US Satellites Are Being Attacked Every Day According To Space Force General (thedrive.com) 171
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Drive: U.S. Space Force's General David Thompson, the service's second in command, said last week that Russia and China are launching "reversible attacks," such as electronic warfare jamming, temporarily blinding optics with lasers, and cyber attacks, on U.S. satellites "every single day." He also disclosed that a small Russian satellite used to conduct an on-orbit anti-satellite weapon test back in 2019 had first gotten so close to an American one that there were concerns an actual attack was imminent.
Thompson, who is Vice Chief of Space Operations, disclosed these details to The Washington Post's Josh Rogin in an interview on the sidelines of the Halifax International Security Forum, which ran from Nov. 19 to 21 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Canada. The forum opened just four days after a Russian anti-satellite weapon test involving a ground-launched interceptor, which destroyed a defunct Soviet-era electronic intelligence satellite and created a cloud of debris that presents a risk to the International Space Station (ISS). That test drew widespread condemnation, including from the U.S. government, and prompted renewed discussion about potential future conflicts in space.
"The threats are really growing and expanding every single day. And it's really an evolution of activity that's been happening for a long time," Thompson, told Rogin. "We're really at a point now where there's a whole host of ways that our space systems can be threatened." "Right now, Space Force is dealing with what Thompson calls 'reversible attacks' on U.S. government satellites (meaning attacks that don't permanently damage the satellites) 'every single day,'" according to Rogin. "Both China and Russia are regularly attacking U.S. satellites with non-kinetic means, including lasers, radio frequency jammers, and cyber attacks, he said." [...] Thompson's assertion that these kinds of attacks are occurring with extreme frequency is new. It underscores the rapid development and fielding by Russia and China, among others, of a wide variety of anti-satellite capabilities, something the U.S. military has called increasing attention to in recent years. "The Chinese are actually well ahead [of Russia]," Thompson told Rogin. "They're fielding operational systems at an incredible rate." "Thompson could not confirm or deny whether any American satellites had actually been damaged in a Russian or Chinese attack," the report adds. "[H]e told Rogin that even if such a thing had occurred, that very fact would be classified."
He did, however, provide new details about the incident in 2019 where a small Russian satellite released a projectile in one on-orbit anti-satellite weapon test. According to The Drive, "Russia's satellite had first got in very close to a U.S. 'national security satellite' and that 'the U.S. government didn't know whether it was attacking or not.'"
"It maneuvered close, it maneuvered dangerously, it maneuvered threateningly so that they were coming close enough that there was a concern of collision," Thompson said. "So clearly, the Russians were sending us a message."
Thompson, who is Vice Chief of Space Operations, disclosed these details to The Washington Post's Josh Rogin in an interview on the sidelines of the Halifax International Security Forum, which ran from Nov. 19 to 21 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Canada. The forum opened just four days after a Russian anti-satellite weapon test involving a ground-launched interceptor, which destroyed a defunct Soviet-era electronic intelligence satellite and created a cloud of debris that presents a risk to the International Space Station (ISS). That test drew widespread condemnation, including from the U.S. government, and prompted renewed discussion about potential future conflicts in space.
"The threats are really growing and expanding every single day. And it's really an evolution of activity that's been happening for a long time," Thompson, told Rogin. "We're really at a point now where there's a whole host of ways that our space systems can be threatened." "Right now, Space Force is dealing with what Thompson calls 'reversible attacks' on U.S. government satellites (meaning attacks that don't permanently damage the satellites) 'every single day,'" according to Rogin. "Both China and Russia are regularly attacking U.S. satellites with non-kinetic means, including lasers, radio frequency jammers, and cyber attacks, he said." [...] Thompson's assertion that these kinds of attacks are occurring with extreme frequency is new. It underscores the rapid development and fielding by Russia and China, among others, of a wide variety of anti-satellite capabilities, something the U.S. military has called increasing attention to in recent years. "The Chinese are actually well ahead [of Russia]," Thompson told Rogin. "They're fielding operational systems at an incredible rate." "Thompson could not confirm or deny whether any American satellites had actually been damaged in a Russian or Chinese attack," the report adds. "[H]e told Rogin that even if such a thing had occurred, that very fact would be classified."
