16 Comments
User's avatar
Rob steffes's avatar

One more reason to take seriously Russia’s threat to the free world. As for taking out satellites to initiate a first nuke strike scenario, don’t forget that the USN has 14 boomer subs each carrying 20 Trident missiles each with 8-12 MIRV warheads. If just one sub survives an attack on the US (and they are basically undetectable now) there would be nothing left of the attacker.

Expand full comment
Porter's avatar

or perhaps the world...

Expand full comment
TheRepublicIsDead's avatar

"...threat to the free world."

Have you not been paying attention to how NATO and it's members have been behaving over the last 30 plus years?

Expand full comment
Porter's avatar

And Russia is Trump's best friend?

Expand full comment
Brian Rosen's avatar

Eye opening scenarios!

Expand full comment
Paul Brett's avatar

The US superiority & dependency on it’s Cyber Technology on the Ground, in the Air and in Space, is it’s Achilles Heel.

When The Trumpet of War sounds, yet None Goeth into Battle…. That’s the prophetic forecast🤔

Expand full comment
Conor Gallogly's avatar

Why does the satellite’s erratic behavior suggest that it is intended to test some aspect of nuclear warfare in space?

Expand full comment
TheRepublicIsDead's avatar

I am not sure how a failed experiment is supposed to be an embarrassment. Especially, considering we don't know the satellite's purpose.

When did less than 200,000 ground troops invading Ukraine, roughly the size of France, become a full scale invasion?

Expand full comment
Guy's avatar

They only mount 4 or 5 warheads per missile. 100 potential hits on Russia would demolish much of their military infrastructure, but certainly wouldn't destroy the country by a long shot.

Expand full comment
Robot Bender's avatar

It depends on the definition of "destroyed" we're discussing. If their centers of population, military, and industry were all hit, they'd be sent back to the early 1900s. Or close enough that they would at best a small regional power. Of course, if there's an exchange, the world will be lucky to survive it.

Expand full comment
Robot Bender's avatar

Setting off a nuclear explosion in orbit would take out everyone's satellites, including Russia's. I'm not sure if see the advantage, as all nations use Earth orbiting electronics heavily. It wouldn't necessarily give them an advantage. 🤔

What am I missing here?

Expand full comment
TheRepublicIsDead's avatar

When you see Russia and/or China start evacuating their cities then you should start worrying.

Modern nukes can be dialed down to tactical levels and use precise targeting. It's a cost/benefit ratio for any side that decides to use nukes first.

Expand full comment
Steve O’Cally's avatar

The First Strike happened 60 years ago, and Hawaii sustained the most damage of Starfish Prime.

The Congressional Research Service published a description in 2008 of HEMP/HMP capacity then.

https://publicintelligence.net/high-altitude-electromagnetic-pulse-hemp-and-high-power-microwave-hpm-devices-threat-assessments/

Expand full comment
David Breault's avatar

I hope it doesn’t accidentally nuke the moon. It’s our ballast! We’re a team! We’d either spin outward, freezing in outer space, or get sucked into the Sun. This is exactly why dictatorships can’t be trusted!

Expand full comment
BARBARA BADGER's avatar

What can happen now?? Still a risk ?

If it does fall??

Expand full comment
ABossy's avatar

Who wants kids in this bad world?

Expand full comment