UN Security Council rejects Russia-backed resolution on banning weapons in space
The United States says that Russia last week launched a satellite that could be part of weaponizing space. That's a possible future global trend that members of the U.N.
The Security Council resolution drafted by Russia rivaled one backed by the U.S. and Japan that failed last month. The rival drafts focused on different types of weapons, with the U.S. and Japan specifying weapons of mass destruction. The Russian draft discussed all types of weapons.
Why is the US so keen to allow conventional weapons in space?
The Moon Wars of 2055 and 2072, and the Martian invasion of 2103.
The hilarious part is that the rule of law doesn't apply to most high level "intelligence" and "national security" operations, and even if moves are made to apply it they just pass a new bill to make the historic crimes retroactively legal, so all of this is just showboating and won't actually prevent superpowers from doing it anyway — there have never been any consequences remotely adequate to fit the crimes.
Because they are the one's closest to using them.
They want the ability to shoot down other countries' satellites when they go to war with them. Things like disabling communication satellites and GPS (or Russia's equivalent, GLONASS).
Kessler Syndrome? Never heard of it.
When has ruining the world for everyone else ever stopped the usa before? :(
There really seems to be a lot of "If not us, nobody" in the command structure of that military cult empire.
The plan is already to decimate moon settlers with nuclear meltdowns.
Really highlights how fucking dumb the elite are.
It's not like one side of the moon is always facing the sun, which has been the chief argument against solar panels for decades and decades (that being: the sun goes down and then solar panels dont generate, so an electric grid that is mostly used at night isnt feasable).
One side of the moon is NOT always facing the sun. One side of the moon is always facing the EARTH. The moon rotates on its axis at a rate of one rotation per orbit around the Earth.
The moon is not tidally locked with the sun. Also the viable landing sites on the moon are tiny. There's so much that's difficult about the moon for settlement and solar power viability is actually one of them.
on average night on the moon is 15 earth days. it’s not trivial to store 15 days worth of solar energy. nothing to do with elitism whatsoever.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The U.S. and its allies said the language that the 15-member council debated on Monday was simply meant to distract the world from Russia’s true intention: weaponizing space.
“The culmination of Russia’s campaign of diplomatic gaslighting and dissembling is the text before us today,” U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood told the council.
“If they fail to support this, then they will clearly show that their main priority remains keeping freedom of the way for themselves to expedite the militarization of outer space,” Nebenzia said.
Six years later, the Soviets, the U.S. and the United Kingdom signed a treaty declaring outer space a global commons that could be used for only peaceful purposes.
Even though nations could not wage war without the space-based communications, reconnaissance and weather tools that satellites and spacecraft provide, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty requires them to keep their weapons on Earth.
All of that could be at risk if a conflict in space causes an explosion and shrapnel, which could disable the vital systems that millions of people around the world depend on.
The original article contains 554 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 68%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Everyone thought space weapons would like Star Wars planes shooting eachother. Turns out it's a bunch of satellites pointing down at the earth with nukes.