119

UN Security Council rejects Russia-backed resolution on banning weapons in space (apnews.com)

submitted 5 months ago by nekandro@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] nekandro@lemmy.ml 63 points 5 months ago

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?

[-] WilfordGrimley@linux.community 20 points 5 months ago

The Moon Wars of 2055 and 2072, and the Martian invasion of 2103.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago

Because they are the one's closest to using them.

[-] barrbaric@hexbear.net 13 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] sneak100@hexbear.net 10 points 5 months ago

spAcE foRcE 🤪

[-] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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).

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Umbrias@beehaw.org 2 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 5 months ago

I would think the difference in air conditioning, especially big commercial buildings, would more than make up the balance.

[-] Melkath@kbin.social 1 points 5 months ago

Overall... I agree with your take.

I counter with electricity costs of keeping them AC units at the clean room mouth running 24/7 vs in presence of new contaminant and how dust blows both ways and mold tends to blow one way.