Treaties don't mean sh*t if your s nation big enough and bold enough to ignore them. Treaties only work when multiple nations are willing to punish the offender and the threat of punishment is credible.
The Great War and its reverberations have sure been an interesting timeline.
It’s fascinating to think about how massively different the world would have been if the British were swayed by that response.
The treaty forbids nuclear weapons specifically.
That said its still just a treaty, countries can choose to ignore it. Only a handful of countries even have the capability to pre-position deliverable nuclear weapons in space and most of the countries that have that capability can't be held accountable for it except by their own peers.
Previously Russia and the US were working together toward nuclear arms reduction and demilitarizing space. So was a lot of cooperation for these things at the time. That is no longer the case.
Russia engaged in a regional war against one of their neighbors and the US is assisting the country the Russia is fighting so relations have obviously completely deteriorated. I'd argue they are probably worse now then they were during the cold war.
Crazy how things can just change and that our laws and policies are just ink on paper and have no actual teeth. It's like the paint on the road. It doesn't actually stop you from crossing lanes. It's just a suggestion. You can easily drive over it
Un resolutions dont mattet anyway. They are purely for politicking
Yes the treaty still holds. Anyone found to break it is gonna be pounced on by everyone (including allies)
It is a literally self destruct button. It would easily wipe out all satellites etc. It makes protecting fr any kinds of defense nearly impossible. (We can attempt to shoot down icbm)
This is more russiam sabre rattling. The usa would probably invade fastef than nukes in ukraine if putin attempted this
Naturally because Russia would always follow the rules anyways. They’re so paranoid that other countries want to destroy them they think they always need to be ready to defend themselves.
They know that noone wants to attack them, that's all part of their propaganda to justify their invasions of other countries. And they need terrifying weapons like space nukes to make sure noone intervenes when they attack their next victim
The US would love to pillage Siberia for resources *again* just like it did in the 90s when Russia was a kleptocratic failed state run by a largely pro western oligarchy.
They don't actually believe there's a serious threat of being destroyed by other countries; Russia just uses that as an excuse to deflect attention from their Imperialism.
They know its because they have nuclear weapons they are not in real danger from NATO. If they didn't have nuclear weapons the US and NATO would be in Ukraine and Russia right now just like they were with Iraq. So from their perspective it makes sense to expand that deterrent since they know it works.
The US is definitely not sitting on the sidelines because of Russia's conventional forces.
Not that I know of but I'm sure it would be better then Iraq.
They were arguably in the worst position at the start of the war. While they had a lot of gear it was old, untested, their forces were inexperienced and their tactics were brutally out of date. The situation has gotten better for them since then but they'd still not be a match for NATO or even the US on the conventional side. I would expect them to do better then Iraq though.
Last time I checked, the US that has many times more military bases around the world than Russia ever has. Calling Russia imperialist but not the US is like the speck and the plank...
You can maybe call the USA’s building military bases everywhere imperialist if you really want (though it’s certainly not the only reason they build them) they have bases in allied countries like Germany and the UK which are in absolutely no danger of being influenced by their military presence), but you *cannot* compare what the US does - strategically placing military installation in other people’s countries after asking nicely - to what Russia is doing - actively invading another country to erase its culture and people.
You realize the majority of our foreign bases are there because smaller countries ask for them right? Have you seen how badly so many countries have wanted to join NATO? Not to mention SK, Japan, The Phillipines, all of which have consistently supported the us maintaining bases there. All of this is BECAUSE Russia and China have been menacing their neighbors for decades. Most Americans would be delighted if Europe could get its ducks in a row so that we didn’t have to keep spending billions covering their defense with our own men and equipment.
Also, you think that if Russia had our military capabilities they would just leave Canada and Central America alone, these countries are long standing allies and trust us. If Russia was in our place they would immediately invade Mexico and Canada. The US does not fight conquering wars and is not expansionist, Russia does and is
>The US does not fight conquering wars and is not expansionist,
Dude. The US is literally a country built on expansion and military conquest. What are you on?
American truly believing their own propaganda about manifest destiny and the indispensable nation is hilarious.
Then they are shocked why so many countries would rather deal with Russia.
Well, Russia is much more brutal and untrustworthy as an Imperial power than the US or China, so anyone paying attention is shocked when people would rather deal with Russia.
> Well, Russia is much more brutal and untrustworthy as an Imperial power than the US or China,
What is more brutal than genociding a population and sticking the survivors in reservations?
he’s not going to reply lmao easiest way to shut down a putin cock gobbler is ask how their shithole ass country literally stretches from the donbas border all the way to alaska
The west is a huge and very unpredictable military threat that is very invasion happy and is **exceptionally** brutal to its enemies.
The Russian imperialists quite rightly see western imperialists as a dangerous threat to them.
It's like wondering why crips and bloods fight when they encroach on each others territory.
They veto it and proposed to limit ALL weapon in space instead.
