this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
127 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4217 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
127
"Serious national security threat": Fears rise over reports Russia plans to put a nuke in space (www.salon.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The House Intelligence Committee Chair asked Biden to declassify intel on reported nuclear anti-satellite weapon

House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) called on President Joe Biden to declassify all intelligence reports related to an unnamed "serious national security threat" on Wednesday, as reported by ABC News. Jake Sullivan, White House national security adviser, addressed the remarks in a press briefing, assured reporters the country faced no imminent threat of attack, and confirmed that he reached out to congressional leaders. Sullivan offered no further details of the supposed threat.

According to ABC News, two sources familiar with deliberations on Capitol Hill told the outlet that the classified intelligence involved Russian ambitions to put a nuclear weapon into space — not to drop a nuclear weapon onto Earth, but rather to possibly use against satellites. "It is very concerning and very sensitive," one source reportedly told the outlet, calling it "a big deal."

"Current and former officials said the nuclear weapon was not in orbit," The New York Times reported, confirming ABC News' report. Turner's warning comes ahead of a previously planned Thursday meeting on the topic between congressional leaders and Biden's top security advisers which Turner is scheduled to attend. Sullivan said he "was a bit surprised that Congressman Turner came out today."

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

My boss is one of those "Ultra MAGA" people. He likes to make audacious, obviously bullshit claims that he heard from dubious sources. Anyway, today's whopper was that "Ukraine is the second most corrupt country in the world."

I asked him which was number one and he couldn't come up with an answer, but a very brief Google search brought up two sources total for the phrase "Ukraine second most corrupt."

The first was NorwayNews and the other was Freedom. Win. I mentioned that one of those sites was known propaganda and full of Nazis. He got all up in his feelings and has been big mad at me all morning.

My point is, Putin is collecting dividends on his purchase of the Republican party by way of the NRA. These useful idiots are destroying the country from within and people like my boss are aiding and abetting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

there is absolutely nothing to be afraid of here putting nukes in space is dumb as fuck

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Which is exactly why Putin would do it. That, and to take out Starlink and DoD spy sats.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

They don't need nukes to do that and it would potentially kill people in space because there is no atmosphere to stop the radiation from travelling. Also they can hit anywhere in the world already there is no need to put nukes in space. It's all fearmongering.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Is a satellite that is powered by nuclear energy that can shoot a laser at another satellite still a nuclear weapon?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They're putting it in space because that's the only place the crews can't steal components off the missiles to sell for vodka

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

After launch, sure.

But what about before launch?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I saw this movie.

spoilerTommy Lee Jones ends up riding the nuke to the moon.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Wait, I thought Arecibo drops on Sean Bean? ^RIP^ ^Arecibo^

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What movie? That sounds dope.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ahh yeah. I like how Sutherland gets through the eye test and says something like "my sight may be shit, but my memory is great."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Donald Sutherland was probably the best part of that movie. After he couldn't be an astronaut he became a roller coaster tester. I've spent 24 years looking for career opportunities in the roller coaster testing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Sounds like somebody wants to get defense money for contractor buddies while simultaneously putting pressure on Biden. Russia can hardly put people in space now. How are they going to pursue nukes?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Sooo…

Apparently congressman Turner came out today.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Outer Space Treaty

Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm

Russia ratified this when they were still the USSR. I would not at all be surprised if Putin argues that means they are no longer a signatory.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

If Russia cannot be considered a signatory of treaties that the USSR signed and ratified, then it also follows that Russia cannot simply take over the USSR’s permanent UNSC seat.

You gotta pick one, Putin.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Russia ratified this when they were still the USSR. I would not at all be surprised if Putin argues that means they are no longer a signatory.

Fine, then they no longer get the other perks of being the heir to the USSR, like a UN veto.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Ooo I like your style!

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Russia ratified this when they were still the USSR. I would not at all be surprised if Putin argues that means they are no longer a signatory.

which would be pretty fucked, since the opposite argument is how they kept the USSR's permanent UNSC seat.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago

They already said that the agreement to never invade Ukraine in exchange for all Ukraine's nukes was not valid because the USSR, not Russia, made the deal.

They're pretty comfortable playing both sides of the argument

[–] [email protected] 63 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Mike Johnson has seen this intelligence.

Mike Johnson knows that withholding aid to Ukraine will result in Russian victories. And that is what he is choosing. That is what Trump is choosing. That is what MAGA is choosing. Their considered policy is the defeat of Ukraine and imperiling all of Europe. Think about that.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, they are fucking traitors to humanity. Unfortunately, so are large swaths of the population. So, now what?

Until a large enough percentage of the population of this planet is willing to suffer the consequences of reforming society, the strategic balance will always favor the consolidation of power into fewer and fewer hands. Revolution is and always has been the only viable option to save our species from a dystopian future, as far as I can tell anyway.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The problem here is that most left leaning people are fucking afraid of guns. Who the fuck do you expect to revolt with you? The cops?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That's just it. I don't expect anyone to revolt until the suffering people are experiencing vastly outweighs the price of revolution. Even then, it may not happen. Until humanity loses its desire to fight and die over petty differences rather than focusing our resources on preserving civilization in a more efficient, equitable fashion then we are just headed towards guaranteed extinction on a much shorter timeline than most people are willing to accept. I do not wish for violent revolution, but I am willing to accept that it may be either necessary or inevitable.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

So much for the "highly sensitive" source of this information. Republicans just let Putin know that we're onto him

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago

Any nukes in space would be horrendously bad

Hopefully the number up there remains zero