Hacker News Reader

Comment by bell-cot | Hacker News Reader

"developing a new anti-satellite weapon" seems a laughably overblown description, when the supposed weapon amounts to little more than a box full of BB's, with a couple sticks of dynamite in the middle to spread 'em out in orbit. If they had a suitable rocket ready to launch, then a good-enough warhead could probably be designed from first principles, fabricated, and launched within 24 hours.

But from a Russian PoV - considering such weapons, and leaking that fact, could be an extremely cheap and credible method of sabre-rattling.

(Vs. actually using such weapons against Musk's constellation would be a clear attack on America's interests and capabilities, and would draw a very harsh reaction. Outside of WWIII or WWIII-lite scenarios, it'd be a Bad Move.)

View on HN

I’d be more impressed with something that could pump enough energy into a StarLink satellite from the ground to disable it during its orbit over ground Russia (or China) controls, but I’m unsure if we’re there yet, as 550km is a lot of distance to cover with directed energy considering the short period of visibility during a pass.

https://npolicy.org/coping-with-the-ground-based-laser-asat-...

https://theprint.in/defence/these-futuristic-chinese-space-d...

I'd assume that both China and Russia are routinely experimenting with "orbital tracking radars". Which might "accidentally" hit various satellites with overly energetic EMP pulses at times.

>Vs. actually using such weapons against Musk's constellation would be a clear attack on America's interests and capabilities, and would draw a very harsh reaction.

And using Starlink to provide communications for Ukrainian army and allowing them to control drones striking Russian forces, including Russian ships isn't an attack on Russia's "interests and capabilities"?

I'd bet that after Russian strike on Starlink constellation the US will say "Oh, well. Fair enough. Wonder why they tolerated that for so long."

A "very harsh reaction"? ... you mean like in Ukraine?

Russia will do what they want and the US will sit back (eit: or, bend forward I should say) and take it up the ass. That's precedent now.

The most likely scenario is sabotage attacks like Russia have already been doing underwater. All of which have a whiff of vodka about them but with zero retaliation.

No.

From the PoV of American's ruling plutocrats and military-industrial complex, Ukraine is a distant proxy war. Sure, lots of national security folks and petty idealists want to "win" Ukraine - if nothing else, the RoI on having that conflict going poorly for Russia is looks great (for America).

Vs. a serious attack on Starlink is a direct attack on both the business of an A List American Plutocrat, and on America's extremely advantageous/pride-and-joy dominance in space. Nations with plutocratic ruling classes have a centuries-long history of fast and violent reactions, when those folks feel that their business interests are being targeted by nasty foreigners.

>when those folks feel that their business interests are being targeted by nasty foreigners

Not when it means risking dying in nuclear fire.

America, if it cared to, has lots of ways of making things far less pleasant for Russia. The simplistic "Do Nothing, or Launch Nukes" duality only exists in fiction, propaganda, and undergraduate philosophy courses.

Assume that no one in Putin's inner circle, nor Russia's nuclear command structure, nor Russia's badly-needed allies (China) are interested in an actual at-scale nuclear war. But they ain't stupid enough to footgun their own "nuclear sabre-rattling" options by outright saying that.

And also note that experts have had grave doubts about the reliability of Russia's nuclear arsenal for the past decade or three. Military budgets have been far, far tighter in Moscow than in Washington. Unused weapons degrade with time. And nothing could destroy Russia's "we have nukes!" cred faster than a major hardware failure when they were attempting a limited-scale proof that they are willing to use nukes.

You say that, but that's what the Trump admin have been saying for years and we've seen the result.

Either Trump isn't able or willing or has the sack to follow through on truly unpleasant options. Or, Russia is able to fall back sufficiently on global / "neutral" parties while the US implements it's policies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com