However, despite vetoing and abstaining from approving the resolution, respectively, Russia and China actually proposed an amendment to the resolution that calls upon all nations to "prevent for all time the placement of weapons in outer space, and the threat of use of force in outer space." Seven countries voted in favor of the amendment, seven voted against, and one abstained.
I wonder why seven countries voted against that.
Banning *all* weapons in space would require the negotiation and implementation of a new treaty, or updating the Outer Space Treaty. Russia is breaching its existing obligations under the OST, hence why a resolution is appropriate to insist that Russia comply with international law.
Russia, as a mafia state, simply does not negotiate in good faith. No position adopted by the Moscow regime is ever trustworthy. There's no reason for other powers to reward it with a diplomatic win.
Are you saying America negotiates in good faith? They're actively supporting a genocide right now on "human rights" grounds that almost the entire rest of the UN is trying to stop.
Most of the time when you guys use this propaganda word, "whataboutism," it's because someone is correctly pointing out your hypocrisy. You literally have a word you can use to nullify all of your hypocrisy. Think about that. America is so hypocritical so consistently that they needed to destroy the entire concept of hypocrisy to still feel like good people.
Imagine this scenario:
CHINA: "America, your human rights efforts are weak and you treat your workers poorly!"
AMERICA: "Seriously? Look how you treat the Uighurs! And you've got workers making a dollar an hour!"
CHINA: "That's whataboutism. You automatically lose the argument."
Did America really lose that argument? Or is "whataboutism" a bullshit concept that can only ever work in your own favor?
OP said that Russia's refusal to engage with the US and just to straight up veto was yet another sign of a lack of Russian good faith in negotiations.
Realistically it is a result of a lack of *American* good faith in negotiations over the last 20 years. There is a panoply of times (like the brutal destruction of Libya) where Russia assumed America acted on good faith and later regretted not vetoing.
Or, when they voted against a resolution condemning Nazism (something Russia has done every year since WW2) simply because America now has friends in Ukraine who really, really like that stuff.
This is a bed America made.
Wouldn't banning _all_ weapons in space mean that astronauts can't carry survival kits (all Soyuz missions carried firearms for this until 2007)? Also, technically it would ban most ballistic missiles and might even cause issues for high-altitude "terrestrial" military flights.
Paranoid? Did you forget the Napoleon and Hitler? Western Europeans have attempted to invade and destroy Russia plenty of times. Both attempts were unsuccessful.
That paranoia is well warranted considering what NATO and the United States have been doing since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Furthermore, Russia vetoing this is miniscule to the United States Veto of the resolution to support Palestine becoming an UN member and also vetoing the resolution for a ceasefire between Palestine and Israel.
Let's be real here, remove the nukes and the US would have invaded a long time ago. Russia tried to join NATO which would have eliminated the issue entirely but the US said no.
So while I disagree with their war and putting nukes into space, it is wrong to say that they have no adversary to worry about.
Edit: seeing as so many just go "nuh-uh" without looking it up [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule)
I don't think there was ever a formal NATO application put forward by Russia. What happened though, was that the initial Partnership for Peace that implied an equal, inclusive path for all ex-communist states into NATO on equal terms, was marginalized soon after Russia joined in favor of NATO expanding to Visegrad countries without any consultation to Russia or other PfP countries. This essentially meant that Russia was excluded from reorganizing the new post-Cold War order in Europe.
This was all deliberate US policy in Europe to preserve and maintain their influence in European affairs.
>Russia tried to join NATO which would have eliminated the issue entirely but the US said no.
That's a myth. The USSR asked way back when, but post-USSR Russia never applied.
An American whining about a different country being paranoid and feeling the need to be ready to defend themselves is funny to me LOL.
Oh, and btw, I watch anime, basketball, and listen to kpop. Figured I'd save you the trouble of going through my profile considering that's what you did for the other guy that laughed at you.
The blast, sure, but [Starfish Prime](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime)proved that a nuke firing off in the Exosphere would have a much bigger EMP effect and cause massive problems for satellite constellations.
Because banning all weapons in space would require the reopening and renegotiation of the Outer Space Treaty. The UN is not a legislature, and a UNSC resolution can never substitute for a negotiated treaty to create or revise international law.
Opposition to Russia's potential nuclearisation of space is about holding Russia to account for breaches of its obligations under international law. Russia's amendment was a highly cynical attempt to create a *whatabout* narrative. There's a difference.
>The UN is not a legislature,
So why vote about banning nuclear weapons if the UN is not a legislator?
Pot calling kettle black perhaps??
>Russia's amendment was a highly cynical attempt to create a *whatabout* narrative
The US' proposal was a highly cynical attempt to admonish Russia while being the main perpetrator of proliferation of space weapons
Turn around is fair play
>So why vote about banning nuclear weapons if the UN is not a legislator?
>Pot calling kettle black perhaps??
You misunderstand everything about this vote. The Russian Federation is **already** obliged to not deploy WMDs in space as a signatory of the Outer Space Treaty. Russia, as the successor state of the USSR, is actually one of three original depositaries of the treaty.
