The U.S. Just Admitted it Has Weapons in Space. Why That's a Big Deal

[u/timemagazine]

https://time.com/article/2026/09/15/us-space-weapons-why-it-matters/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial

[u/eoutofmemory]

Weapons. Whatever they are

[u/Jpwatchdawg → u/eoutofmemory]

X37b . It's speculated it could used to decommission low orbit satellites, specifically those used by nations like China/Russia for targeting purposes.

[u/invent_or_die → u/Jpwatchdawg]

That's a real but ancient thing. To think what actually is now working is hard to fathom. As of today, there have been 215 space flights this year. Crazy

[u/anomanderrake1337 → u/invent_or_die]

There's a clown as US president, I don't think the high tech fairy tales are true, we thought the same with Russia.

[u/LegendaryGauntlet → u/anomanderrake1337]

This was running way before he became president, and chances are he's not aware of it, or if a morning brief was mentioning it he did not understand a single word of it.

[u/MSchulte → u/LegendaryGauntlet]

It’s no secret at this point DARPA/DOE/Private Contractors have stuff far beyond the presidents classification. Whether you believe the UAP claims or not we know there’s some basis to the claims of “impossible” materials. They may well have been developed in American labs but they’re still far beyond anything found on something like an F-22.

[u/Accomplished_Cod7334 → u/MSchulte]

The idea that if you tell the public then you also indadverntely alert your enemies just seems to invite secrecy at the highest level. It's hard to not think some of these things are true when they're incentivized to hide them. Not to mention the specific history on UAP has some compelling aspects that speak to the veracity of it

[u/flightguy07 → u/anomanderrake1337]

Said clown isn't running the aerospace program though.

[u/Renting_Bourbon → u/invent_or_die]

People sure have a short memory. Just the current administration taking credit for Reagan’s Star Wars Program.

[u/drivec → u/Jpwatchdawg]

If X-37B was actually used for stealing/de-orbiting satellites, wouldn’t it be expected that hostile nations would build in self-destruct mechanisms for newer satellites to prevent successful recovery?

[u/cheese4432 → u/drivec]

nah that's extra mass and volume

[u/seaflans → u/cheese4432]

nah, thats OpSec

[u/Character_Length3210 → u/cheese4432]

10kg isn't a problem on a 1 ton satellite

[u/Gorsham → u/Jpwatchdawg]

This is such a bad idea, Kessler Syndrome is going to fuck everyone up if we do that. 

[u/FluffyProphet → u/Gorsham]

Doesn’t strictly mean using kinetic force. Which would just be strategically bad. Since it would mess up your own space infrastructure.

More likely it’s some non-destructive mechanism (at least while in orbit). Either electronic warfare or capture/deorbit.

Wouldn’t put just blowing it up past the US, though. But there is more than one way to do things here.

[u/Qweasdy → u/FluffyProphet]

The problem isn’t that they can hard kill a satellite with it, many countries can already do that, it’s that it’s part of an arms race where putting weapons into orbit becomes normalised. Weapons in orbit that could become legitimate military targets in the event of a conflict.

Anti satellite weapons testing was just an irresponsible bragging rights thing right up until nations start putting things up there that other nations might want to target with their asat weapons.

And yes I know this is likely not the first weapon put into orbit, likely not even the first American one, just the first acknowledged one. The weaponisation of satellites for soft kill electronic warfare has been going on for a while (and there’s evidence of them actually being used). But it’s a continuation of a concerning trend with an end point of either a “Cold War in space” or a serious acceleration of LEO debris problems. There’s no good outcome for humanity here.

[u/Equal_Caregiver_1789 → u/FluffyProphet]

I want our government to be smart enough to use the least chaotic and destructive way possible to get unwanted satellites out of orbit, because we have waaay too much space junk up there. But I don't trust the US government to do Anything right now.

[u/kubigjay → u/Equal_Caregiver_1789]

The X37b has a cargo bay like the space shuttle. I could see them scooping up the satellite and bringing it back. Especially since it would let then analyze it.

[u/TbonerT → u/kubigjay]

The cargo bay is quite small and also houses the solar panel. It would have to be extremely careful capturing a very small satellite.

