story Of Starfish Prime, When The U.S. Detonated A Nuclear Bomb In Space

**********​

The Space Review: Remembering Starfish Prime

www.thespacereview.com

Since existing US legacy satellites are vulnerable to attack, the new strategy is 1000's of smaller satellites (like Star-Link) in vast huge networks making it difficult to take them all out. Unless a nation used nukes.
Then there is this, if they start using nukes on sat systems.... Space4 Director and LPL professor Vishnu Reddy says it is a question of when, not if, humans cause the Kessler Syndrome.
Kessler Syndrome is a nightmare space scenario in which the number of satellites and orbital debris is so high that collisions occur, each one generating more and more space debris and, in turn, cascading collisions.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The Day After a Nuke Goes Off in Space​

U.S. Space Force leaders are concerned about growing space capabilities from China and Russia, such as the Russian “nesting doll” satellite that can deploy a kinetic weapon. Mike Tsukamoto/staff; NASA; Pixabay​

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/08/03/the_day_after_a_nuke_goes_off_in_space_1049242.html

3 Aug 2024 ~~ By Luke Widenhouse

In February, it was revealed that Russia has been developing a nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon. The Biden administration's response has focused mainly on arms control efforts aimed at preventing Russia from acquiring a space-based nuclear weapon in the first place. These efforts are important, but they are also insufficient. Steps must be taken now to prepare for the possibility that diplomacy fails. Nuclear anti-satellite weapons have the potential to fundamentally alter existing nuclear paradigms, creating a much more destabilizing environment than exists today. The U.S. must take action now to ensure it is ready to deal with the challenges posed by nuclear weapons in space. By preparing now, before nukes are put in orbit, the U.S. can better work to prevent such a day from ever happening at all.
~Snip~
In May, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb testified that Russia's weapon would be "indiscriminate," and "pose a threat to all satellites operated by countries and companies around the globe." The U.S. would therefore likely be left without the ability to retaliate against Russia in space if it detonated its weapon. The only option would be to strike targets on the ground. At present, conventional U.S. forces rely heavily on access to satellite-provided GPS, intelligence, and communications. A conventional strike in this environment would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. A nuclear strike would be more feasible (though also challenging). A serious conversation should address whether a surface nuclear strike would be an appropriate response to a nuclear attack that does not directly kill people on Earth.
However, it is still critical that the president retain a variety of options to respond to the use of such a weapon. Thus, central to deterrence in a world of nuclear anti-satellite weapons will be the ability of conventional military forces to operate without access to satellites.
~Snip~
The U.S. should continue pursuing arms control efforts aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in space. However, it must also be prepared for the possibility that these efforts fail. By preparing conventional strike fighter assets to conduct operations in a denied space environment, the U.S. will be adequately ready for a world where nuclear weapons are orbiting the Earth.


Commentary:
In the last decade we've become even more dependent upon networked systems, GPS, and satellite coms. Not sure we could function now. Look at Ukraine war, most of our precision guided weapons are useless because of Russian Electronic Warfare.
I've also read we're beginning to field effective satellite com jammers. No idea how they work, but if we can do it...so can the enemy.
We've "bet the farm" on networked systems tied together by satcom, precision weapons, and unmanned systems. When none of them work, what then?
Does anyone believe that the U.S. and Russia haven't had such weapons since the 1960s? The fact of the matter is that the U.S. military ignited a nuclear weapon in space it was called "Operation Starfish Prime"
See: The Outrageous Story Of Starfish Prime, When The U.S. Detonated A Nuclear Bomb In Space

**********​

The Space Review: Remembering Starfish Prime

www.thespacereview.com

Since existing US legacy satellites are vulnerable to attack, the new strategy is 1000's of smaller satellites (like Star-Link) in vast huge networks making it difficult to take them all out. Unless a nation used nukes.
Then there is this, if they start using nukes on sat systems.... Space4 Director and LPL professor Vishnu Reddy says it is a question of when, not if, humans cause the Kessler Syndrome.
Kessler Syndrome is a nightmare space scenario in which the number of satellites and orbital debris is so high that collisions occur, each one generating more and more space debris and, in turn, cascading collisions.