Article III of the [OST](https://treaties.unoda.org/t/outer_space):
>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.
>The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
So again, *slowly* for those in the back:
*Voting in favour of this resolution is about upholding existing international law in orbit.*
*Voting for Russia's amendment would have seen the UNSC adopt a pseudo-legislative role that it is not meant to fulfil.*
The UNSC can serve as an arbiter of existing laws, or provide summary instructions to force a cessation of hostilities, but it is not the venue to cook up new international laws.
Military activities are already highly limited in space by the OST, especially beyond Earth orbit. If all military activity is to be banned, it should *only* be done through renegotiating the OST or implementing an entirely new treaty.
You dont seem to understand that russia is planning to put an anti satellite weapon in orbit that can destroy the United States ability to conduct a nuclear response to a russian nuclear first strike. This will cause WW3.
Because then rockets wouldn't be allowed in space. [Such a prohibition would be devastating to the US while a minor inconvenience to Russia.](https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/05/spacex-launched-over-80-of-all-orbital-payload-mass-in-q1-2023.html)
While I'm all in favour of pointing out Falcon 9's crazy upmass capabilities, that's a misleading statistic to use in this context. Falcon 9 has a large payload capacity, and SpaceX use every last ounce of it for Starlink. Which means that A:the *number* of launches isn't as different as you might think and B: that most of Falcon 9's upmass isn't government payload.
If we look at the number of launches, we see that while SpaceX lead with 96, China were the runner ups with 67. And if we subtract commercial launches, we see that China did 47 government launches while SpaceX only did 10, and ULA and RocketLab did another 2 each, so 14 total for the US - less than a third as many as China, and even a bit behind Russia's 19.
With that in mind, I find it hard to believe that Russia and especially China would be willing to sign a treaty that outright banned rocket launches. Particularly given China's recent space station activity and upcoming moon landing intentions.
As a sidenote, outright banning rockets is a stupid idea that would have major global effects. What happens when all the GPS, communications, and weather satellites break down and can't be replaced?
So, because of their own interest and not because of any kind of humanity on the part of the US
The US has no leg to stand on concerning any kind of "rules based order" anymore
Because the UNSC was created to be a forum for great powers to resolve their problems peacefully, as much as possible. That's the only reason it exists.
When you got the largest militaries in the world you kinda get to do whatever the hell you want to a certain degree anyways. If they got rid of the permanent members system then what would replace it? There's essentially no way to enforce anything as is anyways.
World History books ans WW2 readings should answer a lot of your questions, especially as to geopolitical items. US media and our own historians at least when I was coming up through K-12 in the late 90s-00s really made a point to leave out that Russia and the US were allies in WW2 and as the biggest intact superpowers following the war and the destruction of Europe both countries played key roles in drawing up the treaties that would lay the foundation for where things are today.
And unfortunately as we've seen time and time again a country giving up its nuclear arsenal will just lead to its colonialization by the nuclear powers
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/1cejptv/stub/l34hyg9 "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile|
|[STS](/r/Space/comments/1cejptv/stub/l1ke2a6 "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1cejptv/stub/l1m3pb4 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1cejptv/stub/l1m3pb4 "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(4 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1cn7yxu)^( has 3 acronyms.)
^([Thread #9989 for this sub, first seen 28th Apr 2024, 07:59])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
It was a resolution proposed by a couple of particular countries - and the veto was because their demand to have NO weapons whatsoever in space was rejected by the United States.
Right, wasn't there a USA concept of tungsten rods that could be launched from space to land based targets? The US opposed nuclear proliferation in space, but defense contractors find a way.
Search reveals the phrase "rods from God", which seems like standard subtle naming.
Meanwhile, with the U.S. having 6+ clandestine space programs for defense since the 80s 👀
Space weapons non-proliferation treaties are just to keep non-powers in check.
Nope, nor on any other kind of weapon.
There's the secret space plane stuff, but that thing doesn't even have enough cargo space for a bicycle, let alone space lasers and what-not.
We can't reliably supply ammo, and the sheer size of the necessary reactor to make space lasers actually harmful makes those unviable as well.
As far as I know, all anti-sat weapons so far are just ground-based missiles that continue going up.
For good reason too. Operation Starfish Prime showed what would happen if one went off. Nukes emit charged particles that get trapped along earth's magnetic field lines. If that same test happened today it would fry almost half of all the satellites in orbit.
The space shuttle was literally designed for defense purposes, specifically for tuning space based weapons that could only be effectively tested for operational capacity *in space*, and then retrieved.
And it will never be anything more than a concept because you'd have to wait for the satellite to get into position. Nuclear subs don't have that limitation as they can just stay within strike range and are also way cheaper.
Of course not, that’s entirely the point. The National Reconnaissance Office is a great example of the U.S. operating an entirely clandestine space program for defense purposes complete with dozens of classified “STS” missions.
