Hacker News Reader

Comment by Skunkleton | Hacker News Reader

At least in this case there are treaties that prevent space based weapons platforms.

Well, that would work if people/government don't break treaties of all kind on daily basis. Solution must be in roots not a patch on top of pile (of bullshit we created over time)

a) it's kind of hard to hide a launch system where the fueled-up booster stack on the pad weighs two and a half times as much as a Saturn V and the launch is visible with the naked eye from a hundred miles away.

b) There is a reason we don't use Trident D-5 SLBMs (or the Russian equivalent) for precision conventional explosive strikes on targets which otherwise require long range bombers with intricate in-flight refuelling arrangements to hit: something about not scaring the other folks with strategic nukes into thinking we've initiated a first strike and hitting the big red end of the world button.

TLDR: even the big guys don't mess with space-based or sub-orbital weaponry. The risk of a misunderstanding is non-trivial and the perceived costs are far too high.

That's nice but treaties have been broken and what can be done will be done eventually. It all comes down to power.

Are we trusting the militaries of the world won't make gray goo or 100% lethal bioweapons because those would kill everyone, or will that just happen because it can, no point in even talking about it?

Of course we can and should talk about it. It's important to at least theorize what others might realize in order to be prepared. That's all I wanted to add.

"we are so dominant in space I pity the adversary who would come against us" Lieutenant General Franklyn Blaisdell, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Air and Space Operations

The system I described apparently does not contravene these treaties, see wiki someone posted above afterwards

Reply on news.ycombinator.com