Russian Nuclear Weapons in Space? Here’s What We Know. | WSJ

preview_player
Показать описание
Russia wants to put a nuclear weapon into space, new intelligence suggests. Although details are slim, policy experts said that the technology could be used against satellites, raising questions about Russia’s intentions and the potential ramifications of an orbital detonation.

WSJ looks at the history of nuclear detonation in space with Starfish Prime and explores what we know about Moscow’s development.

Chapters:
0:00 The U.S.’s new intelligence
0:37 What we know so far
1:45 Starfish Prime
4:21 Russian capabilities in space

News Explainers
Some days the high-speed news cycle can bring more questions than answers. WSJ’s news explainers break down the day's biggest stories into bite-size pieces to help you make sense of the news.

#Russia #Nuclear #WSJ
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Russia has had FOBS systems in play since the SS-18 went online. This is designed as an anti-sat/EMP weapon. What most don't realize is that any Teller-Ulam thermonuclear detonated as a high atmospheric airburst will have this effect. This is not new, nor is it terrifying. Literally been around since at least the early '80's.

seanbaskett
Автор

man this just gives me throwback to the mw2 campaign

Dilexro
Автор

"Be very very afraid." - the news

sp_
Автор

Isn't this the plot of Modern Warfare 2?

loganfignewton
Автор

And then they blame the normal guy's fridge for the hole in the Ozon layer

Atall
Автор

It’s called fear mongering. It helps the military industry complex thrive.

TheOcean
Автор

WSJ commentator keeps calling it Starship Prime while the original footage clearly says Starfish Prime,

Lt_Starburst
Автор

They've had an anti-satellite capability for years. You've never heard of the satellite that releases another and then that releases another that could be used as a kinetic impactor at short notice (cosmos 2519, 2521, cosmos 2542, 2543 + rocket powered projectile)? Apparently this 'newer' threat is nuclear powered, not a nuclear (explosive) weapon. Enough power to jam satellites over a large area, to prevent surveillance, not to physically destroy them.

threeMetreJim
Автор

StarFISH prime. Not starSHIP prime! C’mon WSJ, help me take you seriously

wagbagsag
Автор

Those nukes are already up there.
And we have nukes in space too.

Antisocial
Автор

I’m American and I know that we have already put that up there long before Russia

mikefarrar
Автор

That simply means Pentagon wants to deploy nukes up on space. That's spooky.

aadityapratap
Автор

Wouldn't that ignite a direct full-scale war with the United States of America? One has to think what tremendous capabilities the U.S. has today if they achieved Starfish Prime over 6 decades ago.

kurdik
Автор

It will also damage their own satellite if they do that.

DakilangAtsoy
Автор

So I guess, the Russian Strategic Shovels Program is more dangerous than the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture or PWSA, a program undertaken by the Space Development Agency

maxbounce
Автор

I feel confused, a few months ago the news came out that the Russians had run out of missiles there, even the infantry was fighting with shovels.
Now I find them threatening open space. Isn't this magic?

RadagastilBruno
Автор

We are in the day and time where anything can happen.

markbishop
Автор

This is not new I've been knowing this for years...

danmiller
Автор

The US military budget is literally 20 times of Russia’s, yet Russia has Orbital Nukes and hypersonic missiles.

finesupplements
Автор

it is called “starfish prime” not “starship prime” — this is a very famous test/incident. and they literally said it just before you said it wrong.

lanediver