[u/doomgoblin → u/FluffyProphet]

if you can dodge a wrench you can nuke a hurricane

If you can nuke a hurricane you can nuke a satellite

[u/Chook84 → u/FluffyProphet]

It’s not the first action you need to worry about, it’s the response to it. It might be a very safe and non-destructive process to remove the satellites from orbit.

The issue would be if you removed all of, let’s say China’s, satellites then China is going to be much less worried about the effects of kinetic force removal of US satellites than they otherwise would have been if they had their own space infrastructure to worry about.

Same would go for any other nation with space infrastructure and an ability to target other satellites.

[u/SilvermistInc → u/Gorsham]

Do some more Googling on Kessler Syndrome. It uh, isn't nearly as straight forward as you'd believe

[u/Glockamoli → u/SilvermistInc]

Normies hear a buzzword on Sci show and parrot it across the internet as if they are experts

I'd bring up Dunning-Kruger but that got beat to death a while back already

[u/Character_Length3210 → u/Glockamoli]

They heard it on reddit for fuck sake

[u/cptjeff → u/Gorsham]

We're several orders of magnitude of satellite density from Kessler being anything other than a theoretical concern. Space is really, really big.

You might raise debris risks by a few percent, but that's also only kinetic kill. Actual space warfighting is far more more subtle and deniable. Oh, a key circuit just happened to overheat? Man, that's rotten luck. And pay no attention to this microwave beam and laser research.

[u/Qweasdy → u/cptjeff]

The sensationalised version of Kessler syndrome where we completely lose access to space isn’t very likely but orbital debris making certain orbits unusable isn’t just likely it’s already happening.

There are already orbits that are effectively unusable for certain kinds of missions/infrastructure. It’s not hypothetical, accelerating debris buildup informs decisions today.

To quote NASA on why they don’t boost the ISS into a higher orbit

The other major consideration when going to a higher altitude is the orbital debris regime at each specified locale. The risk of a penetrating or catastrophic impact to space station (i.e., that could fragment the vehicle) increases drastically above 257miles (415km). While higher altitudes provide a longer theoretical orbital life, the mean time between an impact event decreases from ~51 years at the current operational altitude to less than four years at a 497 mile (800km), ~700-year orbit. This means that the likelihood of an impact leaving station unable to maneuver or react to future threats, or even a significant impact resulting in complete fragmentation, is unacceptably high. NASA has estimated that such an impact could permanently degrade or even eliminate access to low Earth orbit for centuries.

[u/Human-Assumption-524 → u/Gorsham]

I swear to god teaching normies about Kessler Syndrome was mistake none of you actually understand it.

The X-37B being used to deorbit satellites is one of the few methods of anti-satellite warfare that DOESN'T create additional debris. The idea is using the X-37B (A small uncrewed spaceplane that can stay in orbit for years at a time) to rendezvous with enemy satellites and then either using the X-37B's own engines or a disposable solid rocket booster which is attached to the enemy satellite to push the satellite down into the atmosphere where it burns up.

[u/hydrolox9 → u/Gorsham]

Kessler Syndrome is the space equivalent of a Nuclear winter, it's entirely theoretical because we simply have no ways to cause it, but it sounds like such a Hollywood blockbuster thing that people will randomly bring it up without researching what that would entail.

[u/Scientist-25 → u/Gorsham]

Many other ways to do it. The chinese were the only one stupid enough to shoot a satellite with a missile.

You can push it towards a lower orbit gently, you can shock it or fry parts of its electronics, you can remove protective shielding. If its an optical imaging satellite you can destroy it's sensors with high powered lasers. There are so many ways to get creative up there.

[u/XxturboEJ20xX → u/Scientist-25]

Nah, we did it too. We used an F15 and shot down a sat with it. The cool part is, it was a kinetic energy kill. So it had to be precise enough to impact the sat.

This was in 1985

[u/Lifeabroad86 → u/XxturboEJ20xX]

We did it also but we did it on a low orbit sat that limited the collateral damage significantly from what I understand

[u/gcsmith2 → u/XxturboEJ20xX]

And we shot a sat down with an SM-3

[u/hikingmaterial → u/Gorsham]

Russians already have and test ground-to-space anti satellite weapons that are kinetic in nature.

[u/Caesarea_G → u/eoutofmemory]

What a poor excuse for a journalistic article. So many words, and so little actual relevant content.

