Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Russia Vetoes U.N. Resolution On Nuclear Weapons In Space (cnn.com) 162

Posted by EditorDavid from the nyet dept.
This week Russia vetoed a UN resolution that proposed banning nuclear weapons in space, CNN reports.

But it all happened "amid U.S. intelligence-backed concerns that Moscow is trying to develop a nuclear device capable of destroying satellites." In February, President Joe Biden confirmed the US has intelligence that Russia is developing a nuclear anti-satellite capability. Three sources familiar with the intelligence subsequently told CNN the weapon could destroy satellites by creating a massive energy wave when detonated...

US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said Wednesday's vote "marks a real missed opportunity to rebuild much-needed trust in existing arms control obligations." A US and Japan-drafted resolution had received cross-regional support from more than 60 member states. It intended to strengthen and uphold the global non-proliferation regime, including in outer space, and reaffirm the shared goal of maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes. It also called on UN member states not to develop nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction designed to be placed in Earth's orbit....

Experts say this kind of weapon could have the potential to wipe out mega constellations of small satellites, like SpaceX's Starlink, which has been successfully used by Ukraine to counter Russian troops. This would almost certainly be "a last-ditch weapon" for Russia, the US official and other sources said — because it would do the same damage to whatever Russian satellites were also in the area.
The article notes that in March Russian President Vladimir Putin "told officials that space projects, including the setup of a nuclear power unit in space, should be a priority and receive proper financing."

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.

Russia Vetoes U.N. Resolution On Nuclear Weapons In Space More | Reply

Russia Vetoes U.N. Resolution On Nuclear Weapons In Space

Comments Filter:

  • Already prohibited (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Saturday April 27, 2024 @05:38PM (#64429986) Homepage

    The UN Outer Space Treaty of 1966 already prohibits "nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner".

    https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en... [unoosa.org]

    • But is Russia a signatory?

      • Re:Already prohibited (Score:4, Informative)

        by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Saturday April 27, 2024 @05:46PM (#64429994) Homepage

        The Soviet Union was.

        Russia, as the official successor nation inherited the Soviet Union's treaties and position in the UN.

        • Re:Already prohibited (Score:5, Informative)

          by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Saturday April 27, 2024 @05:52PM (#64430004)

          Correct:

          "The UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth, on celestial bodies, or in outer space in general. This treaty aims to maintain outer space as a peaceful environment for the benefit of all humanity. Therefore, both Russia and other signatory states are bound by this prohibition and are not allowed to deploy such weapons in space. The UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth, on celestial bodies, or in outer space in general. This treaty aims to maintain outer space as a peaceful environment for the benefit of all humanity. Therefore, both Russia and other signatory states are bound by this prohibition and are not allowed to deploy such weapons in space."

          • "The UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth, on celestial bodies, or in outer space in general.

            I imagine the argument is that treaty was specifically targeting space-based "weapons of mass destruction" designed to fall to earth, detonate, and kill people on the planet; while these new weapons typically would not kill anyone at all (unless a space station had the misfortune of being in the weapon's vicinity).

            • You may be right about intentions. That was back in the Cold War.

              However, like all laws, whatever the original intent, the law applies until the judicial system says otherwise. The idea that a nuclear weapon would be useful for low-orbit destruction of satellites is ridiculous. The high tide raises all boats.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The U.S. (Bush) withdrew from the AntiBallistic Missile Treaty, claiming it had been with the Soviet Union, not Russia, so no longer applied.

          • Re:Already prohibited (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Saturday April 27, 2024 @06:51PM (#64430078) Homepage

            That is the thing about sovereignty... not being bound by any rules you don't choose to follow.

            Any sovereign nation can ignore any treaty it wants to. But your fellow sovereigns may not trust you next time you pinky-swear.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by HBI ( 10338492 )

            This was so a missile shootdown capability could be built into US systems. It's not foolproof and probably not useful against a large strike, but sufficient for a single North Korean missile, for instance. The ABM treaty ruled this out, with only two systems grandfathered in - the Soviet ones around Moscow and the decommissioned US one in North Dakota protecting the Minuteman fields.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by HBI ( 10338492 )

          1) The Soviets had an anti-satellite weapon that essentially consisted of a nuclear reactor that would burn up the target after matching orbit with the target. They'd probably contend that that was not a 'nuclear weapon'. That was effective enough in the days when individual KH satellites (the likely targets) were not very numerous. Not so much today.

