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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

U.S. Seeks to Build World Pressure on Russia Over Space Nuclear Weapon (nytimes.com) 109

Posted by EditorDavid from the nuke-news dept.
An anonymous reader shared this report from the New York Times: American officials are trying to increase international pressure on Russia not to deploy an antisatellite nuclear weapon in space, and have obtained information that undermines Moscow's explanation that the device it is developing is for peaceful scientific purposes, a senior State Department official said on Friday...

On Friday, Mallory Stewart, the assistant secretary of state for arms control, said that while the United States had been aware of Russia's pursuit of such a device for years, "only recently have we been able to make a more precise assessment of their progress." Ms. Stewart, speaking at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the orbit the Russian satellite would occupy is in a high-radiation region not used by other satellites, information that undercuts Russia's defense that it is not developing a weapon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Seeks to Build World Pressure on Russia Over Space Nuclear Weapon More

U.S. Seeks to Build World Pressure on Russia Over Space Nuclear Weapon

Comments Filter:
  • What is anyone going to do to them? Boycott them harder? The world can't be too much more passive aggressive to Russia than they already are.

    The best option is to assassinate Putin and let whoever takes his place that no one cares what they do within their own borders and not terribly much what they do outside of them as long as they aren't invading. I'm sure the next dictator would welcome that opportunity to die of old age.

    • Re:What is anyone going to do? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @06:19PM (#64448278) Homepage

      Historically, I don't think assassination has ever led to an improvement in government.

      In general, I think it leads to a new leader who's just as bad, but more paranoid.

      I'm sure the next dictator would welcome that opportunity to die of old age.

      There was a period in the Roman empire when emperors lasted about eighteen months or so before being assassinated. There was a story that one prominent Roman had his name suggested as a good choice for emperor, and his response was "I'm not yet so tired of living."

      • Re:What is anyone going to do? (Score:4, Informative)

        by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @08:21PM (#64448414)
        There was a period of about 50 years in the 3rd century with about 20 emperors, that's a new one every two years on average. The reason had nothing to do with how good or bad or paranoid they were.

        In those days, emperors were often proclaimed by the army in the field from their own ranks, ie generals, all over the empire. The troops were promised more pay and privileges, and in return they proclaimed and defended their general as the legitimate emperor. After a year or two, if the current guy failed to deliver or some other guy offered another army more (there were lots of different armies and generals), then he was assassinated and the new guy got given a go. There were no civilian police forces etc, so the armies had all the power. In particular, the praetorian guard protected, or killed, their own emperor, as the denarii rolled in or out. And yes, I'm oversimplifying.

    • Re:What is anyone going to do? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @07:50PM (#64448374)
      Perhaps the best option is to assassinate Bush Jr instead? He's the one responsible for the current mess after all:

      https://carnegieendowment.org/... [carnegieendowment.org]

      But in truth calling for random assassinations is just flamebait. People in glass houses should not be throwing stones.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )

      The best option is that Putin is somehow brought out of power as soon as possible and held directly accountable for his actions.

      Think about it for a second... if someone just goes and kills the guy, then he doesn't have to live with the consequences of his own actions....sure, he's dead, and death may or may not be an effective deterrent from someone doing likewise in the future...

      But meanwhile, Putin himself will be rendered completely free of all responsibility for everything he has done. Whoever s

  • Nice idea, but (Score:5, Informative)

    by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @05:34PM (#64448212) Homepage

    I am in favor of an agreement not to put nuclear weapons in space, but I think that if the US had a way to "put world pressure" on Russia, we have already used it.

    The Outer Space Treaty already forbids countries from deploying nuclear weapons space, of course.

    • Yes, the world police need to enforce it.

      • That's the point, Russia is on the UN security council vetoing any resolution.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          No, they tried to extend the resolution to all weapons, not just nukes. That was blocked by the US, but of course doesn't get included in the corporate media's brown nosing.

    • If it were so easy to ban nuclear weapons in outer space then we could just have them banned on Earth.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )
        The genie was already out of the bottle on that one... by the time the space treaty came into effect in 1967, there were already nukes on earth... but there weren't nukes in space... the idea was to nip it in the bud before it became an issue, and it it hadn't been for that treaty there would have been nukes in space before the end of that decade.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      We already sanctioned Russian export of belly-button lint and used paper-clips, flat out of options.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      Over 150 countries, representing over 2/3 of the world's population, are ignoring the US-demanded sanctions against Russia. This is a rather transparent attempt to convince the majority to fall in line. For those paying attention it was revealing that the reason given for Russia vetoing and China abstaining from the proposal to ban nukes in space is that those countries wanted to amend it to banning ALL weapons in space. The amendment was of course blocked by the US, who almost certainly has space-based

      • Over 150 countries, representing over 2/3 of the world's population, are ignoring the US-demanded sanctions against Russia.

        and they'll ignore these, too.

