The space armament treaty says: no nuclear, biological or laser weapons in space. but kinetics... - eviltoast
    • datelmd5sum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean you have to put a nuclear amount of energy into the rods with chemical energy. Why not skip a step and just drop a big conventional explosive?

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The idea is that it’s too fast to ever intercept, is extremely penetrating, and you don’t have to send a bomb to orbit in violation of treaty.

        But all the really cool versions use rail guns and asteroid mining.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          A guided road is against treaty as well, say it’s a grey area but it really isn’t.

          A rod from space impacting with the presumed force equal to a nuclear bomb is in fact a weapon of mass destruction and the language of the treaty is nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction.

          It’s worded that way specifically so captured space bound objects can’t be redirected and used as weapons like Heinlein described in the moon is a harsh mistress.

    • Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pop scientists routinely mis-represent facts to make warfare seem unappealing and lame, this is due their ‘sense of morality’ (read: crying baby noises).

      For example, Carl Sagan warned that operation desert storm would cause a (non)nuclear winter and mass famine in Asia.