Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

14
  • 3
    Why do you think it would be targeting a single or small group of satellites? This type of weapon could destroy or damage a massive amount of satellites causing a massive amount of damage to the ability to communicate and gather information.
    – Joe W
    Commented Feb 16 at 14:47
  • 2
    @JoeW "This type of weapon could destroy or damage a massive amount of satellites causing a massive amount of damage to the ability to communicate and gather information". Sure. BTW Do you know when the Russian will start building the black death?
    – FluidCode
    Commented Feb 16 at 14:53
  • 4
    Nuclear weapons are easier to target than conventional weapons. Using explosives in space is very different to on earth where there is an atmosphere and blast waves (or the converse, exhausting oxygen) can be damaging. But there's also the larger-scale electromagnetic effects. This question reads like someone who's not done any research. Also, most nations increase spending on defence research during wars, they don't reduce it.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Feb 16 at 15:46
  • 2
    @StuartF " This question reads like someone who's not done any research." It is also the question of someone who understands the law of the exponentials. How much the intensity of the heat and EM pulse decreases with the distance and how big is space.
    – FluidCode
    Commented Feb 16 at 16:28
  • 2
    Minus the editorializing about mosquitoes, asking how credible those claims have been assessed would have been a good question.
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Feb 16 at 19:49