  • Rick: Space Nuclear Weapon? Jesus Morty. You can't just add [*belch*] a sci-fi word to ...

    (Thank you Quantum Carburetor Scene [youtube.com])

  • Didn't Reagan Put Nukes In Space? (Score:3)

    by zenlessyank ( 748553 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @05:48PM (#64448228)

    Under the Star Wars program?

    • Re:Didn't Reagan Put Nukes In Space? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @06:08PM (#64448252) Homepage

      Under the Star Wars program?

      No.

      The Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars program") didn't actually deploy anything during the Reagan years, but it was very much non-nuclear.

      Basically, tests during the '60s showed that nuclear explosions in space would be very damaging to pretty much everything in orbit, and the purpose of SDI was to knock out incoming warheads, not destroy everything in space.

    • Under the Star Wars program?

      Wasn’t it more the “threat” of nuclear annihilation from other countries that forced taxpayers to fund imaginary “Star Wars” defenses with real dollars?

      You know, kind of like how we’re supposed to believe that space arms race is raging again, so oh noes give us moar monies?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        The budget of the US Space Farce is only $30 billion, there's hardly any room for adequate graft there! We must increase it exponentially!!

        (NASA's budget is only $24 billion.)

    • Under the Star Wars program?

      No, though your belief that he did was exactly what his critics were hoping for.

      In the world of reality, he advocated building defenses that would shoot down incoming nukes rather than just letting them arrive and detonate.

  • Of course banning all weapons in space would eliminate a lot of spy satellites. This is not about t nuclear weapons that would be used to attack earth targets. Those are already banned. This is about nuclear weapons designed to take out military targets in space. Specifically communication and spy satellites. I understand why we would want to protect those assets but I am not sure why using nuclear warheads to take them out is inherently worse than shooting them down with conventional weapons.

    I suspect th

    • Re:Grandstanding? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Russia has already said there's an Outer Space treaty that forbids nuclear weapons and WMDs in space. Why is the US grandstanding? When there's already an international treaty.

      Perhaps the US should do something about Israel or Congressmen threatening ICC if warrants are placed on certain genocidal Israeli politicians.

      It really looks like the US is trying to avoid coverage of certain matters, by pointing their finger at basically nothing.

      • Russia has already said there's an Outer Space treaty that forbids nuclear weapons and WMDs in space. Why is the US grandstanding?

        Russia repeatedly said they had no intention of invading Ukraine [npr.org]. Russia has also signed the Budapest Memorandum [harvard.edu] which said no parties to the agreement, of which Russia is one, would attack Ukraine except in self-defense.

        Why should we believe anything Russia says?

        Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          If that's so then what's the fucking point in the first place? If you don't think they will respect anything, what's the fucking point? Just wasting time at the UN.

        • Well officially they didn't attack Ukraine, Officially they were asked to protect the 2 states in the east that declared themselves, and the war is still in/about those two states, with some bombing in other cities like Kyiv because of strategic value (like strategic command us located there). And in the case of this agreement, it us actually the US who is the culprit, NOT Russia (nor China), as Russia (and China) wanted to amend this treaty to ban all weapons in space, and guess who blocked that using thei

          • Well officially they didn't attack Ukraine,

            Bullshit. They attacked Ukraine. You can't lie your way out of it.

            Officially they were asked to protect the 2 states in the east that declared themselves

            Double bullshit. They weren't "asked" to do anything. They invaded in 2014 and they attacked in 2022 to try and finish things. There was no "declaration" of anything.

