tal , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

Even if it is part of an article, I wouldn’t believe it.

Okay, fine, you’re free to do that, but I don’t see why yelling at me is reasonable. You’re the one who provided the material that you’re complaining about. If you disagree with the article, it seems far more reasonable to provide a top-level comment responding to it saying “I don’t agree with the article here and think that the real intent might be to use a warhead directly against the ground”.

I’m pointing out that even if the intent is as an anti-satellite weapon, which is what your article is saying, it can cause serious collateral damage, not to mention that it is in violation of a treaty to which Russia is party.

EDIT: The only reason that only a relatively few satellites were damaged or destroyed in Starfish Prime was that there were very few satellites orbiting Earth back then. There are far more up there now, and they’d also be affected by a high-altitude nuclear explosion…that’s a lot of countries that stand to have a lot of their infrastructure destroyed.