Can only plan for the worse and pray for the better. The sponge in the White House who isnt fit to stand trial, wouldnt know what to do. And the kackling bitch would be a hurtin if there wasnt any cell service anymore. No Lame Stream Media to cover her ass.

 

[Doc7505]

The Day After a Nuke Goes Off in Space​

U.S. Space Force leaders are concerned about growing space capabilities from China and Russia, such as the Russian “nesting doll” satellite that can deploy a kinetic weapon. Mike Tsukamoto/staff; NASA; Pixabay​

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/08/03/the_day_after_a_nuke_goes_off_in_space_1049242.html

3 Aug 2024 ~~ By Luke Widenhouse

In February, it was revealed that Russia has been developing a nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon. The Biden administration's response has focused mainly on arms control efforts aimed at preventing Russia from acquiring a space-based nuclear weapon in the first place. These efforts are important, but they are also insufficient. Steps must be taken now to prepare for the possibility that diplomacy fails. Nuclear anti-satellite weapons have the potential to fundamentally alter existing nuclear paradigms, creating a much more destabilizing environment than exists today. The U.S. must take action now to ensure it is ready to deal with the challenges posed by nuclear weapons in space. By preparing now, before nukes are put in orbit, the U.S. can better work to prevent such a day from ever happening at all.
~Snip~
In May, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb testified that Russia's weapon would be "indiscriminate," and "pose a threat to all satellites operated by countries and companies around the globe." The U.S. would therefore likely be left without the ability to retaliate against Russia in space if it detonated its weapon. The only option would be to strike targets on the ground. At present, conventional U.S. forces rely heavily on access to satellite-provided GPS, intelligence, and communications. A conventional strike in this environment would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. A nuclear strike would be more feasible (though also challenging). A serious conversation should address whether a surface nuclear strike would be an appropriate response to a nuclear attack that does not directly kill people on Earth.
However, it is still critical that the president retain a variety of options to respond to the use of such a weapon. Thus, central to deterrence in a world of nuclear anti-satellite weapons will be the ability of conventional military forces to operate without access to satellites.
~Snip~
The U.S. should continue pursuing arms control efforts aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in space. However, it must also be prepared for the possibility that these efforts fail. By preparing conventional strike fighter assets to conduct operations in a denied space environment, the U.S. will be adequately ready for a world where nuclear weapons are orbiting the Earth.


Commentary:
In the last decade we've become even more dependent upon networked systems, GPS, and satellite coms. Not sure we could function now. Look at Ukraine war, most of our precision guided weapons are useless because of Russian Electronic Warfare.
I've also read we're beginning to field effective satellite com jammers. No idea how they work, but if we can do it...so can the enemy.
We've "bet the farm" on networked systems tied together by satcom, precision weapons, and unmanned systems. When none of them work, what then?
Does anyone believe that the U.S. and Russia haven't had such weapons since the 1960s? The fact of the matter is that the U.S. military ignited a nuclear weapon in space it was called "Operation Starfish Prime"
See: The Outrageous Story Of Starfish Prime, When The U.S. Detonated A Nuclear Bomb In Space