          2) Article IV of the treaty, the one that discusses nuclear weapons in space, talks a lot about 'stationing' nuclear weapons in space. The issue at the tim

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by quonset ( 4839537 )

          The Soviet Union was.

          Russia, as the official successor nation inherited the Soviet Union's treaties and position in the UN.

          If Russia doesn't recognize Ukraine's existence, why would you think they would recognize a treaty from the the former Soviet Union? Also, in 2009, Russia, not the former Soviet Union, released a joint statement with the U.S. saying the Budapest Memorandum [harvard.edu]'s security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty. And look what happened.

          • Correct. Russia could sign on to a non-proliferation treaty today and violate it tomorrow. They just don't give a damn.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by HBI ( 10338492 )

              It's interesting that you say that because that's just what they think of us. Not completely unjustified either, with what happened with ABM and Minsk. I believe Putin's translated phrase was "not agreement capable".

              • Minsk? You mean a statement which came two decades after the Budapest Memorandum? A memorandum which Putin doesn't recognize even after he reaffirmed they would stick to it five years before he invaded Ukraine?

                Go shill somewhere else, Vasily.

                Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by HBI ( 10338492 )

                  So when someone tells you something inconvenient, you just assert it's some Russian using a vpn to post? Well that's convincing. You sound like a MAGA dude with their conspiracy theories, same mindset.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by linuxguy ( 98493 )

                > It's interesting that you say that because that's just what they think of us. Not completely unjustified either, with what happened with ABM and Minsk.

                Could you shed some light on what it is that *we*, the Americans, did to violate the Minsk agreement, while everybody else was respecting it?

              • Even if Putin had a point, your statement is still an obvious distraction from the criticism leveled against him.

          • The Soviet Union was.

            Russia, as the official successor nation inherited the Soviet Union's treaties and position in the UN.

            If Russia doesn't recognize Ukraine's existence, why would you think they would recognize a treaty from the the former Soviet Union? Also, in 2009, Russia, not the former Soviet Union, released a joint statement with the U.S. saying the Budapest Memorandum [harvard.edu]'s security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty. And look what happened.

            International Treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on. If one side decides to ignore/violate the treaty there is essentially nothing you can do about it. Your only choices are:
            -- War
            -- Trade sanctions, which are rarely effective, especially against a large country

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by linuxguy ( 98493 )

        > But is Russia a signatory?

        Soviet Union is a party to the UNOOSA agreement. But, it no longer exists.

        Russia claims ownership of all assets that once belonged to Soviet Union around the globe. So does Ukraine, since separation in 1991. But Russia also disowns Soviet obligations when convenient.

      • Uh, who cares what they signed? Is it enforceable against Russia? These kind of treaties are stupid, the mightier side will just do what they want and justify it or not even bother with the mental gymnastics of justifying it. Now let's say a small country didn't sign the treaty and starts putting nukes up there .. are we going to let them? Of course not. That's why treaties are stupid.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

      Does this treaty apply to AI that wasn't even sentient in 1966? Asking for a robot friend.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vlad30 ( 44644 )
      Treaty and such are only good if countries abide by them. Russia often goes against this regardless as do other some other countries e.g invading Ukraine twice. These treaties like the law in any country only serve to stop good people like

    • The new treaty is not about weapons in orbit or on celestial bodies.
      Which is clear from that summary, which you failed to read.

    • Do you really think some crap scribbled on toilet paper is going to stop Putin taking a dump? Treaties only matter if you think Jesus is going to hold you accountable. A treaty only matters if there's a meaningful way to enforce it. In the case of Russia, there's no way to enforce the treaty. No momma to go crying to. "OK I lied, so what?"

