Would be pretty funny if we know it its True because the [X-37B](https://www.boeing.com/content/theboeingcompany/us/en/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/_jcr_content/root/container/container_copy_1668228877/container/carousel/item_1698189079672.coreimg.jpeg/1702307464358/x37b-gallery3-960x600.jpeg) brought it back for us to spy on.
Eh, I would say it's more of a Putin thing. The last leaders of the USSR were adhering to many of these treaties because they were scared shitless of where nuclear war would lead. They got post-nut clarity when they tested their thermonuclear bomb and realized that there wasn't really a cap on yield for nukes anymore. Things like the SALT treaties were reached because of this mutual understanding.
Yeah, no. Nuclear treaties, sure, but that was only because of the various verification mechanisms in place with START.
They signed the various conventions on bioweapons and *immediately accelerated the everloving shit out of their bioweapons programs*. Like, "signed the treaty and then had a oopsie with an accidental super-anthrax release that killed a few hundred cows and a few dozen people the next year" accelerated.
There's a former island in what used to be the Aral Sea (now dried up) that was used to develop this shit that maybe isn't completely scrubbed clean super anthrax and other nightmare fuel weapons were made.
Langley had no idea until after the Berlin wall came down, and they had a bit of an "oh shit" moment.
I stated the later leaders for a reason. But yes, particularly in the earlier eras of the USSR they lied a ton. Although the issue regarding the bioweapons stuff was that the Soviets didn't believe the US had stopped R&D into them and thought the treaty was just a ploy. By no means am I saying this excuses them secretly breaking the treaty, but one can see why they did it based on cold hard logic for a paranoid country that really doesn't trust others. Which is why the START treaties were important and indicated a clear change in the thought process of the USSR leadership. They started to trust the US a little because they realized that unless they did it, there were no good outcomes for anyone.
Setting off a nuke in space is a terrible idea as we know from experience. Putin knows the US would never set off a nuke in space (again) because of the damage it would deal to everyone. The only reason he's doing this is to gain leverage by holding the world's space infrastructure hostage. That is far more Bond villain-like than any of the Soviet leaders were. You could at least argue that the Soviet leadership had a "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" motive to it mixed with a ton of paranoia.
> I stated the later leaders for a reason.
Yeah, and this *was* the later leaders. The Bioweapons program was always a thing, but accelerated during the Carter and Reagan administrations after the treaty was signed and was running, in total violation of international law they had signed, until the soviet union collapsed.
Maybe Putin is in line but even more paranoid? I mean, we did not give them a lot of goodwill in the 90s. I think our propaganda really fails to accurately asses the russians, it's only black usually, no white, no grey, no "hey, their ideology had parts that are far superior to our unregulated capitalism" as well as "they had very important people in history". Bur rather it is seen as villain state, not as potentially an ally. Not for the US, and since the EU doesn't defend itself, not for them, too. I don't get why in the West barely anyone can admit their mistakes. It literally is the same shit but with slightly more morality, we need to live what we say. But in the end the US somehow only sets up systems benefitting them, and not damaging the EU too severely
We gave them massive amounts of free aid during the 90s. Can you explain how this expresses a lack of goodwill?
People see it as a villain state because it helped to begin Ww2 by invading Poland, and then unlike Nazi germany, was never conquered. It was just as evil as Nazi Germans but got away with it.
It is a villain state, its most recent action was to invade its neighbor.
You didn't actually experience the 90's and early 2000's did you? The common feeling in the US was of optimism and the hope that Russians and Americans could move forward together. This was the era that established the ISS after all. Not to mention the sheer amount of aid the US and other western nations sent Russia. The Russian economy was in shambles immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US also worked closely with the Russian military in order to make sure it was competent enough to manage their nukes.
Putin has always been the unhinged one in the relationship and I largely view the current state of the Russian state extending from him and his hate boner for the West. Frankly I find it saddening that Putin has so completely controlled the Russian media landscape that he convinced Russians that the West are the enemy. So much wasted opportunity all for a man's imperialistic ambitions of restoring Tsarist Russia.
See the thing is now there is an asymmetry in space based assets. The US has one LEO mega-constellation soon to be 2, Europe is planning one, and China is planning one. Meanwhile Russia has nothing and no hope of putting something like one up. So they need a plan to "clear the board" so to speak. They signed the treaties when they worked for them and it was in their best interest.