He did, however, provide new details about the incident in 2019 where a small Russian satellite released a projectile in one on-orbit anti-satellite weapon test. According to The Drive, "Russia's satellite had first got in very close to a U.S. 'national security satellite' and that 'the U.S. government didn't know whether it was attacking or not.'"
"It maneuvered close, it maneuvered dangerously, it maneuvered threateningly so that they were coming close enough that there was a concern of collision," Thompson said. "So clearly, the Russians were sending us a message."
"Threats" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Threats" (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden confirmed the US is the biggest spy in the world but people continue to pay *zero* attention to what he has to say.
Re: "Threats" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: "Threats" (Score:4, Informative)
After WW2 russia's military was larger than the US. "should have disarmed the Soviets and everyone else" would have been really hard to do.
read about "operation Unthinkable"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMAkiURDoTE
Re: "Threats" (Score:2)
Re: "Threats" (Score:3)
Re: "Threats" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: "Threats" (Score:4, Insightful)
You actually want a one world government, accountable only to itself? And you would put the broken US political system at the top of that government?
That system would probably make Chinese or Russian authoritarianism look like a beautiful dream.
Re: "Threats" (Score:2)
That system would probably make Chinese or Russian authoritarianism look like a beautiful dream *cough*North Korea*cough*
Re: "Threats" (Score:5, Interesting)
"and forbid any other nation from having the right to arm itself with war-making weapons"
Well, the (in)famous Bf-109 fighter of World War 2 was designed and built as a mail carrying plane.
The initial training of the Panzer force used the "Grosstraktor" and "Leichttraktor" - the "heavy" and "lightweight" "agricultural" tractors on caterpillar drive.
And there's a joke about Russian sewing machines - if you take them apart and re-install them, you end up with an AK-47.
By the way, good luck suspending the right to arm itself to a country that lost more than one in ten of its population against a much smaller, well armed country. And who got invaded. Out of its 22 million square kilometers of land, the Germans, Italians, Romanians (and probably some others) took occupied around one million square kilometers of land.
This is why the Soviet Union, then, and Russia now wants that "security curtain" - hundreds of kilometers of deep defensive locations _away_ from Russian lands. The people ruling now Russia (civilians and military) were educated by the veterans of the Second World War.
Re: (Score:2)
That would have been a mistake. It would have cost a huge number of lives to disarm the USSR, and would quite likely have ended in a nuclear exchange.
It didn't work well with Germany after WW1 either. After WW2 there was some talk of turning Germany into an agrarian society, so devoid of technology that it could never start another war. That was thankfully rejected, and instead Germany was integrated into the European economy and allowed to thrive, preventing the conditions for another war ever arising agai
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Earth would most probably be a radioactive wasteland right now in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden, Trump, the whole republican rethoric. Maybe being in a region with lots of countries not agreeing on anything is not a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk?
Re: (Score:2)
Watch them go apeshit and call for blood about no longer being able to look at cat pictures on facebook and play Fortnite while they couldn't care less about these other satellites.
Re:"Threats" (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between shooting pictures of someone and shooting bullets at them. The US does the first, so why are you conflating that with the second?
Re: "Threats" (Score:3)
The US government fires plenty of bullets at people, both at home and abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The US has abused its overwhelming ability to project power to every square inch of this planet more times than anyone else, that's for sure. That's kind of the nature of being the sole real superpower left, with a political bent on enforcing the relative stability of its interests.
You act as like the US were some kind of whipped dog being beaten all over the place with its tail between its legs.
Which I guess would work, if the analogy is of a dog retreating with its tail between
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That, contrary to what Americans like to think, doesn't mean their manpower, technology and bigger weaponry did most the fighting. Okay, WW1, I'll grant you. The UK had shot its load at all the wrong things and was about to suffer a war of attrition. In WW2, the UK repeated that mistake in Africa, again demanding the USA save them, and the German leadership wasted their military advantage in France and Holland. Otherwise, WW2 was different beast with the UK providing most of the technology and Russia prov
Re: (Score:3)
The US provided 25% of the force on D-Day, the other 75% was provided by UK and Canada, and a bunch of Europeans from occupied territory.
The most difficult battles, those moving west were fought by the UK and the Canadians.
I won't downplay the role of the US, but hey only started to play their biggest role after the breakthrough to Falaise, and then the move to Germany after the winter of 1944.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(rimshot)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting graph to play around with.
