Satalites and Ethic of War

I have seen no one bring this up. But this is probably an important question that gets avoided and put on a back burner

Right now, civilian satalites are flying over Ukraine, giving away the positions of Russians to the forces that appose it. Not to mention, military spy satalites from western countries.

In war, the rules of engagement is generally that any weaponized assets that is used to launch an attack is treated just as that. They are open for targeting. And I do us the term "used to launch" broadly. Because intel is a very important part in launching an attack, by providing Intel support, you're using your assets to launch an attack. And in that moment, those assets become weaponized

As far as rules of engagement, you can freely shoot down a spy plane over a war zone, whether it's a private plane flown by civilian combatants(oxymoron), or full fledged military spy planes. So why are weaponized satalites treated differently? Moral blackmail of "it will crate a big debris field in space"?

That can be fixed in due time.

There is no treaty that prohibits one from shooting down satalites. Especially if they are used for military purposes. And it doesn't kill anyone. Its the best kind of military target.

So. Lets say a some civilians repurpose their satalites to provide intel, why should the enemy nation who is targeted not be allowed to shoot it down? Why would the civilians cry about it?

Imagine if you were launching ballistic missiles from your backyard. And when talking to the targeted nation, the government be like "we have nothing to do with them. They are a private individuals. But you can't target them. Even as they target you."

Yeh. That's not how things work. If one can't target the people who are clearly waging war because they are out of your reach, at least you can target their instruments.

 

War is human Hell.

 

OP, do you assume that the Russians don't have military satellites? I assume the opposite.

 

I'm just saying that satalites should be treated like spy planes.

This is a war between Russia and Ukraine. If a third party comes in, they should expect to have their weaponized assets destroyed.

 

You bring up a good point, and it brings Musk to mind. Our high tech is being guided by Musk's repurposed satellites and Musk is carrying the $25M/day cost to keep them operational, a cost that the DOD refused to take over.

He's also repurposed satellites to provide Iran Freedom Fighters with internet communications. He's quite an American. I don't know what it would cost to for Iran or Russia to shoot down a Satellite, but, Musk has shown than he can deploy 600 at a time. So, shooting them down may not pencil out.

 

Well first you have to have the capability second you have to have matching redundancy I'm not certain that anyone has either.

 

The way you keep misspelling satellites leads me to think might be a Russian propagandist.
The fact is that Russians are free to keep trying, and failing, to destroy any materials that the west chooses to give to Ukraine to help them fight putin’s invasion.
Just as putin is free to keep using Iranian drones and missiles in his attacks on Ukraine.
War is hell and if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

That you think some poster for "Russian Propagandist" for spelling error - indicates lack of education and/or rational thought - to put it nicely

 

But then it could be someone for whom English is a second language which to be sure isn't conclusive proof of anything. Hell most of the world speaks English as a second language.

 

The Chinese shot down a satellite years ago, and the US experimented with a special F-15 and a special missile. I think we succeeded, but you don't hear much about that anymore.

You raise a good question. The Russians are justifiably angry with Elon Musk over allowing Ukraine to use his Starlink system against them. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

or .. it could just be Ad Hom Fallacy by the lame-o-rama crowd - unable to put forth valid argument. but, how about we put it this way.

1) Did you get 100% on every spelling B ? 2) Are you Russian ?

 

No and no. In fact I'm the typo king. And what Auto correct will do to you if you get one letter wrong in the first syllable of a word is enough to make you tear your hair.

That being said given the poster in question I suspect your original assessment is likely correct.

 

I don't think you understand the ramification of declaring satellites as targets! Then again, maybe revisiting the dark ages would do us all a bit of good!

 

Those are tiny satalites that work in a network. "Nuclear test" in space would down a lot of them

As for the bigger ones. In 2021, Russia tested its anti satalite missile. Not to mention, they can target a particular orbit with a fragmented warhead. Everything within that orbit will be whipe out due to the cascading effect. This will be especially effective with starlink since all of them fly at the same altitude. Fragmented warheads destroys few satalites in a local area. The debris of these satalites will destroy other satalites. And so fourth. You can't destroy all of them, but you can whipe out a big chunk


Russia conducted a direct-ascent hit-to-kill anti-satellite (ASAT) test on November 15, 2021, striking a Russian satellite and rendering it into more than 1,500 pieces of orbital debris.1 Reacting to the test, U.S. Space Command commander Army Gen. James Dickinson claimed that Russia is “deploying capabilities to actively deny access to and use of space by the United States and its allies.”2 He further noted that Russia’s counterspace weapons

Russian military leaders and analysts argue, however, that their counterspace weapons provide a means to restore strategic stability. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu characterized the test as a routine operation of a “cutting-edge future weapon system” to strengthen Russia’s deterrent and defense against U.S. attempts to attain “comprehensive military advantage” in space.3

Russian leaders believe that a change in the character of warfare has been unfolding over the past three decades. They write that the next generation of warfare will be waged in the aerospace domain with weapons enabled by satellite targeting and navigation.4 For instance, in a 2015 speech, President Vladimir Putin asserted that U.S. and NATO forces possess “high-precision long-range non-nuclear weapons comparable in their effect to nuclear weapons.”5 Russians fear that, in a conflict, these weapons may be used against them in a coordinated strike against their nuclear and conventional forces.


https://www.armscontrol.org/act/202...-asymmetric-response-us-aerospace-superiority

 