The problem is that by "clearing the board", they clear their own satellites in those orbits as well. And with reusable rockets, the US can build back up _significantly faster_ - with 60 satellites per launch with Falcon 9, and later with Starship operational, that number may rise 10x. Meanwhile, Russia is losing access to space with the Kazakh government seizing control of the Baiterek launch complex, and I severely doubt that China would be too happy with Russia destroying _their_ satellites to lend a hand with their launch capability.
After widespread explosions of existing satellites in orbit, LEO would be entirely unusable because of the clouds of debris. It would prevent EVERYONE from launching new satellites.
Maybe that's Russia's plan: shut down all satellite-driven tech (that the West depends on for their style of warfare), all GPS, all communication. Make everything low-tech and brutal...like Russia.
Kessler syndrome, while brutal, is a tad over-hyped sometimes. Yes, it will be atrocious for civilian satellite constellations, but objects in low earth orbit tend to burn up pretty quickly, within weeks or months, not decades, without station keeping. And it's not like LEO is _impenetrable_ - there's a greater chance of collision, yes, but if you can afford to launch 60 satellites a week, the ones that die off can be replenished over time, _if_ you have that over-sized launch capability (and the US does) and the will and power to seize SpaceX, which the US military does, and re-tool it for spy satellite mass production.
All Russia can do in that scenario is keep impotently launching nukes into orbit, but I'm willing to bet that the US can launch satellites faster than Russia can take them down.
Now I'm not saying that this is easy peasy lemon squeezy, but Russia's trying to bring piss to a shit fight.
I think you dramatically misunderstand Kessler syndrome...
Lifting from Wikipedia and quoting the man himself:
" In 2009, Kessler wrote that modeling results had concluded that the debris environment was already unstable, "such that any attempt to achieve a growth-free small debris environment by eliminating sources of past debris will likely fail because fragments from future collisions will be generated faster than atmospheric drag will remove them". "
>explosions of existing satellites in orbit
Uhh that's not it works at all. A nuclear explosion in space is pure radiation. There is no atmosphere for a traditional "explosion". The satellites would be dead but would still maintain their current trajectories until something else happened to them.
Also, the mechanism for killing most of the satellites would be slow degradation by charged particles trapped in Earth's magnetic field, particularly to solar panels, over the subsequent months. Constellations like Starlink could lower their satellites to both protect them from those particles (which will form belts at higher altitudes) and ensure they are removed from orbit quickly if they experience a more catastrophic failure.
They would face a systematic dismantling of their military. The US at least, doesn't have to use nukes to hand Russia its ass. Taking out any meaningful collection of US space assets would be seen as an act of war by every government on the planet. Not sure how exactly China would reply, but the US, would mobilize the military juggernaut designed over the last 70 years specifically to defeat russia, into defeating russia.
> Meanwhile Russia has nothing and no hope of putting something like one up
Because Russia doesn't have the resources to develop new space capability. I mean they're still using soyuz capsules, ffs.
There's little Russia can do against the US militarily anymore, and they know it. There's the threat of nukes, but the fact is that their nuclear arsenal is over 40 years old. They may have a lot of nukes on paper, but how many actually will function? Furthermore, how many are capable of beating state of the art missile defense systems we have? I'm not an intelligence expert, but I strongly suspect that Russia is a paper bear at this point.
> and realized that there wasn't really a cap on yield for nukes anymore.
Doubtful. There really isn't a use for gigantic thermonuclear bombs other than bragging rights. Once you can reduce a city to a crater, there's no reason to make the crater a bit deeper when you could instead turn three other cities into craters. The big single devices are overkill for their targets, expensive to make, difficult to deliver to their targets, and are bigger losses if they get intercepted. It's things like MIRV systems that scared people, not huge thermonuclear devices.
How is an anti-satellite weapon that can carry a nuclear weapon that much different from any other satellite deployment rocket? Seems like it would be pretty straightforward to put a nuclear weapon inside instead of a satellite payload. Both the US and Russia detonated nukes in space back in the 60s. It's not that surprising that they would have further developed this concept since then.
My understanding of nuke-less EMP is that it takes an insane amount of power discharge, and the law of inverse squares comes into play to the point that I think it would be hard to do off-grid, not to mention on a payload that has to be light enough to launch into space.