Re:Nobody is shooting bullet at US satellite (Score:5, Informative)
They are jamming them to stop them spying onto them. That is a BIG difference. And you think the US is not doing the same for Russian or China military satellite ?
Actually, the US allows Russia (and many other countries) to send surveillance planes right over the US [time.com] -- no jamming or nothing.
Re:Nobody is shooting bullet at US satellite (Score:4, Insightful)
The US military tech, jamming tech, and with almost certainty anti sat tech is far more advanced than any other nation.
What's your basis for that assertion? Do Russia or China have a fleet of spy satellites that they complain about laser or jammer attacks against? Has the US blown up one of its satellites in orbit risking Kessler syndrome? Or do you just assume that the US has absolute dominance in all fields for reasons, even in fields that are 90+% useful to attack the US?
Re: (Score:2)
One problem that the generals were able to take advantage of was the excessive secrecy of the Soviets. HUMINT was very difficult, so it was hard to confirm what SIGINT and OPINT was telling us, or, as the case may be, not telling us.
I can see the conversation (choose voices from your favorite Dr. Strangelove characters):
GEN: What's that spot on the photograph there?
MAJ: We reckon that to be a decoy ICBM site.
GEN: Decoy? Are you 100% sure?
MAJ: Sir, we are Military Intelligence. We are never 100% sure.
GEN: Well, then, we can't take that chance, can we? It's now an active ICBM site.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, take a hard line - tell off all them camera-wielding Japanese tourists! When they come back :-)
Re: (Score:2)
So by this logic, the US should definitely be attacking Russian and Chinese satellites, too.
Re: (Score:2)
As if US military surveillance satellites aren't a threat to China and Russia. Guess who has more satellites spying on EVERYONE than anyone else combined?
SpaceX (Starlink)? :-)
Interesting linguistics (Score:5, Insightful)
So if a spy satellite going over a territory of foreign nation is prevented from taking pictures by blinding it with directed light emission, or radar equipped spy satellite is prevented from doing the same via electromagnetic jamming, this is "an attack"?
Weird. I'm pretty sure this is called "countermeasures" when US uses these methods, specifically because they are defensive in nature.
Seriously, I like the new propaganda. It's just like the old propaganda, but not as stale. And it's perfectly in theme with having a "Department of Defense", in a nation that has two oceanic moats and two completely militarily subjugated neighbours that operates offensive missions globally. 10/10, I want to hear more.
About the only new thing here seems to be that Russians at least have learned some things from X-37B's adventures.
Re: (Score:3)
So if a spy satellite going over a territory of foreign nation is prevented from taking pictures by blinding it with directed light emission, or radar equipped spy satellite is prevented from doing the same via electromagnetic jamming, this is "an attack"?
Weird. I'm pretty sure this is called "countermeasures" when US uses these methods, specifically because they are defensive in nature.
I'm on board with "it's countermeasures when a spy satellite over a nation's territory is zapped", where does it say in the article - or where does the general say - that it only happens over the territory of certain nations? Maybe I missed where this was in the article. Point me to it? I see "ground-based" a couple times, to distinguish from satellite-satellite play, but that doesn't mean "from a certain nation."
I mean, sure, your scenario leads to the conclusion, but it reads like you just took a gener
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how in addition to building a case which you then proceed to demolish in a single sentence
>I mean, sure, your scenario leads to the conclusion
As the scenario presented is not mine but in the OP, but you then also spend a lot of time talking about specific US satellites and then... "attacking A satellite" as if they just attacked a random one.
As for the rest, yeah, military operations are dangerous. Have you ever handled explosives? And that's before we actually get into the wonderful world of how
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, I like the new propaganda. It's just like the old propaganda, but not as stale.
In this case it's the same old propaganda but with space lasers. USPTO approved.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, almost everything is better with lasers. Have you seen those Chinese laser shows? Amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apparently it's not Electronic Counter-Measures (ECM) any more, it's 'reversible attacks'. That's some double-plus good right there!
Didn't the US declare a space war? (Score:2)
Didn't former US president Donald Trump declare that the US was going to militarize space? Didn't he establish a branch of the military called Space Force that is dedicated to this task? Could that perhaps have something to do with the other space powers suddenly experimenting with space weapons that target us? Hmm...