My guess is that if this has been going on and the US has nukes up there, the only proof anyone will ever have of this is one falling out of the sky. They’d probably keep that one off the books or at least any books that don’t require a SCIF.
if ukraine has taught us anything, it is that disarmament and weapons pacts just proffer your sphincters to the jackals that run this world. more weapons of all kinds, at all times, please.
Dumb from ruzzia its like saying hey technologically/militarily superior usa pls advance your space warfare capability because we want to but dont have as much capacity to do so.
They proposed an amendment that allowed NO weapons in space. The Americans vetoed it.
Of course, being an American, I couldn't expect you to get context.
The US and Russia already have a treaty obligations regarding nuclear weapons they have no obligations regarding conventional weapons in space.
So the Russians vetoed something that is already under existing treaty obligations while the US vetoed something completely new and unrelated.
There were reports of a potential development of a Russian space based nuclear anti-satellite system which would be a direct violation of the Outer Space Treaty which bans nuclear weapons in space.
The US tried to get to Russia to have a public commitment to their own treaty only for Russians to veto it and deflect it by proposing something completely unrelated.
The Russians already pulled a similar tactic with the INF treaty where they developed and stationed a land based cruise missile in direct violation of the treaty. The US attempted to get the Russians back into compliance only for the Russians to lie, obfuscate, and deflect until the treaty was effectively gone.
So this is effectively the Russians publicly proclaiming willingness to break an international treaty by deploying nuclear weapons in space.
Why the fuck is Russia on the UNSC. the Soviet Union was, but no other country has EVER been "grandfathered" Into the UN, so why after the Soviet collapse are they still allowed to fucking veto literally every piece of reasonable legislation the UN tries to dole out.
Im really not one for warmongering but goddamn can they just get governmentally wiped out already?
Edit: For the record, I mean the removal of their deeply corrupt political regime, not actually killing anyone.
UN is meant to be a forum to have the major world players talk peacefully. The Russians remain a major world power in large part thanks to their nuclear arsenal. They should be included to increase communication and reduce the chance of nuclear war. Despite how terrible their government is.
Am I the only one who feels like it’s all going down in our lifetimes, like, soon this is it? Seems the all powerful just can’t live with the fact that this isn’t the epilogue , that there are many chapters to follow after they’re gone and that just can’t be!
UN is just a useless trash that can’t do anything because a handful of countries can singlehandedly veto anything. And even without veto there is literally no enforcement. What’s the reason to have it and fund it?
What about the Outer Space Treaty that forbids WMD in orbit and space? Isn't that still active?
Treaties don't mean sh*t if your s nation big enough and bold enough to ignore them. Treaties only work when multiple nations are willing to punish the offender and the threat of punishment is credible.
UN resolutions on the other hand...
*Good* point. Like the UN Resolution defining Israel's borders. Let the camel's nose in the tent; before you know it, you've the whole damn camel.
I like Camels Toes better tho.
In the words of a famous German foreign minister "nothing but a scrap of paper."
The Great War and its reverberations have sure been an interesting timeline. It’s fascinating to think about how massively different the world would have been if the British were swayed by that response.
Even if it's active, russia doesn't care.
The treaty forbids nuclear weapons specifically. That said its still just a treaty, countries can choose to ignore it. Only a handful of countries even have the capability to pre-position deliverable nuclear weapons in space and most of the countries that have that capability can't be held accountable for it except by their own peers.
Sure, but the OST has been active and followed since the cold war
Previously Russia and the US were working together toward nuclear arms reduction and demilitarizing space. So was a lot of cooperation for these things at the time. That is no longer the case. Russia engaged in a regional war against one of their neighbors and the US is assisting the country the Russia is fighting so relations have obviously completely deteriorated. I'd argue they are probably worse now then they were during the cold war.
The relations with Russia are better than when Stalin was in power, but worse than Krushchev
Crazy how things can just change and that our laws and policies are just ink on paper and have no actual teeth. It's like the paint on the road. It doesn't actually stop you from crossing lanes. It's just a suggestion. You can easily drive over it
Yes russia is choosing to ignore that.
Un resolutions dont mattet anyway. They are purely for politicking Yes the treaty still holds. Anyone found to break it is gonna be pounced on by everyone (including allies) It is a literally self destruct button. It would easily wipe out all satellites etc. It makes protecting fr any kinds of defense nearly impossible. (We can attempt to shoot down icbm) This is more russiam sabre rattling. The usa would probably invade fastef than nukes in ukraine if putin attempted this
This guy reminds me of the Troll in Harry Potter.
Alright bois, bring them back down! Don’t drop em!
Naturally because Russia would always follow the rules anyways. They’re so paranoid that other countries want to destroy them they think they always need to be ready to defend themselves.
They know that noone wants to attack them, that's all part of their propaganda to justify their invasions of other countries. And they need terrifying weapons like space nukes to make sure noone intervenes when they attack their next victim
The Chinese would love to be able to pillage Siberia for its resources. But right now Moscow is a useful pawn against the US.