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Pieroxy ( 222434 )

      The thing is, whatever Russia (or the USSR) signed in the past doesn't constrain Putin to anything. After all, Russia did sign a non agression pact with Ukraine after they got back the ICBMs that were on Ukrainian soil: The Budapest Memorandum [wikipedia.org]

  • Space debris (Score:5, Interesting)

    by manu0601 ( 2221348 ) on Saturday April 27, 2024 @06:07PM (#64430026)
    Killing satellites using nuclear EMP would make less space debris that using a conventional missile, as it would only destroy electronics. But the dead satellites could then collide with others without any way to move them away.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      What most of the press corpse (spelling deliberate) has carefully avoided is the reason that Russia vetoed the resolution and China abstained. They see no reason why **ALL** weapons should not be prohibited from deployment in space.

      https://apnews.com/article/nuc... [apnews.com]

      • >> the reason that Russia vetoed the resolution

        Because everyone knows it is a bogus reason.

        “Today’s veto begs the question: Why? Why, if you are following the rules, would you not support a resolution that reaffirms them? What could you possibly be hiding,” she asked. “It’s baffling. And it’s a shame.”

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          So the US vetoed the earlier resolution from Russia and China to prohibit **ALL** weapons in outer space because we are hiding that we already illegally have weapons there? Is that what you're saying?

          • >> US vetoed the earlier resolution

            No cite? What was the text of that resolution.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by cusco ( 717999 )

              I linked to this earlier in the thread. Russia and China have been proposing since 2008 to prohibit **ALL** weapons in space, and tried to add an amendment to this proposal to change it from exclusively prohibiting nukes to outlawing all weapons. Both efforts have been blocked by the US.

              https://apnews.com/article/nuc... [apnews.com]

              I'd be very surprised if the US doesn't already have a variation on their "smart bullet" technology deployed in space. By targeting just the comms or power of a satellite they can disable

              • >> I linked to this earlier in the thread

                That simply mentions a purported amendment to the current resolution, and it doesn't cite the text. It also doesn't explain why the 7 countries voted against it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      You dont need a nuclear explosion to EMP. When I served in the navy we used to EA-6B aircraft to disable missile batteries using the same EMP feature. This plane was developed in the late 60s. I am suee by now we probably have a missile version. In fact maybe thats what the X-37 is really designed for.

    • Killing satellites using nuclear EMP would make less space debris that using a conventional missile, as it would only destroy electronics

      It would make less space debris only because you weren't adding the mass of a missile. Spacecraft with their electronics destroyed ARE space debris, as you almost pointed out yourself...

  • Hopefully KGB agent Putin understands that his "last ditch weapon will be followed by the end of the Russian Federation.

    At least the USA has maintained their big explody things. They don't work very will if they aren't regularly maintained. Plutonium isn't a real stable element.

    As well, presumably the oligarchy understand that our first war in LEO or even geosynchronous will be our last for a long time Might put a kink in Elon's million people on Mars by 2050 plans.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      The U.S. is undergoing a nuclear modernization program that will bring the nukes up to scratch. And China has been building out its nuclear weapons, especially now that they can see how Putin uses the threat of using them to his advantage.

      • Yep, and it just shows what big hypocrites the US are. Telling others they cannot have/create nuclear weapons, but in the meantime create new ones and expanding their own arsenal. Because of that Iran and North Korea are just as much entitled to have their own nuclear weapons.
      • A fat lot of good Russia has gotten from their nukes. They havent done much to help them in Ukraine. They grind 10,000 Russian men into hamburger for every square kilometer of blasted ruined wasteland that they take. They know that if they use even a single tactical nuke on the battlefield, every single one of their neighbors will quickly build their own nuke pile in response. Nukes are useful as an insurance policy to keep your core country from being overrun but thats about it. They used to be a status s

    • Hopefully KGB agent Putin understands that his "last ditch weapon will be followed by the end of the Russian Federation.

      I bet he has a bunker with life support for the rest of his life and luxuries anyone can only dream off, additionally any high altitude nuke would wipe out satellites, thus US advantage over much bigger Russia with their practically unlimited old fashion artillery.

      • Hopefully KGB agent Putin understands that his "last ditch weapon will be followed by the end of the Russian Federation.

        I bet he has a bunker with life support for the rest of his life and luxuries anyone can only dream off, additionally any high altitude nuke would wipe out satellites, thus US advantage over much bigger Russia with their practically unlimited old fashion artillery.