Re: (Score:2)
Darth Cheney wanted moon mirrors to take away the shadows and banish crime to the... dimly lit night?
You may have simply been confused when they moved the satellite intelligence analysts from the Air Force to the Space Force.
Re: (Score:2)
You may have simply been confused when they moved the satellite intelligence analysts from the Air Force to the Space Force.
Administratively, that may be all it was. But to the rest of the world, Trump was initiating an escalation. China and Russia already had tested space weapons. But the fool shouldn't have given them an excuse to use them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 1 - low level harassment
Step 2 - escalation
Step 3 - opponent responds publicly
Step 4 - traitors blame the victim, claiming that step 3 caused steps 1 and 2
Step 5 - go back to step 2 and repeat the cycle
I'll be clear since you aren't bright enough to figure this out on your own, you are step 4. This pattern literally goes back to the 1790s.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Trump did step 2.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Didn't the US declare a space war? (Score:5, Informative)
Yea a lot of fools just blindly believe what CNN feeds them and thinks its truth.
Thomas Jefferson's 2nd inaugural address on March 4, 1805 in the 11th paragraph warned the people about "fake news" even though CNN act like there's no such thing and Trump invented it lol.
Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19... [yale.edu]
During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science, are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness, and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation.
Re: (Score:2)
even though CNN act like there's no such thing and Trump invented it lol.
There's warning against "fake news" and then there's calling every time your lies get called out "fake news", and calling every news agency ever critical of you "fake news".
Equating the two while criticizing CNN really does little more than show you have not at all understood CNN. Or understood Trump for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when Faux News perfected the technique in the modern era. Now everybody plays.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
pretty sad when arguably one of our all time best presidents....you decide to label a shit president.
Fucking laughable.
The dude has the IQ of a cranial gunshot victim. He panders to the lowest common denominator in all cases, and pushed the line of corruption in the elected government farther than it has ever gone.
History will judge him accordingly, and already is.
let me guess, you think FDR was the best (i did too until i looked deeper than the 3rd grade history books, and i live down the road from his home)
Good god, no.
I will give FDR credit for a decent performance in an impossible situation, but I don't account it to his great intellect or statesmanship anything like that. I will say he was a great orator.
The greatest President of the 20th c
Re: (Score:2)
It should have read:
Thomas Jefferson wasn't a shit President. His accomplishments outlived him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Didn't the US declare a space war? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll go ahead and just give you the timeline.
9/26 - First positive test. Rose Garden event with Amy Coney Barrett. WH doctor says, and I quote, "Stop the president from leaving. He just tested positive for covid.". 1 positive test, 1 negative. Trump at this juncture assumes the negative is the real one, despite advice to the contrary. He knows best.
9/27 - Event with the "Gold Star Families". Trump suggests later that he may have contracted it at this event, even though he tested positive 2 days earlier.
9/28 - Press briefing with Pence about the distribution of COVID testing kits (please tell me you laughed too). Washington Post’s Philip Bump later asked a now-prescient question, "Did Trump already know that he might have contracted the virus?" The answer to that question is: Yes. Yes he did.
9/29 - The debate. Trump's team declines to wear masks, and Trump himself arrives to late for a rapid test. The "Honor System" is employed. 11 people contract COVID at this event.
9/30 - Rally and private fundraiser.
10/1 - Hope Hicks tests positive.
10/2 - Trump is rushed to Walter Reed and pumped full of monoclonal antibodies.
Give me a fucking break, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
No one who claims criticism of Trump is mud slinging is going to give you a break. They're going to turn our nation's general lack of demand accountability into exoneration... in their minds
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to mention how the FDA had to ramrod through approval of that antibody treatment in an attempt to save him. It's good to be the king.
Ya, but I support that.
A President dying because of some ideological stupidity, or pretending to have an ideological stupidity for votes isn't good for the country.
And glacing at Trump's pictures at the time, I'd guess he had a mortality probability of about 190%. I'm rather relieved the system to keep the king alive works so well. If only the system for us plebs were as fantastic!