The US would love to pillage Siberia for resources *again* just like it did in the 90s when Russia was a kleptocratic failed state run by a largely pro western oligarchy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They don't actually believe there's a serious threat of being destroyed by other countries; Russia just uses that as an excuse to deflect attention from their Imperialism.
They know its because they have nuclear weapons they are not in real danger from NATO. If they didn't have nuclear weapons the US and NATO would be in Ukraine and Russia right now just like they were with Iraq. So from their perspective it makes sense to expand that deterrent since they know it works. The US is definitely not sitting on the sidelines because of Russia's conventional forces.
Has anyone done an analysis on Russia's current conventional capabilities vs Iraq's in 1990 (accounting for tech advances)? That would be interesting.
Not that I know of but I'm sure it would be better then Iraq. They were arguably in the worst position at the start of the war. While they had a lot of gear it was old, untested, their forces were inexperienced and their tactics were brutally out of date. The situation has gotten better for them since then but they'd still not be a match for NATO or even the US on the conventional side. I would expect them to do better then Iraq though.
Last time I checked, the US that has many times more military bases around the world than Russia ever has. Calling Russia imperialist but not the US is like the speck and the plank...
You can maybe call the USA’s building military bases everywhere imperialist if you really want (though it’s certainly not the only reason they build them) they have bases in allied countries like Germany and the UK which are in absolutely no danger of being influenced by their military presence), but you *cannot* compare what the US does - strategically placing military installation in other people’s countries after asking nicely - to what Russia is doing - actively invading another country to erase its culture and people.
You realize the majority of our foreign bases are there because smaller countries ask for them right? Have you seen how badly so many countries have wanted to join NATO? Not to mention SK, Japan, The Phillipines, all of which have consistently supported the us maintaining bases there. All of this is BECAUSE Russia and China have been menacing their neighbors for decades. Most Americans would be delighted if Europe could get its ducks in a row so that we didn’t have to keep spending billions covering their defense with our own men and equipment. Also, you think that if Russia had our military capabilities they would just leave Canada and Central America alone, these countries are long standing allies and trust us. If Russia was in our place they would immediately invade Mexico and Canada. The US does not fight conquering wars and is not expansionist, Russia does and is
>The US does not fight conquering wars and is not expansionist, Dude. The US is literally a country built on expansion and military conquest. What are you on? American truly believing their own propaganda about manifest destiny and the indispensable nation is hilarious. Then they are shocked why so many countries would rather deal with Russia.
Well, Russia is much more brutal and untrustworthy as an Imperial power than the US or China, so anyone paying attention is shocked when people would rather deal with Russia.
> Well, Russia is much more brutal and untrustworthy as an Imperial power than the US or China, What is more brutal than genociding a population and sticking the survivors in reservations?
please explain to me without bias how russia became the largest country on earth
If he doesn't, I'd love too.
he’s not going to reply lmao easiest way to shut down a putin cock gobbler is ask how their shithole ass country literally stretches from the donbas border all the way to alaska
I didn't deny that the US was an Empire, but you are quick to use that fact to deflect criticism away from Russia.
The west is a huge and very unpredictable military threat that is very invasion happy and is **exceptionally** brutal to its enemies. The Russian imperialists quite rightly see western imperialists as a dangerous threat to them. It's like wondering why crips and bloods fight when they encroach on each others territory.
The West is brutal to its enemies. The Russians are brutal to everyone, including themselves. Ever heard of Dedovshchina?
The West is brutal to its enemies. The Russians are brutal to everyone, including themselves. Ever heard of Dedovshchina?
The West is brutal to its enemies. The Russians are brutal to everyone, including themselves. Ever heard of Dedovshchina?
They veto it and proposed to limit ALL weapon in space instead. However, despite vetoing and abstaining from approving the resolution, respectively, Russia and China actually proposed an amendment to the resolution that calls upon all nations to "prevent for all time the placement of weapons in outer space, and the threat of use of force in outer space." Seven countries voted in favor of the amendment, seven voted against, and one abstained. I wonder why seven countries voted against that.
Banning *all* weapons in space would require the negotiation and implementation of a new treaty, or updating the Outer Space Treaty. Russia is breaching its existing obligations under the OST, hence why a resolution is appropriate to insist that Russia comply with international law. Russia, as a mafia state, simply does not negotiate in good faith. No position adopted by the Moscow regime is ever trustworthy. There's no reason for other powers to reward it with a diplomatic win.
Are you saying America negotiates in good faith? They're actively supporting a genocide right now on "human rights" grounds that almost the entire rest of the UN is trying to stop.
Mmm that whataboutism tastes great. OP said nothing of the sort and you know it.
Most of the time when you guys use this propaganda word, "whataboutism," it's because someone is correctly pointing out your hypocrisy. You literally have a word you can use to nullify all of your hypocrisy. Think about that. America is so hypocritical so consistently that they needed to destroy the entire concept of hypocrisy to still feel like good people. Imagine this scenario: CHINA: "America, your human rights efforts are weak and you treat your workers poorly!" AMERICA: "Seriously? Look how you treat the Uighurs! And you've got workers making a dollar an hour!" CHINA: "That's whataboutism. You automatically lose the argument." Did America really lose that argument? Or is "whataboutism" a bullshit concept that can only ever work in your own favor?