        He better get every one of our missiles, destroyed on that first hit. You think he can do that? If we determine he tried something stupid, we'll launch a heartwarming response. And we don't need satellites - we're pretty good with inertial guidance and mapping.

        We might be stupid and fat, but we are really really good at killing others, and if Vlad decides to start WW3, We'll almost certainly finish it.

        • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          Unlike the US and Israel, Russia (and the Soviets before them) do not have a First Strike policy where we can launch for any reason or no reason at all. Russia considers nukes as defensive weapons. This is, incidentally, the policy of every other nuclear power but the US and Israel. We are the mad dogs running rampant, and it's why other countries are **SO** worried when we elect a doddering ancient like Reagan or Biden, or an out-and-out lunatic like Shrub or Rump.

          • Re:Last Ditch weapon? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Sunday April 28, 2024 @03:48AM (#64430534)

            The Soviets did not have a first strike policy. What policies russia has or hasn't is up to a senile dictator, because unlike the USSR with its one party dictatorship with dozens of decision-makers, russia has a straight top-down chain of command where loyalty to one single person is the only thing that counts.

          • Unlike the US and Israel, Russia (and the Soviets before them) do not have a First Strike policy where we can launch for any reason or no reason at all. Russia considers nukes as defensive weapons.

            Policy, amirite?

            Here's the problem with defensive nucs. They are not defensive by their very existence.

            The closest that nucs get to being a defensive weapon is the policy of mutually assured destruction, or MAD.

            And as long as no nuts are in charge, that kinda works.

            And there is a bit of difference between what happens in the USA and Russia. If you oppose Putin, you might accidentally get dioxin or Polonium soup with your salt and bread. That sort of thing tends to breed unquestioning compliance.

          • Unlike the US and Israel, Russia (and the Soviets before them) do not have a First Strike policy

            Yes, like any treaty signed by this country is worth any more than the paper it's written on:
            - the agent, which killed UK citizens in the UK was developed after Russia signed a treaty of not developing chemical weapons
            - Russia was a signatory of "untouchable" Ukraine borders

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by cusco ( 717999 )

              They still hold to international treaties and norms a **FRACK** of a lot more than the US does, we're now considered "agreement incapable" by the international community because of the last quarter century of our behavior. Only Israel is trusted less on the international stage now. I really can't think of a single major international treaty that the US hasn't violated in this century. UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, bio-weapons and chemical weapons treaties, OAS charter, money laundering agreements, you

              • I provided evidence, in your post there's none.
                Now be a good tavaristch and ask for your vodka payment.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by cusco ( 717999 )

                  Wow, the reality opposition field must be working overtime for you. You really don't remember any of the last 25 years of US international rampage? Invading Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan, drone-murdering an Iranian diplomat while he was in a convoy on the way to meet the Iraqi president, using white phosphorus in Iraq and gassing tunnels in Afghanistan, torture of thousands, starving thousands in Venezuela, etc. etc. ad nausium.

                  • All hearsay and just events - yes, US was at war, you're saying US has no right for self-defense?
                    Please provide a clear evidence of US breaking an international treaty (I provided 2 on my side), otherwise please go back to praising your leader and clean up his portrait, the friendly visitors might knock the door any moment.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by cusco ( 717999 )

                      Wow, so you aren't aware that an unprovoked invasion is a violation of the UN Charter? That torturing prisoners, retaliation against civilians, and destruction of civilian infrastructure are violations of the Geneva Conventions? That unilateral sanctions are violations of **multiple** international accords? That's a truly amazing level of ignorance, come back and we'll talk after you graduate high school.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by cusco ( 717999 )

                      No, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan were entirely unprovoked invasions. Afghanistan repeatedly offered to hand over Binladdin (three times IIRC) if the US would offer some bare minimum of evidence. We didn't bother with any evidence, apparently returning the opium warlords to power was a higher priority than actually bringing Binladdin to "justice".

                    • You started an interesting and deep topic, however before we go into details of 9/11 terrorist attack and its consequences, let's finish the merit of this discussion, i.e. Russia adhering to the signed treaties, specifically:
                      - the treaty of not violating Ukraine's borders in exchange for Ukraine's nukes and later unprovoked invasion of Ukraine
                      - genocides in Ukraine on civilians
                      - developing chemical weapons despite signing a treaty of not developing such, and later using it to assacinate foreign citizens on

    • Hopefully KGB agent Putin understands that his "last ditch weapon will be followed by the end of the Russian Federation.