Re: (Score:2)
From what I just heard yesterday, the "negative" test was an anti-body test. In case you don't know, that is not a test for the presence of the virus, but a test for the immune system's response to the virus, and so a negative result means nothing early in the course of the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
So hey seriously dude, I want to know the truth. Was there indeed a second negative test that confirmed he did not have Covid at this point? I'd like to have a source for that so I can point it out to people if it is true. But from what I am reading, DamnOregonian's post is accurate, and the timeline and contract tracing seems to work out.
Re: (Score:2)
Now yes, I agree, it was beginning to look like that woman was fucking invincible, but you're right... instead a hundred medical technicians and doctors involved with treating her metastatic pancreatic cancer are all in on the cover-up.
How, man? How can you be so fucking stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
The US had satellites long before Trump.
Certainly, as did China and Russia. Trump declaring "Space Force" publicly merely emboldened those other powers to act more publicly as well. I doubt he did it for any specific military reason. Heck: the military didn't want him to do it, and neither did congress or the public really. He did it because he is a narcissist who wanted to be the one written in the history books as having started "Space Force."
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY. This is just the highly paid military officers justifying their existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The space force was organized to make Trump look like he did something useful. The Air Force was already handling those concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't even Trump's idea.
That is completely irrelevant, because it was sold as Trump's idea, and most of his followers bought it. Reality is not relevant with these people.
It was opposed and not properly funded in order to PREVENT Trump from visibly doing something useful.
It has received more funding than the Air Force did for doing the job, and they were doing fine.
The same reason the fanatics are hating on the military saying they actually do need this thing now.
That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
No that is just cognitive dissonance.
"That is completely irrelevant, because it was sold as Trump's idea, and most of his followers bought it."
Huh sounds like a point which only matters to someone who rejects the idea on a purely political basis.
Guess you are one of those fanatics I spoke of.
"It has received more funding than the Air Force did for doing the job, and they were doing fine."
According to you and your friendly media. But not the military and a
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't former US president Donald Trump declare that the US was going to militarize space? Didn't he establish a branch of the military called Space Force that is dedicated to this task? Could that perhaps have something to do with the other space powers suddenly experimenting with space weapons that target us? Hmm...
The US just made it's space warfare section a semi-independent branch, that's all. Russia and China both have space warfare divisions, they're still just a part of their countries respective air forces (as the Space Force used to be the USAF Space Command).
Wherever man goes, the military goes. This has always been the case. And you forget that our "civilian" space agency was largely made up of military pilots on the astronaut side, and former German military engineers that worked on Hitler's vengeance weapo
Justifying Existence (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Justifying Existence (Score:2)
They already existed, we took part of the Air Force and gave it a new name.
I just want it to be clear because there's lots of reasons to shit on the space force existing, but the mission isn't really new, and whether it's justified is a separate discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Space Force was created for literally the same reason the Air Force was created: to create a promotion path for people focused on a mission that was not respected under the old system.
The Army did not take the air mission seriously. The path to General did not run through the offices that managed the air fleet. But civilians understood how important air was, so they spun the Air Force off. Suddenly, it was possible for people with a passion for the air mission to be recognized for their excellence, and t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this isn't news at all. Russia and China have been using lasers to blind satellites for decades, and practicing in-orbit interception.
So has the US.
I thought that was standard procedure? (Score:2)
What do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think the guy who's in charge of this big new "Space Force" agency and it's $17.4 BILLION budget is going to say, "no, we're not really needed at this point. Space is pretty peaceful."
At this point, don't we expect a general or admiral to pretty much tout the story that their agency is a strategic bulwark for Liberty and Freedom against the forces of evil? What else is he going to say? He's got to justify his existence, so there's got to be attacks.
Is there international law on this? (Score:2)
Re:Is there international law on this? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no law acknowledging the belonging of the terrestrial land below you.
That's not to say that there isn't a realistic consideration- there just isn't a legal one.
Electronic Countermeasures (Score:5, Informative)
The referenced article is pure propaganda. Electronic countermeasures are a globally accepted form of military defense and we (USians) were jamming Soviet satellites at least as far back as forty years ago when I was in the US Air Force being a Space Systems Equipment Maintenance Technician. Everyone who can, does, and no one who does is surprised when the other guy does, too.
Re: (Score:2)
right!
Translation (Score:2)
We want more money so we can better pretend creating our branch wasn't just a publicity stunt!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is absolutely different. The U.S.A.F. is the world leader in space access and use.