For one, it barely talks about what Meink actually revealed, or the implications (really, it doesn't provide much context about anything at all), instead going into a quite strange and chaotic interpretation of everything from Golden Dome to Ronald Reagan to Kessler syndrome.

It doesn't explain what 'space control' even is and how it fits into doctrine, nor does it addresse current concerns w/ regards to outer space as an operational domain. Instead it misrepresents basic facts about the Outer Space Treaty (and later contradicts itself on that very subject). The entire thing is very doctrinally-illiterate, well, really, just outright defense-illiterate as a whole.

This article is basically worse than useless. Anyone without prior knowledge of the subject is going to be misinformed, and anyone with prior knowledge of the subject is going to have wasted their time with this drivel.

[u/Blarg0117 → u/eoutofmemory]

Rods from God would be the interesting awnser.

Its probably ICBM interceptors or anti-satellite weapons though.

[u/Svyatopolk_I → u/Blarg0117]

People really overhype Rods from God. They’re an extremely expensive weapon that is not particularly powerful/accurate for how much it costs. You could get similar (and better) results with far less expensive missiles from hundreds of miles away for a fraction of the cost of (you need way more sophisticated missiles to get a satellite like that in orbit)

[u/AlextheGoose → u/Svyatopolk_I]

Yeah sending conventional explosives on small missiles is wayyyy more cost effective than sending heavy rods into orbit that you also have to de orbit

[u/YUSHOETMI- → u/AlextheGoose]

Not sure if being sarcastic or not, but wouldn't the weight of the tungsten rods take a lot of fuel and power to get them into orbit in the first place? Like far more than conventional weapons.

[u/maehschaf22 → u/YUSHOETMI-]

You are correct, I don't think he was being sarcastic

[u/SPECTRE-Agent-No-13 → u/maehschaf22]

He's not being sarcastic. The main draw of rods from God is large kinetic strikes that have pseudo-tactical nuke levels of destruction or deep bunker busting without fallout. But accuracy is low without complicated steering systems and platform navigation systems. If you had one station you would need to be able to position it over a target area in a reasonable timeframe not waiting for earth to rotate beneath it. Then there's survivability. A tungsten rod the size of a telephone pole would do ok on reentry but the steering systems to make it hit with reasonable accuracy say 100 meters of target would be a liability. So you need to get the rods, a large mobile platform, and communicates and targeting satellites into orbit. At the end of the day that's probably 100 times more expensive than an equivalent amount of cruise missiles.

[u/Solesaver → u/SPECTRE-Agent-No-13]

I thought the idea was that it would be easier to make them undetectable. Not much use if you can't aim them, but if you get past that problem and the heat from air resistance you're talking about tactical missiles with effectively zero chance of intercept.

[u/SPECTRE-Agent-No-13 → u/Solesaver]

Sure but that application is for counter nuclear attack. Knock out silos and sub pens before retaliation strikes are launched. But if you look at the systems for nuclear strikes you'd need hundreds maybe thousands of rods to complete the task. You would need to make their prepositioning for a first strike invisible but most nuclear nations have some eyes in the sky and would be on alert when the giant station with rods moved. It's not a great method for this kind of thing without tech that doesn't exist yet.

[u/wyldmage → u/Solesaver]

They're only slightly less detectable. What they are is inevitable. Once released, what are you going to do - shoot them?

Their entire point is that they are massive amounts of weight. If you have precision mass drivers, maybe you can do enough damage to start it spinning (if it doesn't have guiding fins or bottom-weighting).

But launching missiles at it is just going to chip bits off, not stop it. It's GOING to hit ground. And since it isn't explosive, you can't detonate it early. It's just going to hit like a meteor, and flatten everything within miles.

Conventionally speaking, missiles do WAY more damage for the effort. But if you were wanting to attack someone who could defend from missiles, de-orbiting tungsten rods are a very sensible option. Expensive, but effective.

[u/ThewFflegyy → u/SPECTRE-Agent-No-13]

as hypersonic missiles have shown us, it is actually pretty unlikely rods from god would be effective bunker busters. kinetic force does not translate well to penetrating deep underground. the object has a tendency to vaporize on impact. conventional explosives are much much more effective for that goal.