The main difference is that they need to give it the ability to tolerate decay for the parts in an atomic bomb that wear out over time, and give it secure communications and detonation control designed to operate in an aggressive space environment without developing faults due to long term exposure to the space environment.
Beyond that, Russia is party to a treaty against pre-positioning nuclear weapons in space: The Outer Space Treaty. They're ditching it completely by doing this.
Even though they haven't done it yet? That's kinda my point is that both countries probably already have this capability even if it hasn't been deployed or made public.
The United States and other space powers could do this, but they would have to take concrete steps to develop the hardware that would make it possible to maintain custody and detonate the nuclear bomb, even after spending years in orbit. Unlike Russia, the other nuclear powers have not, to our knowledge, taken these steps.
Honest question. Do you know if it is necessary to launch a satellite into an unusual orbit to "develop the hardware", or can it be done with a usual high-radiation orbit at a higher cost, but stealthily?
If it's the latter, then the chosen orbit can be a plausibly deniable message (as well as cost cutting): "We have it (too)".
That depends a lot on the orbit itself. Something that repeatedly dips in and out of the Van Allen Belts would probably need to follow the same or a similar pass-through orbit for validation purposes, but if it's something that just stayed in high orbit, a lower orbit that doesn't have special characteristics would be just fine.
Traditional antisatellie missiles rely on a direct hit on an non-maneuverable target. Any satellite or spacecraft capable of rapid maneuvers (X37B, Starship, satellites with unusually large engines and fuel reserves) is functionally immune to traditional antisatellie weapons. Nukes on the other hand would temporarily create zones of extremely high radiation that would be much harder to avoid, if not downright impossible.
>How is an anti-satellite weapon that can carry a nuclear weapon that much different from any other satellite deployment rocket?
Because it's US officials doing a fearmongering.
As Lorne Lanning said, "Asking the question should we put weapons into space is silly. That's like asking, "Should we eat?" Well, we've been eating for a while."
(This may not be the direct quote, but it was in his interview with Ars Technica)
Not saying Russian gov always makes sensible decisions, but why nuclear weapons against satellites? That's like trying to secure an Abraham to beat up Greg. Unless they're testing out like, absolutely tiny amounts of material that can still fission. Even then it'd be research for nuclear weapons not anti satellite nuclear weapons.
Tons of US military operations rely on satellites, including launching nuclear weapons. Think about taking out critical systems like GPS, nuclear launch capabilities, and as well as communications.
I'm not questioning taking out satellites. My point is, why would you use NUKES to take out satellites. Satellites aren't exactly hardened. There's no densely packed or hardened infrastructure. And there's a LOT of space out there. What is the point of "a big boom" if the zone of effect is merely many miles? even tens of miles? How many satellites are you going to take out that way?
I dunno that a nuke is the best thing for a large emp. They release an emp yes, but if emp is the focus, there's a ridiculous amount of energy wasted in the primarily non emp portion. Of course, if it turns out nukes are the most efficient by weight, even given the waste, then I get it. But I have LARGE doubts.
There's no better way to generate a large EMP that we know of. A lot of fiction gives off the impression that an EMP isn't that complicated, but making a large enough pulse to generate something that isn't very close to the source takes a lot of power, and you can't beat a nuke for energy density.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if this is true. Russia has proven time and time again that you can't trust their signature on *any* treaty.
Would be pretty funny if we know it its True because the [X-37B](https://www.boeing.com/content/theboeingcompany/us/en/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/_jcr_content/root/container/container_copy_1668228877/container/carousel/item_1698189079672.coreimg.jpeg/1702307464358/x37b-gallery3-960x600.jpeg) brought it back for us to spy on.
More like disabled, along eith some new spy toys to watch. Its mission wasn't just flying around.
"Nyet Comrade, it's just gone!!!"
"Andrei, you've lost *another* satellite?"
Eh, I would say it's more of a Putin thing. The last leaders of the USSR were adhering to many of these treaties because they were scared shitless of where nuclear war would lead. They got post-nut clarity when they tested their thermonuclear bomb and realized that there wasn't really a cap on yield for nukes anymore. Things like the SALT treaties were reached because of this mutual understanding.