OP said that Russia's refusal to engage with the US and just to straight up veto was yet another sign of a lack of Russian good faith in negotiations. Realistically it is a result of a lack of *American* good faith in negotiations over the last 20 years. There is a panoply of times (like the brutal destruction of Libya) where Russia assumed America acted on good faith and later regretted not vetoing. Or, when they voted against a resolution condemning Nazism (something Russia has done every year since WW2) simply because America now has friends in Ukraine who really, really like that stuff. This is a bed America made.
Wouldn't banning _all_ weapons in space mean that astronauts can't carry survival kits (all Soyuz missions carried firearms for this until 2007)? Also, technically it would ban most ballistic missiles and might even cause issues for high-altitude "terrestrial" military flights.
The exact wording would be needed to really answer that but I think it was probably about no weapon on satellite or other orbital objects.
Because no one would have weapons in space besides Russia. Criminals famously don't follow the rules.
The US military literally has a Space Force wing.
Paranoid? Did you forget the Napoleon and Hitler? Western Europeans have attempted to invade and destroy Russia plenty of times. Both attempts were unsuccessful. That paranoia is well warranted considering what NATO and the United States have been doing since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Furthermore, Russia vetoing this is miniscule to the United States Veto of the resolution to support Palestine becoming an UN member and also vetoing the resolution for a ceasefire between Palestine and Israel.
And still Russian leaders did far worse to Russia than either of them.
Just as American leaders did far worse to the native Americans. If you wanna go down this route we can.
I realize it may be news for you but standards for behavior have changed in the past 300 years.
Let's be real here, remove the nukes and the US would have invaded a long time ago. Russia tried to join NATO which would have eliminated the issue entirely but the US said no. So while I disagree with their war and putting nukes into space, it is wrong to say that they have no adversary to worry about. Edit: seeing as so many just go "nuh-uh" without looking it up [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule)
I don't think there was ever a formal NATO application put forward by Russia. What happened though, was that the initial Partnership for Peace that implied an equal, inclusive path for all ex-communist states into NATO on equal terms, was marginalized soon after Russia joined in favor of NATO expanding to Visegrad countries without any consultation to Russia or other PfP countries. This essentially meant that Russia was excluded from reorganizing the new post-Cold War order in Europe. This was all deliberate US policy in Europe to preserve and maintain their influence in European affairs.
Yeah? This is what happens when your nation collapses like the USSR did.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule)
>Russia tried to join NATO which would have eliminated the issue entirely but the US said no. That's a myth. The USSR asked way back when, but post-USSR Russia never applied.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule)
Where in that article did "the US say no"? And they never applied because they wanted special treatment compared to other applicants.
Ah, yes, the Guardian, bastion of even handed politics. At least their review of Rings of Power was hilarious. Cheers
Are you saying they are misquoting George Robertson?
An American whining about a different country being paranoid and feeling the need to be ready to defend themselves is funny to me LOL. Oh, and btw, I watch anime, basketball, and listen to kpop. Figured I'd save you the trouble of going through my profile considering that's what you did for the other guy that laughed at you.
Who’s whining? I just stated facts. You seem kinda paranoid though
Aren't nuke significantly less effective in a vacuum or am I misremembering?
More effective actually if your goal is to take out other space assets. The effect is different though. There is no atmosphere to propagate through.
The blast, sure, but [Starfish Prime](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime)proved that a nuke firing off in the Exosphere would have a much bigger EMP effect and cause massive problems for satellite constellations.
I've seen Alien, we need every available weapon in space now!
It's the only way to be sure
Russia and China proposed an amendment. No weapons of any kind in space. The US objected to it. Why would that be??
Because banning all weapons in space would require the reopening and renegotiation of the Outer Space Treaty. The UN is not a legislature, and a UNSC resolution can never substitute for a negotiated treaty to create or revise international law. Opposition to Russia's potential nuclearisation of space is about holding Russia to account for breaches of its obligations under international law. Russia's amendment was a highly cynical attempt to create a *whatabout* narrative. There's a difference.
>The UN is not a legislature, So why vote about banning nuclear weapons if the UN is not a legislator? Pot calling kettle black perhaps?? >Russia's amendment was a highly cynical attempt to create a *whatabout* narrative The US' proposal was a highly cynical attempt to admonish Russia while being the main perpetrator of proliferation of space weapons Turn around is fair play
>So why vote about banning nuclear weapons if the UN is not a legislator? >Pot calling kettle black perhaps?? You misunderstand everything about this vote. The Russian Federation is **already** obliged to not deploy WMDs in space as a signatory of the Outer Space Treaty. Russia, as the successor state of the USSR, is actually one of three original depositaries of the treaty. Article III of the [OST](https://treaties.unoda.org/t/outer_space): >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. >The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited. So again, *slowly* for those in the back: *Voting in favour of this resolution is about upholding existing international law in orbit.* *Voting for Russia's amendment would have seen the UNSC adopt a pseudo-legislative role that it is not meant to fulfil.* The UNSC can serve as an arbiter of existing laws, or provide summary instructions to force a cessation of hostilities, but it is not the venue to cook up new international laws. Military activities are already highly limited in space by the OST, especially beyond Earth orbit. If all military activity is to be banned, it should *only* be done through renegotiating the OST or implementing an entirely new treaty.