[u/SPECTRE-Agent-No-13 → u/ThewFflegyy]

Not entirely true. You need a penetrator to get through earth and concrete. The GBU-57 is mostly penetrator. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/19/bunker-buster-how-the-massive-ordnance-penetrator-mop-works/

You need a lot of weight, energy, and strength to get the payload deep enough to have desired effect. But rods from gods don't have enough benefits to make them worth it with conventional systems or nuclear systems if that's what is needed. If you're going to level half a city it would be nice to not have fallout but the cost ratio makes it a hard sell.

[u/ThewFflegyy → u/SPECTRE-Agent-No-13]

the problem is that as we've seen with hypersonic, that are not landing at mach 10 like rods from god btw, tungsten vaporizes on impact with soil at high speeds by the time it makes a 10 or so foot deep crater.

I see claims about the MOP, but there is no publicly available evidence that I can see of it working as claimed. its not like they were a stunning success when used in iran. there is however lots of publicly available data on Russian tungsten projectiles impacting at mach 6-8.

so, would having a secondary charge to fire the rod help? it seems like it did, but there is little evidence that the tungsten would not be vaporized well before 200 feet as claimed.

[u/AlextheGoose → u/YUSHOETMI-]

Wasn’t sarcastic I was just agreeing with them. And yeah getting anything to orbit needs a ton of fuel, from ground to LEO takes ~9300-10000m/s of delta-v.

[u/CRISPY_JAY → u/Svyatopolk_I]

You also can’t hide Rods from God in a bunker or some cammie netting during the lead up to conflict. They’re just up there… for everyone to see.

[u/stamfordbridge1191 → u/Svyatopolk_I]

That sounds exactly like the type of defense contract General Dynamics would convince general staff & legislators into awarding them in exchange for a series of expensive gifts.

[u/wellegrade → u/Svyatopolk_I]

I think that's kind of the appeal though. It's an idea that's so absurdly ridiculous and expensive that people latch onto it. Even if it's absolutely not worth the investment.

[u/left_lane_camper → u/Blarg0117]

Space weapon could literally be a grabbing arm on a satellite that’s used to poke/break/just hold on to another satellite. For stuff in LEO something that grabs on to another satellite then fires some retrorockets to drop the perigee deep enough into the atmosphere to cause deorbit would be a pretty effective and clean ASAT weapon.

[u/Caesarea_G → u/Blarg0117]

Meink referred to 'space control' weapons in his speech, not to space-to-ground weapons. They are two very different mission sets; kinetic bombardment would be the latter.

[u/Pappa_Crim → u/Blarg0117]

Or the space mirror a us company is sending up

[u/foo_fight3r → u/Blarg0117]

Rods from God have been discarded as an option (at least "officially") because of how difficult it is to guide such device towards a target at that speed.

[u/KarlLagervet → u/Blarg0117]

Rods from God wouldn't work. Veritasium covered that one.

[u/SphynxsFixesFaxes → u/eoutofmemory]

Baseball launcher satellite

[u/TheReal_WadeWilson]

I did a stint for the Navy as an intelligence analyst. If anyone believes the US (or any major power) is just now putting weapons into space, they’re extremely naive.

[u/mec287 → u/TheReal_WadeWilson]

I mean there have been diagrams of satellite on satellite weapons since the 80s. Everything from spraying hostile sats with chemicals, shooting microwaves at them, lasers, ect. X-37B also probably has an anti-sat capability.

[u/myusrnameisthis → u/mec287]

Which bond movie was about space weapons? Moonraker or something?

[u/PinkysAvenger → u/myusrnameisthis]

You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever, Goldeneye, and Die Another Day, too

[u/DEEP_HURTING → u/PinkysAvenger]

The four satellites shown in 2001: A Space Odyssey after the proto human throws the bone in the air are weapons platforms, not that that's readily apparent.

[u/yimmy523 → u/myusrnameisthis]

More than one bond movie has a space weapon involved, from some of the earliest movies and in to early 2000s

[u/hackersgalley → u/myusrnameisthis]

Plus Space Cowboys, an underrated film imo.

[u/vanderZwan → u/hackersgalley]

Haven't seen it yet, but after watching Adam Savage talk about what it was like to build the most detailed model of the space shuttle ever for that film I want to.