Russia conducted a direct-ascent hit-to-kill anti-satellite (ASAT) test on November 15, 2021, striking a Russian satellite and rendering it into more than 1,500 pieces of orbital debris.1 Reacting to the test, U.S. Space Command commander Army Gen. James Dickinson claimed that Russia is “deploying capabilities to actively deny access to and use of space by the United States and its allies.”2 He further noted that Russia’s counterspace weapons

Russian military leaders and analysts argue, however, that their counterspace weapons provide a means to restore strategic stability. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu characterized the test as a routine operation of a “cutting-edge future weapon system” to strengthen Russia’s deterrent and defense against U.S. attempts to attain “comprehensive military advantage” in space.3

Russian leaders believe that a change in the character of warfare has been unfolding over the past three decades. They write that the next generation of warfare will be waged in the aerospace domain with weapons enabled by satellite targeting and navigation.4 For instance, in a 2015 speech, President Vladimir Putin asserted that U.S. and NATO forces possess “high-precision long-range non-nuclear weapons comparable in their effect to nuclear weapons.”5 Russians fear that, in a conflict, these weapons may be used against them in a coordinated strike against their nuclear and conventional forces.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/202...-asymmetric-response-us-aerospace-superiority

 

Lol. My auto correct on my phone is shot.

But. "You misspelled words. You must be a Russian."

I guess that all the rednecks and hoodlums are Russian spies too.

 

Deleted

 

Lol

 

What? Destroying all satalites will destroy electricity along with all of our modern society? Scary.
Lol.
You think that destroying a few satalites will make us enter dark ages?

Hyperbole aside, you obviously don't know anything about satellites or where they are located.

That's just a talking point made by people(especially the west) to try to deter others from targeting them.

Mapping, spy, starlink, etc satellites are all in low earth orbit. They are the ones that will be effected mostly. As they are within the striking distance. Communications and gps satalites are generally in medium to high earth orbit and are out of range(400 miles).

Google Maps
Spinning around the planet some 600 kilometres (370 miles) above us, it will cover every part of the Earth's surface every couple of days.

Starlink
Orbit approximately 342 miles (550 kilometers) above Earth

Spy
Optical image reconnaissance satellites use a charge coupled device (CCD) to gather images that make up a digital photograph for transmission back to Earth from an altitude of about 200 miles


Communications satellites
Are placed in geo-stationary orbits 36000km above the equator

GPS
Fly in circular orbits at an altitude of 10,900 nautical miles (20,200 km)

___________________


Most of the damage will be local to a particular orbit hight. GPS and communications will be mostly unaffected. Sure, some stray debris might hit a few. But that's the extent.

 

WTF is a “satalite”?

 

Another spelling natzi bot. Two can play that game

What the hell is "WTF"? I genuinely don't know. Dur!

That's not part of the English language. It's definitely not in any English dictionary that I have seen.

 

Depends on your dictionary - which I suggest you use as that was not the only spelling hilarity

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wtf

 

WOW are you in for a rude awakening

What would happen if all satellites stopped working? - BBC Future

 

Thats a big IF

Lol "the internet will grind to a halt"

Someone should tell that guy to spare his fear mongering. And then tell him that the vast majority of interest is carried by vast network of cables. Not satellites





What would happen if all satellites are destroyed? We won't have gps or satellite based communication. We won't have as accurate weather forecast. No satalite TV, internet, or radio. That's about it.
.

So communication for an average person won't be effected much. We might have to go back to using maps like our fathers did for a while. Pilots and ship captiains will actually have to put their skills to good use and make use of their nautical maps and compasses.

But yeh. Thats definitely the "dark ages". Lol

Communications at large won't be an issue. It will just get slower across large distances. Radio towers still exist after all. It will be an issue when you're trying to communicate with a different country. But hey. We still have internet to do that. As far as gps, we can do a work around by using cell phone towers via triangulation. Just have a built in function in a phone and that lets it track how far your receiver is from the tower. With enough towers and local triangulation, we can replicate gps on the ground. Pilots and boat captains won't benefit from this. But thats why they get paid the big bucks. And they were trained to operate their vehicles without the gps. So they will have to work harder. Or they could have a specialized person present that does it for them and acts like their gps.

I've never used satalite TV, internet, or radio. So a person like me won't even know they're missing.

In short. As far as accesible technology for the average person, Nothing much would change even if all satellites were destroyed. It will only be a minor inconvenience for them. It will only greatly effect large entities. Especially Governments who heavily rely on satellites for their targeting systems and communications.


Going back to reality now. In reality, this won't happen unless there is a ww3 or something.

Even if every low earth orbit satalite is destroyed, there won't be that much of a difference. The earth is already mapped. So Google Maps satalites being gone won't do much. It's all digitally archived. The governments will have a headache with their spy satalites destroyed. And very few people actually use starlink. ISS will be destroyed. As well as some scientific satalites. But that's about all. All communication satalites that we use for satalite TV and internet will be largely unaffected. As well as weather satalites.

The biggest problem problem is that we won't be able to launch new rockets for a short period of time. But even that is a minor issue

Low earth orbit satalites only stay there because its internal propulsion systems let's it self correct the orbit. But even that has limited effect. Especially for small satellites like starlink. Because they have less fuel. If there is nothing keeping it up they, they would quickly fall back down to earth. It's called gravity after all.




If all low earth orbit satellites get destroyed one year. All the debris will fall back down to earth by the next year. Most of it will burn up in the atmosphere.

 

Deleted