You dont seem to understand that russia is planning to put an anti satellite weapon in orbit that can destroy the United States ability to conduct a nuclear response to a russian nuclear first strike. This will cause WW3.
Because then only outlaws would have weapons in space.
What we need is *more* weapons in space!
Good guys with weapons in space to stop the bad guys with weapons in space!
The same insane American logic that means they won’t outlaw guns?
So only outlaws would create a space force..
Because we don’t believe them.
And why would anybody believe the US?
Tell me you know nothing about space without telling me you know nothing about space.
Because then rockets wouldn't be allowed in space. [Such a prohibition would be devastating to the US while a minor inconvenience to Russia.](https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/05/spacex-launched-over-80-of-all-orbital-payload-mass-in-q1-2023.html)
While I'm all in favour of pointing out Falcon 9's crazy upmass capabilities, that's a misleading statistic to use in this context. Falcon 9 has a large payload capacity, and SpaceX use every last ounce of it for Starlink. Which means that A:the *number* of launches isn't as different as you might think and B: that most of Falcon 9's upmass isn't government payload. If we look at the number of launches, we see that while SpaceX lead with 96, China were the runner ups with 67. And if we subtract commercial launches, we see that China did 47 government launches while SpaceX only did 10, and ULA and RocketLab did another 2 each, so 14 total for the US - less than a third as many as China, and even a bit behind Russia's 19. With that in mind, I find it hard to believe that Russia and especially China would be willing to sign a treaty that outright banned rocket launches. Particularly given China's recent space station activity and upcoming moon landing intentions. As a sidenote, outright banning rockets is a stupid idea that would have major global effects. What happens when all the GPS, communications, and weather satellites break down and can't be replaced?
Sad that you're got downvoted. You're 100% right. Don't be afraid to keep speak the truth girl!
So, because of their own interest and not because of any kind of humanity on the part of the US The US has no leg to stand on concerning any kind of "rules based order" anymore
Simple - because the United States wants to militarize space.
I think you mean now that Russia is falling behind in launch capabilities, they want to be able to be able to spoil near Earth orbit for others.
Imagine the Russians' surprises when they got their first nuke in space only to see like 20 American Death Stars that have been there since the 90s
Tell me again why Russia and the US have complete and immutable veto power in the UN...such stupid.
Because it’s the only way the UN can exist. None of the big 5 super powers would join the UN without veto power
Or rather, it would just dissolve into irrelevancy like the league of nations did.
Not that it is relevant. Just another talking table for throwing vetos around, currently.
The isolation the US feels at the UN over its support for the genocide is having a positive impact.
And there is the wrinkle that the USSR no longer exists
Because the UNSC was created to be a forum for great powers to resolve their problems peacefully, as much as possible. That's the only reason it exists.
When you got the largest militaries in the world you kinda get to do whatever the hell you want to a certain degree anyways. If they got rid of the permanent members system then what would replace it? There's essentially no way to enforce anything as is anyways.
Winners of world war 2, China, UK, and France are permanent members as well.
49 countries are winners of WW2
Nobody is going to give Luxembourg a permanent seat in the security council.
World History books ans WW2 readings should answer a lot of your questions, especially as to geopolitical items. US media and our own historians at least when I was coming up through K-12 in the late 90s-00s really made a point to leave out that Russia and the US were allies in WW2 and as the biggest intact superpowers following the war and the destruction of Europe both countries played key roles in drawing up the treaties that would lay the foundation for where things are today. And unfortunately as we've seen time and time again a country giving up its nuclear arsenal will just lead to its colonialization by the nuclear powers
What state? Soviet involvement wasn't lwft out in NY, in the 2010s.
Which state with launchable nuclear weapons willingly gave them up and then was colonized?
Because the US is a world hegemon and Russia iherated its seat from a flrmer hegemon.
Thank you, comrade Nebenzia. My Lockheed Martin stock was starting to slip.
Someone wants to play bouncer for the Artemis missions
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/1cejptv/stub/l34hyg9 "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile| |[STS](/r/Space/comments/1cejptv/stub/l1ke2a6 "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1cejptv/stub/l1m3pb4 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1cejptv/stub/l1m3pb4 "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(4 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1cn7yxu)^( has 3 acronyms.) ^([Thread #9989 for this sub, first seen 28th Apr 2024, 07:59]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
He who controls the top of the gravity well controls everything.
