House Intel Chair Warns Biden of Mysterious ‘Serious National Security Threat’

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Look up Kinetic Energy Weapons. No need to be nuclear.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Look up Kinetic Energy Weapons. No need to be nuclear.

Yep wasn't it Hammer of God .

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
I'm not understanding the Nuke in space thing , a nuclear explosion would only take out the satellites in that part of the orbit and would take out other nations satellites as well as their own in that part of orbit .

That's not the only effect of a nuclear explosion in space.

Nuclear bombs give off an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that fries electronics that are within line-of-sight of the explosion. Detonating one on or near the ground, the only electronics that are close enough to be fried by the EMP are destroyed by the explosion, the air blast, or the thermal blast.

If you detonate one in space, however, the line-of-site extends over an enormous area and supposedly can knock out your enemy's electrical grid. If you detonate one high enough, you can devastate the power grid of an entire country like the US.

And it won't be easily repairable. It's not gonna be like a few transformers and lines down from a storm and it takes a few days to repair, or even in a hurricane where the repairs take several weeks. Repairing the entire country's power grid would take years. There are no emergency plans for that length of time. You can't run the whole country on diesel generators for years. It would become a disaster like the world has never seen.

THAT said, that's all based off of information from like 10-15 years ago. Supposedly we were working on ways to safeguard our grid from being able to be completely crippled that way. I haven't heard much about whether we were able to successfully do that or not. And I oversimplified this a lot because frankly I don't know a ton about it.

Side note--this can also happen from large eruptions from the Sun.

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Look up Kinetic Energy Weapons. No need to be nuclear.

Yep wasn't it Hammer of God .

Rod from God. And they're mostly a curiosity. The speeds that we can achieve with them will not produce nuke-level damage. We have more effective and battle-proven weapons that can produce the same effects.

You need advanced tech that can accelerate a kinetic impactor to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light to generate the same kind of energy that a nuclear bomb unleashes.

If anyone cares to disagree, I'd love to see your calculations proving me wrong.

a reply to: Threadbarer

lets just ask em...


sputnikglobe.com...

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Small tactical nuke destruction with no radiation is an effective weapon. Ask the Air Force Research and that was about 20-30 years ago.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Small tactical nuke destruction with no radiation is an effective weapon. Ask the Air Force Research and that was about 20-30 years ago.

How far did the research go? Got links?

90% of what they do are feasibility studies and they don't even develop a prototype. And most of the time it's because we can already achieve the desired result with an existing system.

Coincidence?

Explosion Reported at Russian Space Agency's Rocket Engine Plant in Siberia

House Intel Chair Warns Biden of Mysterious ‘Serious National Security Threat’

So they’re warning Biden of himself? Makes perfect sense 👍

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Those Russians and their carelessly discarded cigarettes?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Small tactical nuke destruction with no radiation is an effective weapon. Ask the Air Force Research and that was about 20-30 years ago.

I just did the numbers. To get tactical nuke energy yields from a kinetic energy weapon, you'd have to accelerate something the mass of the ISS to orbital speeds. That will give you about a 2.8 kiloton impact, assuming the entire mass makes it to the surface without burning up.

Yeah that's not happening anytime soon.

I'll post the math in a bit if you'd like. I welcome you to take a look at it and tell me where I'm wrong. You don't need to take my (or the Air Force's) word for it. It's high school math. Just basic algebra.

Moscow has denied the claim being pushed here from unverifiable sources as: malicious and unfounded.

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

They would....They also denied any intention to invade Ukraine, also agreed that if Ukraine gave up nukes it would not attack them and also denied the Salisbury poisonings and so on.

They never lie.....

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Good luck trying to prove this claim of Russian Nukes in Space is anything other than malicious unfounded hogwash.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Orbital Mechanics.


Don't forget that you would have to first decelerate your "impactor" from orbital velocity before you accelerate it to your desired impact velocity.


The impact mass will be orbiting at the same velocity as its carrier, sufficient to maintain orbit (roughly 17,000MPH), but not fast enough to escape Earth orbit.


So, you got to "Drop it, before you Punch it!"

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. By the way, not suggesting nukes, I suggested it may be a nuclear powered satellite.

I also clearly said we just don't know.

Please read my posts before going off on one.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. By the way, not suggesting nukes, I suggested it may be a nuclear powered satellite.

I also clearly said we just don't know.

Please read my posts before going off on one.

Honest question why would a nuclear powered satellite be a threat in your opinion ?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Fine, but we know the claim is false.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Fine, but we know the claim is false.

We know nothing at this point

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Good luck trying to prove this claim of Russian Nukes in Space is anything other than malignant unfounded hogwash.

Nuclear warheads in space might be difficult, true.


But, nuclear reactors in space......easy peasy!


Space is cold. A functioning nuclear reactor is hot....Very Hot!. It's basically the key function of a reactor: get hot, stay hot (without melting!) for a very long time.

Biggest problem with a reactor in space is the weight of the shielding needed to protect personnel from the radiation the reactor produces. Lots of mass to lift to orbit.

But, if there's no personnel to be worried about..."Where we're going, we don't need sheilding!"



Russian reactors in orbit should be so hot, they'll glow like stars on the IR cameras.