**********​

The Space Review: Remembering Starfish Prime

www.thespacereview.com

Since existing US legacy satellites are vulnerable to attack, the new strategy is 1000's of smaller satellites (like Star-Link) in vast huge networks making it difficult to take them all out. Unless a nation used nukes.
Then there is this, if they start using nukes on sat systems.... Space4 Director and LPL professor Vishnu Reddy says it is a question of when, not if, humans cause the Kessler Syndrome.
Kessler Syndrome is a nightmare space scenario in which the number of satellites and orbital debris is so high that collisions occur, each one generating more and more space debris and, in turn, cascading collisions.

~~~~~~
I omitted the fact that not only will it create dense space debris but it would emit an EMP to disrupt electronics and the power grid worldwide.

One Atmospheric Nuclear Explosion Could Take Out the Power Grid

New study identifies vulnerabilities to EMP attack

spectrum.ieee.org

 

[luiza]

Can only plan for the worse and pray for the better. The sponge in the White House who isnt fit to stand trial, wouldnt know what to do. And the kackling bitch would be a hurtin if there wasnt any cell service anymore. No Lame Stream Media to cover her ass.

As if America could not do the same and possibly worse .

You always need a huge tragedy before the Sheeple wake up .
Which , in fairness , is partly why Deep State loves depopulation and full control .

 

[luiza]

​

U.S. Space Force leaders are concerned about growing space capabilities from China and Russia, such as the Russian “nesting doll” satellite that can deploy a kinetic weapon. Mike Tsukamoto/staff; NASA; Pixabay​

As if America does not itself pose precisely the same dangers .

 

[whitehall]

How could an intentional nuclear event in space be beneficial for any country except rogue regimes that don't have the capability? Is the suggestion intended to distract countries from real potential ground war events?

 

[Captain Caveman]

The Day After a Nuke Goes Off in Space​

U.S. Space Force leaders are concerned about growing space capabilities from China and Russia, such as the Russian “nesting doll” satellite that can deploy a kinetic weapon. Mike Tsukamoto/staff; NASA; Pixabay​

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/08/03/the_day_after_a_nuke_goes_off_in_space_1049242.html

3 Aug 2024 ~~ By Luke Widenhouse

In February, it was revealed that Russia has been developing a nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon. The Biden administration's response has focused mainly on arms control efforts aimed at preventing Russia from acquiring a space-based nuclear weapon in the first place. These efforts are important, but they are also insufficient. Steps must be taken now to prepare for the possibility that diplomacy fails. Nuclear anti-satellite weapons have the potential to fundamentally alter existing nuclear paradigms, creating a much more destabilizing environment than exists today. The U.S. must take action now to ensure it is ready to deal with the challenges posed by nuclear weapons in space. By preparing now, before nukes are put in orbit, the U.S. can better work to prevent such a day from ever happening at all.
~Snip~
In May, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb testified that Russia's weapon would be "indiscriminate," and "pose a threat to all satellites operated by countries and companies around the globe." The U.S. would therefore likely be left without the ability to retaliate against Russia in space if it detonated its weapon. The only option would be to strike targets on the ground. At present, conventional U.S. forces rely heavily on access to satellite-provided GPS, intelligence, and communications. A conventional strike in this environment would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. A nuclear strike would be more feasible (though also challenging). A serious conversation should address whether a surface nuclear strike would be an appropriate response to a nuclear attack that does not directly kill people on Earth.
However, it is still critical that the president retain a variety of options to respond to the use of such a weapon. Thus, central to deterrence in a world of nuclear anti-satellite weapons will be the ability of conventional military forces to operate without access to satellites.
~Snip~
The U.S. should continue pursuing arms control efforts aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in space. However, it must also be prepared for the possibility that these efforts fail. By preparing conventional strike fighter assets to conduct operations in a denied space environment, the U.S. will be adequately ready for a world where nuclear weapons are orbiting the Earth.


Commentary:
In the last decade we've become even more dependent upon networked systems, GPS, and satellite coms. Not sure we could function now. Look at Ukraine war, most of our precision guided weapons are useless because of Russian Electronic Warfare.
I've also read we're beginning to field effective satellite com jammers. No idea how they work, but if we can do it...so can the enemy.
We've "bet the farm" on networked systems tied together by satcom, precision weapons, and unmanned systems. When none of them work, what then?
Does anyone believe that the U.S. and Russia haven't had such weapons since the 1960s? The fact of the matter is that the U.S. military ignited a nuclear weapon in space it was called "Operation Starfish Prime"
See: The Outrageous Story Of Starfish Prime, When The U.S. Detonated A Nuclear Bomb In Space

**********​

The Space Review: Remembering Starfish Prime