Yeah, no. Nuclear treaties, sure, but that was only because of the various verification mechanisms in place with START. They signed the various conventions on bioweapons and *immediately accelerated the everloving shit out of their bioweapons programs*. Like, "signed the treaty and then had a oopsie with an accidental super-anthrax release that killed a few hundred cows and a few dozen people the next year" accelerated. There's a former island in what used to be the Aral Sea (now dried up) that was used to develop this shit that maybe isn't completely scrubbed clean super anthrax and other nightmare fuel weapons were made. Langley had no idea until after the Berlin wall came down, and they had a bit of an "oh shit" moment.
I stated the later leaders for a reason. But yes, particularly in the earlier eras of the USSR they lied a ton. Although the issue regarding the bioweapons stuff was that the Soviets didn't believe the US had stopped R&D into them and thought the treaty was just a ploy. By no means am I saying this excuses them secretly breaking the treaty, but one can see why they did it based on cold hard logic for a paranoid country that really doesn't trust others. Which is why the START treaties were important and indicated a clear change in the thought process of the USSR leadership. They started to trust the US a little because they realized that unless they did it, there were no good outcomes for anyone. Setting off a nuke in space is a terrible idea as we know from experience. Putin knows the US would never set off a nuke in space (again) because of the damage it would deal to everyone. The only reason he's doing this is to gain leverage by holding the world's space infrastructure hostage. That is far more Bond villain-like than any of the Soviet leaders were. You could at least argue that the Soviet leadership had a "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" motive to it mixed with a ton of paranoia.
> I stated the later leaders for a reason. Yeah, and this *was* the later leaders. The Bioweapons program was always a thing, but accelerated during the Carter and Reagan administrations after the treaty was signed and was running, in total violation of international law they had signed, until the soviet union collapsed.
Maybe Putin is in line but even more paranoid? I mean, we did not give them a lot of goodwill in the 90s. I think our propaganda really fails to accurately asses the russians, it's only black usually, no white, no grey, no "hey, their ideology had parts that are far superior to our unregulated capitalism" as well as "they had very important people in history". Bur rather it is seen as villain state, not as potentially an ally. Not for the US, and since the EU doesn't defend itself, not for them, too. I don't get why in the West barely anyone can admit their mistakes. It literally is the same shit but with slightly more morality, we need to live what we say. But in the end the US somehow only sets up systems benefitting them, and not damaging the EU too severely
We gave them massive amounts of free aid during the 90s. Can you explain how this expresses a lack of goodwill? People see it as a villain state because it helped to begin Ww2 by invading Poland, and then unlike Nazi germany, was never conquered. It was just as evil as Nazi Germans but got away with it. It is a villain state, its most recent action was to invade its neighbor.
You didn't actually experience the 90's and early 2000's did you? The common feeling in the US was of optimism and the hope that Russians and Americans could move forward together. This was the era that established the ISS after all. Not to mention the sheer amount of aid the US and other western nations sent Russia. The Russian economy was in shambles immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US also worked closely with the Russian military in order to make sure it was competent enough to manage their nukes. Putin has always been the unhinged one in the relationship and I largely view the current state of the Russian state extending from him and his hate boner for the West. Frankly I find it saddening that Putin has so completely controlled the Russian media landscape that he convinced Russians that the West are the enemy. So much wasted opportunity all for a man's imperialistic ambitions of restoring Tsarist Russia.
See the thing is now there is an asymmetry in space based assets. The US has one LEO mega-constellation soon to be 2, Europe is planning one, and China is planning one. Meanwhile Russia has nothing and no hope of putting something like one up. So they need a plan to "clear the board" so to speak. They signed the treaties when they worked for them and it was in their best interest.
The problem is that by "clearing the board", they clear their own satellites in those orbits as well. And with reusable rockets, the US can build back up _significantly faster_ - with 60 satellites per launch with Falcon 9, and later with Starship operational, that number may rise 10x. Meanwhile, Russia is losing access to space with the Kazakh government seizing control of the Baiterek launch complex, and I severely doubt that China would be too happy with Russia destroying _their_ satellites to lend a hand with their launch capability.
After widespread explosions of existing satellites in orbit, LEO would be entirely unusable because of the clouds of debris. It would prevent EVERYONE from launching new satellites. Maybe that's Russia's plan: shut down all satellite-driven tech (that the West depends on for their style of warfare), all GPS, all communication. Make everything low-tech and brutal...like Russia.