            And in the case of this agreement, it us actually the US who is the culprit, NOT Russia (nor China), as Russia (and China) wanted to amend this trea

            • You're the one talking BS. Maybe you should stop believing your own BS or the BS that is presented to you by your very biased newsprovider. Get your facts straight about the 2 states in the east of Ukraine which declared themselves which led to the 'invasion' of the russians. And it was already a big mess in those regions before Russia grabbed the crimea. It's been a big mess since the fall of the soviet union because of the large part of the people in the (south) east being ethnic Russians.
              It's not as sim

      • Re:Grandstanding? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @07:26PM (#64448354) Journal
        only the stupidest motherfucker on the planet would believe a single word out of the russians

        • only the stupidest motherfucker on the planet would believe a single word out of the russians

          Trump and the MAGA do.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          sure, but we have to believe when "some random anonymous us official says he believes that a russian space project is probably a weapon with zero evidence".

          it's just comical at this point but, really, i'll be waiting for proof in the form of a set of colorful powerpoints exhibited at the security council by a high ranking decorated officer to believe anyt ... oh wait.

        • So basically most Republicans

        • Just like anything that comes out of the mouths of any american (US), like this whole story as it deliberately leaves out why Russia didn't sign this new agreement, if it did, then it would have shown who the real culprit in this story is, the US..
        • fine then what the fuck would yet another agreement for the same thing achieve if you don't believe they would adhere to the current or any future one?

    • I suspect the immediate concern is that Russia will use one to take out the communication satellites that are supporting Ukraine. There is no obvious comparable response the US could make to a nuclear attack on its military assets in space.

      I suspect with Ukraine still utilizing Starlink that Russia will need to use slightly more than “one”.

    • > I am not sure why using nuclear warheads to take them out is inherently worse than shooting them down with conventional weapons.

      I tend to agree. Conventional weaponry still gives you Kessler's Syndrome, and in space you're not typically worried about fallout or pressure waves. The advantage of a nuke might be to clear out a large volume of an orbit quickly, but then again there's a LOT of distance between things out there.

      But I think maybe you're underestimating the utility of space as a platform fro

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        The US, and almost certainly the Soviets, developed those at Oak Ridge back in the '70s and tested them up to the point of ignition. Whether they were ever deployed or not is anyone's guess.

    • Since when is spying a weapon? Is your phone camara suddenly dual use?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      The US proposal is a counter to the one from the Russians and Chinese to ban all weapons in space (I don't think observation platforms are considered weapons). Not making the news is the fact that the US has been blocking that attempt for years.

      Using nukes in space would be stupid, and Russians are not stupid (contrary to our TV programs). It would take out everything, not just the enemy's equipment but your own as well. It's likely that the US resisted the alternative proposal because they've already fi

  • No wonder people think we're pansies.

  • ...is to force every country that doesn't kowtow to them into a defensive position, e.g. putting advanced long-range missile systems as close to Russia's borders as possible, & surrounding south-east China with US military bases & advanced military hardware. It's no wonder such countries are falling over themselves desperately to build up as many military deterrents as they can afford. Who wants to be the next Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Syria?
  • Perhaps their satellites are U oxide powered like the Voyager probes that are still working. These 'assertions' are hollow and misleading. A nuclear bang in space would equally destroy Russian satellite's. You can also get quite a big pulse from conventional explosive EMP, or get an inductor core at orbital speed to fly through say a copper toroid, no explosives needed. Russia has missiles that get the job done - they need nothing in orbit, bar a few small diameter rocks, diamond or something that resembles
  • Humans are so pro-extinction.

  • One sided crock story (Score:3)

    by SuperDre ( 982372 ) on Sunday May 05, 2024 @12:26PM (#64449598) Homepage
    Wow, this is a very biased one sided crock story. Acting if the US is being the nice guy here in trying to force Russia to sign the agreement not to put nuclear weapons in space and pointing fingers about Russia trying to put nuclear weapons in space. The real culprit here is actually the US, as the reason why Russia AND China didn't want to sign the agreement was because it wasn't broad enough, THEY wanted an agreement not to put ANY kind if weapon in space, and guess who vetoed against THAT agreement.... Yep, the US.. So the real culprit in this whole story is actually NOT Russia or China, but the US. And who knows what the US already put up there as they already had many secret deployments up there.
  • If the US were serious then they would have happily adopted the amendment banning all weapons in space.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )

      I think the reason why all weapons were not banned in space and why it was vetoed is simply because the definition of "weapon" is too broad, and the mere act of enabling any sort of communication with countries you might happen to be at war with can be interpreted as a "weapon" from that nation's point of view. WMD, however, is quite unambiguous.

      I have no facts to back up this opinion... it is just my own personally held belief. If someone has some cold hard facts to refute it, I'm open to the debate.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close