www.thespacereview.com

Since existing US legacy satellites are vulnerable to attack, the new strategy is 1000's of smaller satellites (like Star-Link) in vast huge networks making it difficult to take them all out. Unless a nation used nukes.
Then there is this, if they start using nukes on sat systems.... Space4 Director and LPL professor Vishnu Reddy says it is a question of when, not if, humans cause the Kessler Syndrome.
Kessler Syndrome is a nightmare space scenario in which the number of satellites and orbital debris is so high that collisions occur, each one generating more and more space debris and, in turn, cascading collisions.

Who was against the "Star Wars" programme -

SDI was derisively nicknamed the Star Wars program, and criticized for threatening to destabilize the MAD-approach, and to re-ignite "an offensive arms race".[18] In a 1986 speech, Senator Joe Biden claimed “'Star Wars' represents a fundamental assault on the concepts, alliances and arms-control agreements that have buttressed American security for several decades, and the president’s continued adherence to it constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft.”

Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[justoffal]

The Day After a Nuke Goes Off in Space​

U.S. Space Force leaders are concerned about growing space capabilities from China and Russia, such as the Russian “nesting doll” satellite that can deploy a kinetic weapon. Mike Tsukamoto/staff; NASA; Pixabay​

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/08/03/the_day_after_a_nuke_goes_off_in_space_1049242.html

3 Aug 2024 ~~ By Luke Widenhouse

In February, it was revealed that Russia has been developing a nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon. The Biden administration's response has focused mainly on arms control efforts aimed at preventing Russia from acquiring a space-based nuclear weapon in the first place. These efforts are important, but they are also insufficient. Steps must be taken now to prepare for the possibility that diplomacy fails. Nuclear anti-satellite weapons have the potential to fundamentally alter existing nuclear paradigms, creating a much more destabilizing environment than exists today. The U.S. must take action now to ensure it is ready to deal with the challenges posed by nuclear weapons in space. By preparing now, before nukes are put in orbit, the U.S. can better work to prevent such a day from ever happening at all.
~Snip~
In May, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb testified that Russia's weapon would be "indiscriminate," and "pose a threat to all satellites operated by countries and companies around the globe." The U.S. would therefore likely be left without the ability to retaliate against Russia in space if it detonated its weapon. The only option would be to strike targets on the ground. At present, conventional U.S. forces rely heavily on access to satellite-provided GPS, intelligence, and communications. A conventional strike in this environment would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. A nuclear strike would be more feasible (though also challenging). A serious conversation should address whether a surface nuclear strike would be an appropriate response to a nuclear attack that does not directly kill people on Earth.
However, it is still critical that the president retain a variety of options to respond to the use of such a weapon. Thus, central to deterrence in a world of nuclear anti-satellite weapons will be the ability of conventional military forces to operate without access to satellites.
~Snip~
The U.S. should continue pursuing arms control efforts aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in space. However, it must also be prepared for the possibility that these efforts fail. By preparing conventional strike fighter assets to conduct operations in a denied space environment, the U.S. will be adequately ready for a world where nuclear weapons are orbiting the Earth.


Commentary:
In the last decade we've become even more dependent upon networked systems, GPS, and satellite coms. Not sure we could function now. Look at Ukraine war, most of our precision guided weapons are useless because of Russian Electronic Warfare.
I've also read we're beginning to field effective satellite com jammers. No idea how they work, but if we can do it...so can the enemy.
We've "bet the farm" on networked systems tied together by satcom, precision weapons, and unmanned systems. When none of them work, what then?
Does anyone believe that the U.S. and Russia haven't had such weapons since the 1960s? The fact of the matter is that the U.S. military ignited a nuclear weapon in space it was called "Operation Starfish Prime"
See: The Outrageous Story Of Starfish Prime, When The U.S. Detonated A Nuclear Bomb In Space

**********​

The Space Review: Remembering Starfish Prime

www.thespacereview.com

Since existing US legacy satellites are vulnerable to attack, the new strategy is 1000's of smaller satellites (like Star-Link) in vast huge networks making it difficult to take them all out. Unless a nation used nukes.
Then there is this, if they start using nukes on sat systems.... Space4 Director and LPL professor Vishnu Reddy says it is a question of when, not if, humans cause the Kessler Syndrome.
Kessler Syndrome is a nightmare space scenario in which the number of satellites and orbital debris is so high that collisions occur, each one generating more and more space debris and, in turn, cascading collisions.

Good bye cell phones, good bye gps, good bye weather satellites ...for at least a century.