      At least the USA has maintained their big explody things. They don't work very will if they aren't regularly maintained. Plutonium isn't a real stable element.

      As well, presumably the oligarchy understand that our first war in LEO or even geosynchronous will be our last for a long time Might put a kink in Elon's million people on Mars by 2050 plans.

      Putin's Nuclear policy is very clear. Allow lower level politicians to make big nuclear threats [alarabiya.net]. And even make slightly vague and indirect threats yourself [bbc.com].

      But don't say anything that would clearly commit you to using Nukes as part of your conquest of Ukraine (and holding of currently occupied territories) so you don't have to backtrack if things go south.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      Do you not understand what "last ditch" means? That is the Russian nuclear policy, which was identical to the Soviet position. that nuclear weapons are defensive weapons only. If you read Putin's statements over the years, and they're all helpfully provided (in English) on the Russian government web site, that he's been consistent. Nuclear weapons are only to be used in response to attack by nuclear or other WMD, or the imminent destruction of Russia.

      • Do you not understand what "last ditch" means? That is the Russian nuclear policy, which was identical to the Soviet position. that nuclear weapons are defensive weapons only. If you read Putin's statements over the years, and they're all helpfully provided (in English) on the Russian government web site, that he's been consistent. Nuclear weapons are only to be used in response to attack by nuclear or other WMD, or the imminent destruction of Russia.

        What do you think about Burevestnik, Russia's version of SLAM? That's about as non-defensive as you can get.

        If you are into such things, Project Pluto and SLAM are fascinating Here's a Youtube link to get you started https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] A pretty fair number of vids there on that.

        Back when the US investigated SLAM and Project Pluto, in the late 50's, they did prove that you could create a Ramjet engine with the heat source being an "air cooled" open reactor. The air cooling would be the

  • and remember that the US had and tested McDonnell Douglas Air-2A Genie Rocket [af.mil] an air-to-air nuclear missile. My grandparents' generation was insane, and seeing that happen all over again is not a happy thing.

    • We also had the Nike-Herkules weapons, ground to air missiles, with quite some range, that could carry a small anti aircraft nuke. No idea if they all were equipped with nukes by default.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        Then there were the 'suicide nukes', nuclear howitzer "dial-a-yield" shells which at maximum output would leave the crew firing the weapon well within the fallout zone. (Remove the cover and the shock absorbers and you have the legendary "backpack nuke" flogged in the press every few years.) The US produced so many that they lost count, and their production numbers are listed today just as "in the thousands".

  • Why did UsA Veto a bill by Russia and China to prohibit ANY weapons, and then put up a stupid bill for prohibition of nuclear arms? Hypocrites.

    • Those two things are different, and expecting no weapons is not only unrealistic it's also impossible. It is for example a science fiction trope that a fusion drive is a weapon, but there's all kinds of other more immediately relevant technologies which are also potentially weapons like mass drivers (which can be used to transport ores) or communications lasers, power rectennas, repair drones... (think canadarm as saboteur). For that matter, a large number of small spacecraft which are considered disposable

  • "marks a real missed opportunity to rebuild much-needed trust in existing arms control obligations."

    It was the US that unilaterally withdrew from the INF nuclear treaty on 2019.

    • Re:US unilaterally withdrew from INF nuclear treat (Score:5, Informative)

      by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Saturday April 27, 2024 @08:48PM (#64430202)

      It was the US that unilaterally withdrew from the INF nuclear treaty on 2019.

      Hope this clears up the situation:

      "Unfortunately, that was then and this is now. Russia is cheating on the INF Treaty. Russia started its covert program to violate the INF Treaty probably by the mid-2000s and now has fielded multiple battalions of an illegal missile that flies to ranges prohibited by the INF Treaty. Substantial evidence leading to this conclusion was accumulated over time.

      Rather than rush to judgment, the United States pursued diplomacy for more than five years starting in 2013 to return Russia to full and verifiable compliance. The goal of the United States was, and remains, to preserve the INF Treaty; however, Russia never chose to engage in a sincere or substantive manner. Russia instead chose to lie about the existence of the illegal missile, while continuing to produce, test, and eventually field the missile.