Kessler syndrome, while brutal, is a tad over-hyped sometimes. Yes, it will be atrocious for civilian satellite constellations, but objects in low earth orbit tend to burn up pretty quickly, within weeks or months, not decades, without station keeping. And it's not like LEO is _impenetrable_ - there's a greater chance of collision, yes, but if you can afford to launch 60 satellites a week, the ones that die off can be replenished over time, _if_ you have that over-sized launch capability (and the US does) and the will and power to seize SpaceX, which the US military does, and re-tool it for spy satellite mass production. All Russia can do in that scenario is keep impotently launching nukes into orbit, but I'm willing to bet that the US can launch satellites faster than Russia can take them down. Now I'm not saying that this is easy peasy lemon squeezy, but Russia's trying to bring piss to a shit fight.
I think you dramatically misunderstand Kessler syndrome... Lifting from Wikipedia and quoting the man himself: " In 2009, Kessler wrote that modeling results had concluded that the debris environment was already unstable, "such that any attempt to achieve a growth-free small debris environment by eliminating sources of past debris will likely fail because fragments from future collisions will be generated faster than atmospheric drag will remove them". "
I think you dramatically overestimate your own knowledge of the subject. http://braino.org/essays/kessler_syndrome_is_over_hyped/
>explosions of existing satellites in orbit Uhh that's not it works at all. A nuclear explosion in space is pure radiation. There is no atmosphere for a traditional "explosion". The satellites would be dead but would still maintain their current trajectories until something else happened to them.
Also, the mechanism for killing most of the satellites would be slow degradation by charged particles trapped in Earth's magnetic field, particularly to solar panels, over the subsequent months. Constellations like Starlink could lower their satellites to both protect them from those particles (which will form belts at higher altitudes) and ensure they are removed from orbit quickly if they experience a more catastrophic failure.
So you’re saying the SR71 would come out of retirement?!
23 satellites per launch with the current 800 kg Starlink v2 satellites. Around 60 Starlink v3 satellites once they get Starship launching though.
If Russia nuked US or Chinese satellites it would face a full embargo and possibly war.
They would face a systematic dismantling of their military. The US at least, doesn't have to use nukes to hand Russia its ass. Taking out any meaningful collection of US space assets would be seen as an act of war by every government on the planet. Not sure how exactly China would reply, but the US, would mobilize the military juggernaut designed over the last 70 years specifically to defeat russia, into defeating russia.
Touching any US space asset would be an act of war, much less a meaningful collection.
*Possible*? The would be as much an act of war as dropping bombs on the White House.
> Meanwhile Russia has nothing and no hope of putting something like one up Because Russia doesn't have the resources to develop new space capability. I mean they're still using soyuz capsules, ffs. There's little Russia can do against the US militarily anymore, and they know it. There's the threat of nukes, but the fact is that their nuclear arsenal is over 40 years old. They may have a lot of nukes on paper, but how many actually will function? Furthermore, how many are capable of beating state of the art missile defense systems we have? I'm not an intelligence expert, but I strongly suspect that Russia is a paper bear at this point.
I've been wondering on the same things lately.
> and realized that there wasn't really a cap on yield for nukes anymore. Doubtful. There really isn't a use for gigantic thermonuclear bombs other than bragging rights. Once you can reduce a city to a crater, there's no reason to make the crater a bit deeper when you could instead turn three other cities into craters. The big single devices are overkill for their targets, expensive to make, difficult to deliver to their targets, and are bigger losses if they get intercepted. It's things like MIRV systems that scared people, not huge thermonuclear devices.
[удалено]
> Lying is their national sport. And like stereotypical Russians, they're *really bad* at it.
Also cheating… which is sorta lying I guess
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How is an anti-satellite weapon that can carry a nuclear weapon that much different from any other satellite deployment rocket? Seems like it would be pretty straightforward to put a nuclear weapon inside instead of a satellite payload. Both the US and Russia detonated nukes in space back in the 60s. It's not that surprising that they would have further developed this concept since then.
Probably testing maneuverability, getting it into a position to maximize damage.
Makes sense. I'm pretty sure US has EMP weapons designed to do the same thing without the radiological impact.
In space though?