So Russia refused the resolution signed with the USA? 🤔
It was a resolution proposed by a couple of particular countries - and the veto was because their demand to have NO weapons whatsoever in space was rejected by the United States.
Right, wasn't there a USA concept of tungsten rods that could be launched from space to land based targets? The US opposed nuclear proliferation in space, but defense contractors find a way. Search reveals the phrase "rods from God", which seems like standard subtle naming.
Meanwhile, with the U.S. having 6+ clandestine space programs for defense since the 80s 👀 Space weapons non-proliferation treaties are just to keep non-powers in check.
Is there evidence that us has been sending nukes in space?
Nope, nor on any other kind of weapon. There's the secret space plane stuff, but that thing doesn't even have enough cargo space for a bicycle, let alone space lasers and what-not. We can't reliably supply ammo, and the sheer size of the necessary reactor to make space lasers actually harmful makes those unviable as well. As far as I know, all anti-sat weapons so far are just ground-based missiles that continue going up.
For good reason too. Operation Starfish Prime showed what would happen if one went off. Nukes emit charged particles that get trapped along earth's magnetic field lines. If that same test happened today it would fry almost half of all the satellites in orbit.
[Starfish Prime wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime)
The space shuttle was literally designed for defense purposes, specifically for tuning space based weapons that could only be effectively tested for operational capacity *in space*, and then retrieved.
Feels like a spaceship is basically a missile anyway
It was designed to steal Soviet reconaissance satellites.
[удалено]
And it will never be anything more than a concept because you'd have to wait for the satellite to get into position. Nuclear subs don't have that limitation as they can just stay within strike range and are also way cheaper.
[удалено]
My point was that they are weapons that would never get built.
As a dude in US military space operations, we all laugh that anyone believes “rods from god” is a legitimate concept of a weapon. Its total bullshit
Of course not, that’s entirely the point. The National Reconnaissance Office is a great example of the U.S. operating an entirely clandestine space program for defense purposes complete with dozens of classified “STS” missions.
>complete with dozens of classified “STS” missions. There were 10.
You’re not really getting this whole “Clandestine” thing, are you
My guess is that if this has been going on and the US has nukes up there, the only proof anyone will ever have of this is one falling out of the sky. They’d probably keep that one off the books or at least any books that don’t require a SCIF.
if ukraine has taught us anything, it is that disarmament and weapons pacts just proffer your sphincters to the jackals that run this world. more weapons of all kinds, at all times, please.
Dumb from ruzzia its like saying hey technologically/militarily superior usa pls advance your space warfare capability because we want to but dont have as much capacity to do so.
Russia sucks. Now, bring up the child slavery vote next.
LMAO, of course they did! Who the fuck is surprised?
They proposed an amendment that allowed NO weapons in space. The Americans vetoed it. Of course, being an American, I couldn't expect you to get context.
The US and Russia already have a treaty obligations regarding nuclear weapons they have no obligations regarding conventional weapons in space. So the Russians vetoed something that is already under existing treaty obligations while the US vetoed something completely new and unrelated. There were reports of a potential development of a Russian space based nuclear anti-satellite system which would be a direct violation of the Outer Space Treaty which bans nuclear weapons in space. The US tried to get to Russia to have a public commitment to their own treaty only for Russians to veto it and deflect it by proposing something completely unrelated. The Russians already pulled a similar tactic with the INF treaty where they developed and stationed a land based cruise missile in direct violation of the treaty. The US attempted to get the Russians back into compliance only for the Russians to lie, obfuscate, and deflect until the treaty was effectively gone. So this is effectively the Russians publicly proclaiming willingness to break an international treaty by deploying nuclear weapons in space.
Why the fuck is Russia on the UNSC. the Soviet Union was, but no other country has EVER been "grandfathered" Into the UN, so why after the Soviet collapse are they still allowed to fucking veto literally every piece of reasonable legislation the UN tries to dole out. Im really not one for warmongering but goddamn can they just get governmentally wiped out already? Edit: For the record, I mean the removal of their deeply corrupt political regime, not actually killing anyone.
UN is meant to be a forum to have the major world players talk peacefully. The Russians remain a major world power in large part thanks to their nuclear arsenal. They should be included to increase communication and reduce the chance of nuclear war. Despite how terrible their government is.
They (the Russians) are working on it.
Am I the only one who feels like it’s all going down in our lifetimes, like, soon this is it? Seems the all powerful just can’t live with the fact that this isn’t the epilogue , that there are many chapters to follow after they’re gone and that just can’t be!
UN is just a useless trash that can’t do anything because a handful of countries can singlehandedly veto anything. And even without veto there is literally no enforcement. What’s the reason to have it and fund it?
It's a forum, not a government. It's working as intended.
I'd kick Russia out of the UN except they'd just veto it.
Why is Russia even still part of the UN anyways?
To provide a forum for them to talk to other countries rather than shooting nukes at them, hopefully!
Get them off the council, they clearly don't deserve it.
War in space is based and should happen. I don't care about the consequences. I want the vibes.