      Russia stuck with its original lie until late 2017, when the United States revealed the Russian name "9M729" - for the banned weapon. Russia then pivoted to a new lie, admitting the missile it tried to keep secret for years does exist, but falsely claiming it is compliant with the INF Treaty."

      https://sk.usembassy.gov/the-t... [usembassy.gov]

  • then CHina would have done it. BOTH of these nations are pushing nuclear weapons into space (though it is far more likely that BOTH have them up there already). How about AmiMoJo? Does your nation have nukes up there?

  • Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RossCWilliams ( 5513152 ) on Saturday April 27, 2024 @09:19PM (#64430230)
    Like everything else on the internet, this is propaganda. Somehow it fails to mention any amendments proposed to the resolution. Like the one that sought to ban all military uses of space. It also fails to discuss existing treaties on nuclear weapons in space. Instead it repeats claims made by anonymous US intelligence sources about Russian intentions. Just take a look at the March 2024 CNN story linked that states "Russia’s ramp-up is still not enough to meet its needs, US and Western officials say, and Western intelligence officials do not expect Russia to make major gains on the battlefield in the short term." The most recent claim by the German Defense Minister is that Russia is putting most of its production into warehouses, apparently in preparation for an invasion of NATO territory. Or so he speculates. Essentially all of this is just so much noise. "Blood and Iron" will have to determine the outcome. Right now it is mostly Ukrainian blood and Russian iron. And NATO is unlikely to be able to change that, so they are working on perceptions instead.

    • Like everything else on the internet, this is propaganda.

      Not everything on the Internet is propaganda. Such assertions are classic propagandist tactics to make people come to the conclusion there is no truth and nothing can be trusted.

      Somehow it fails to mention any amendments proposed to the resolution. Like the one that sought to ban all military uses of space. It also fails to discuss existing treaties on nuclear weapons in space.

      That's the press for you.

      Instead it repeats claims made by anonymous US intelligence sources about Russian intentions.

      This is inaccurate, sources talk about capabilities of Russian ASAT satellites not Russian intentions.

      Just take a look at the March 2024 CNN story linked that states "Russiaâ(TM)s ramp-up is still not enough to meet its needs, US and Western officials say, and Western intelligence officials do not expect Russia to make major gains on the battlefield in the short term."

      The title of the article is "Russia producing three times more artillery shells than US and Europe for Ukraine"

      "Russia is running artillery factories "24/7" on rotating 12-hour shifts, the NATO official sai

  • ...fail to negotiate arms restrictions agreement.

    TIFTFY.
  • Yeah russia vetoed a UN resolution banning Nuclear weapons, but that's because they wanted a ban on ALL weapons, which funnily enough the US vetoed against.. so in this case the US is the one to blame, not Russia. There already is a treaty which bans nuclear weapons in space, so there really wasn't a new one needed.

    • Which is actually more interesting, because given what we know of the current state of Russia since the invasion of Ukraine... a move by Russia for a more expansive ban is almost certainly because they can't compete any longer and want to have their opponents hobble themselves.

      I'm all for fewer weapons out there, the Russian proposal is obviously not an honest one.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by flink ( 18449 )

        Who cares? No weapons in space is an unvarnished good. Who cares if Russia has ulterior motives for wanting it.

        • Because the ulterior motive might just be to have the capacity to knock out everyone else's space-based infrastructure without any fear of the same happening to them.

          Sure, they lose a hunk of GLONASS, but they could seriously degrade Starlink, for instance.

  • Try to make a few US politicians understand that Russia is the enemy and not friends.
    They're fast to cash in their money and support them. Those are traitors and should be dealt with accordingly.

  • Putin just seems to be begging for World War 3, likely because Russia is such a poor, shitty country anymore, and NATO could stomp Russia flat if it wanted to, and nukes are all Putin has left. I really wish someone would just assassinate him and get it over with, the world would be a better place if he was dead.

Slashdot Top Deals

HOST SYSTEM NOT RESPONDING, PROBABLY DOWN. DO YOU WANT TO WAIT? (Y/N)

Close