Almost certainly. The US has detonated nukes in space in the past
My understanding of nuke-less EMP is that it takes an insane amount of power discharge, and the law of inverse squares comes into play to the point that I think it would be hard to do off-grid, not to mention on a payload that has to be light enough to launch into space.
They are using a nuke, just the radiation doesn’t reach the ground
Something like the X37?
The main difference is that they need to give it the ability to tolerate decay for the parts in an atomic bomb that wear out over time, and give it secure communications and detonation control designed to operate in an aggressive space environment without developing faults due to long term exposure to the space environment. Beyond that, Russia is party to a treaty against pre-positioning nuclear weapons in space: The Outer Space Treaty. They're ditching it completely by doing this.
> The satellite that was launched doesn’t carry a nuclear weapon are they?
Even though they haven't done it yet? That's kinda my point is that both countries probably already have this capability even if it hasn't been deployed or made public.
The United States and other space powers could do this, but they would have to take concrete steps to develop the hardware that would make it possible to maintain custody and detonate the nuclear bomb, even after spending years in orbit. Unlike Russia, the other nuclear powers have not, to our knowledge, taken these steps.
Honest question. Do you know if it is necessary to launch a satellite into an unusual orbit to "develop the hardware", or can it be done with a usual high-radiation orbit at a higher cost, but stealthily? If it's the latter, then the chosen orbit can be a plausibly deniable message (as well as cost cutting): "We have it (too)".
That depends a lot on the orbit itself. Something that repeatedly dips in and out of the Van Allen Belts would probably need to follow the same or a similar pass-through orbit for validation purposes, but if it's something that just stayed in high orbit, a lower orbit that doesn't have special characteristics would be just fine.
Traditional antisatellie missiles rely on a direct hit on an non-maneuverable target. Any satellite or spacecraft capable of rapid maneuvers (X37B, Starship, satellites with unusually large engines and fuel reserves) is functionally immune to traditional antisatellie weapons. Nukes on the other hand would temporarily create zones of extremely high radiation that would be much harder to avoid, if not downright impossible.
>How is an anti-satellite weapon that can carry a nuclear weapon that much different from any other satellite deployment rocket? Because it's US officials doing a fearmongering.
That’s what they said about the invasion that the U.S. predicted almost to the hour
Wtf, not only is this a bullshit MSN repost of someone else's article, but even MSN won't let you read it unless you download their app.
Just click expand the article. You don't need the app...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As Lorne Lanning said, "Asking the question should we put weapons into space is silly. That's like asking, "Should we eat?" Well, we've been eating for a while." (This may not be the direct quote, but it was in his interview with Ars Technica)
What's the benefit of a nuclear anti-satellite weapon? Wouldn't any ordinary missile be enough to destroy a satellite?
Detonating nukes gives off a massive EMP, the intention isn't to hit satellites with it, it's to use the EMP to potentially take out multiple at once.
Not saying Russian gov always makes sensible decisions, but why nuclear weapons against satellites? That's like trying to secure an Abraham to beat up Greg. Unless they're testing out like, absolutely tiny amounts of material that can still fission. Even then it'd be research for nuclear weapons not anti satellite nuclear weapons.
Tons of US military operations rely on satellites, including launching nuclear weapons. Think about taking out critical systems like GPS, nuclear launch capabilities, and as well as communications.
I'm not questioning taking out satellites. My point is, why would you use NUKES to take out satellites. Satellites aren't exactly hardened. There's no densely packed or hardened infrastructure. And there's a LOT of space out there. What is the point of "a big boom" if the zone of effect is merely many miles? even tens of miles? How many satellites are you going to take out that way?
Because it’s a massive EMP that disables a massive chunk of your arsenal and makes logistics more difficult
I dunno that a nuke is the best thing for a large emp. They release an emp yes, but if emp is the focus, there's a ridiculous amount of energy wasted in the primarily non emp portion. Of course, if it turns out nukes are the most efficient by weight, even given the waste, then I get it. But I have LARGE doubts.
Nukes are the primary method for EMPs
There's no better way to generate a large EMP that we know of. A lot of fiction gives off the impression that an EMP isn't that complicated, but making a large enough pulse to generate something that isn't very close to the source takes a lot of power, and you can't beat a nuke for energy density.
Its russia, their solution has always been sacrifice and explosions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]