A new "space force" is a reinvention of the wheel, with redundancy all over the place.
Maybe you're right, but to this day, there are people saying that the creation of the USAF was a wasteful mistake, and that keeping land based airpower in the Army worked just fine, and that creating an independent air force was just making more expensive bureaucracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Before USAF, becoming expert in air operations was career limiting, as another poster mentioned. As air power became more strategic, I believe that it was a good decision to break off a piece of the giant, monolithic Army, to allow top leaders, both military and civilian, to more appropriately allocate strategic resources; and to allow service members to become expert in the tactical use of air power.
And let us not forget nukes. Nukes have been the game changer since 1945, affecting not only how the militar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the JD Powers Award goes to...
I guess that means U.S.S.F. is now the world leader in space access and use.
Rotating the Tires
Much of it can be classified as bureaucratic reorganization. Personnel and materiel reassigned to a different command. Services (and other large organizations) do it all the time. I don't think the AF is going to get a budget to reconstitute the capabilities that were transferred to SF.
Always Carry a Spare
I agree, there will be some overlap. Some good, some bad I imagine. As IT pro
I know how this ends (Score:2)
I’ve seen Moonraker.
Re: (Score:2)
-- "Dr. Goodhead, be a good cunt, and please fetch me two dozen freight trains stocked full of torches and pitchforks with phasers."
-- "Mr. Bond, I went to Wellesley and Harvard..."
-- "Then be a good vicious cunt."
The problem is Space Force (Score:3, Insightful)
Inventing an enemy is essential.
Same old, same old.
Re: (Score:2)
It's mission is the mission of the old USAF Space Command. I would expect the budget to be comparable. And yes, same old enemies.
Right... (Score:2)
"If they were under attack, that would be classified, but trust us, they are, give us money."
Just wait... (Score:2)
Now that SpaceX has shown the capability to launch, and the practicality of, thousands of microsatellites, the US government will be doing the same thing in short order. Especially when Starship can launch several hundred at one time. Makes it technically and logistically extremely difficult to shoot that many satellites down. You know, it's bad to put all your eggs in one basket type thing with just a handful of really big satellites.
Quick! more Tax dollars to industry!!! (Score:2)
Your tax dollars must go to the Military Industrial Complex to keep you safe from Russia and China.
This stupid narrative against Russia has been going on since Truman fucked over Stalin, and the Chinese civil war was won by the side the US wasn't backing.
Learn history to see the bullshit we're being fed, by the people making the most money from it.
Yep... (Score:2)
...and we've been doing the same thing to them for decades.
The US, Russia, and China have been blinding satellites over sensitive military bases for longer than we care to admit, and before that we were using camouflage or just keeping things inside when satellites were overhead.
This is nothing new, and it certainly isn't news. This is just the tarded Space Force version of "mom, he hit me!".
Move along, nothing to see here (Score:2)
Space Force's new mission will be... wait for it... climate change. And you thought THIS guy WASN'T compromised.
Not new (Score:2)
Literally par for the course, all this "Oh, wow this is new!" nonsense is hyperbole.
Military complexes are constantly trying their luck and pushing the boundary on interaction with other such places.
The Russian jets skirt the North Sea air borders of the UK almost every day, often prompting an RAF response to launch (and that's used by the Russians to gauge our response capabilities). Boats. Subs. Cyber-attacks.
What makes you think satellites are any different?
The only thing "new" now is that you're delib
Old saying (Score:2)
The United States is superb at fighting the previous war.
Re: Why should I care? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if they called it countermeasures, it would infer they were doing something that had to be countered..
I see you're being downmodded by the sockpuppet accounts for pointing out the obvious. Pity the operators of Slashdot don't audit the accounts of those downmodding others after reviewing their comments and start blocking off IP address blocks involved.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Like the US isn't attacking Russian or Chinese satellites either.
You've been modded to oblivion, faceless poster, but your point still stands: the United States is almost certainly doing the same activities to Russia and China.
The US prides itself on its advanced weaponry, and assumes no one can challenge that power right now, but we're also heavily dependent upon our satellite system (more so than other countries), ESPECIALLY our GPS system. Space is then a logical weak point to attack the US. It's easier to take on a giant if you've blinded him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)