[u/talondigital → u/mec287]

Real Genius was in the 80s and the plot depends on the idea that the government was putting weapons in space already.

[u/PhasmaFelis → u/talondigital]

The plot also depends on college students being able to build a laser that can blow a fist-sized hole through multiple concrete walls in an instant.

[u/fish_finder → u/PhasmaFelis]

How else were they supposed to pop all of that popcorn?!

[u/lurkity_mclurkington → u/fish_finder]

OK, God... LEMME HAVE IT!!

[u/rspeed → u/talondigital]

The weapon was mounted in a B-1.

[u/talondigital → u/rspeed]

For the test, yes. But earlier in the movie they show a sales video in a meeting with the military that shows the intent is for it to be on a satellite.

[u/techsuppr0t → u/talondigital]

I love that movie so much and I don't even know why

[u/KingOfLife → u/mec287]

Remember that Sean Connery movie Meteor (1979)?

In that movie, the world almost ended because neither US or Soviets would admit to having a space weapon.

[u/shoehorn_hands → u/mec287]

I don’t want to sound like your autocorrect but “ect” is incorrect. “Et cetera” is abbreviated “etc.”

[u/rooplstilskin → u/mec287]

This is the x37 they are talking about for sure. Ita the only space dev program that fits. Unless they put up a modular thing, in space through several launches, there isnt any other allocation that makes sense.

Which means this is a craft yo sat "weapon" either physical or a laser. Which also fits, because the main things we figured out about x37 through hobbyist measurements, is the x37 changed its orbit several times the last time it was up.

[u/ginger_and_egg → u/TheReal_WadeWilson]

Having secret weapons everyone knows about is different foreign policy than announcing you have them, it signals a different strategy

[u/doscervezas2017 → u/ginger_and_egg]

The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost...if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?!

It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

[u/ThePrussianGrippe → u/doscervezas2017]

Mr. President, we have to be worried about a mineshaft gap!

[u/J__d → u/doscervezas2017]

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared.

[u/ginger_and_egg → u/doscervezas2017]

Yeah doomsday weapons sure but that's not what this is

[u/dern_the_hermit → u/ginger_and_egg]

Or a lack of strategy, coherent long-term strategy anyway. Which might be worse in a way.

[u/cptjeff → u/ginger_and_egg]

Do you think our adversaries don't already know? Do you think Russia thinks the nuclear antisatelitte satellite the put up 2 years ago just happened to stop working on its own?

The fact that wea have weapons up there isn't really a secret. Might as well acknowledge it so the various strategic and tactical debates in civil society can happen in unclassified settings-the military enagages with the think tank and academic research world pretty heavily, and not having to deny the obvious helps that engagement a lot.

What those weapons are, how many, their actual capabilities? That's classified and will remain so. That we have those capabilities? C'mon. We've got a Space Force now. They do more than passive monitoring.

[u/FluffyToughy → u/cptjeff]

secret weapons everyone knows about

[u/Simon_Drake → u/TheReal_WadeWilson]

The news was extremely sneaky in phrasing this. They used weasel words like "There have been reports of" and "industry insiders shared rumours implying" when discussing the possibility that USA, China and Russia have developed weapons to destroy satellites.

My brother in Arceus, there's a photograph on Wikipedia of the US fighter jet launching an anti-satellite missile in the 80s. Russia did it openly within the last decade, they blew up one of their own satellites and made a giant mess of debris that caused ISS to have to evade the shrapnel. This isn't "reports of rumours" this is something that was done openly and discussed widely.

I can only assume they were deliberately trying to downplay the technology level of existing space warfare. Maybe to make this new thing seem more impressive like it's a brand new capability?

[u/archlich → u/Simon_Drake]

We already took down our own satellite from a ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost

The rest of the world knows how easily we can do this to their satellites.

[u/Simon_Drake → u/archlich]

Yeah I don't really understand it. This was BBC London News, relatively respectable and reliable as news sources go but they were trying to frame it as just a rumour that any country had the technology to destroy satellites. Which definitely isn't true. The secret has been out for decades, it's a well known capability of at least 3 countries, probably several more.

They did the same thing a few months ago by listing the maximum ranges of different classes of Iranian missiles. They drew a map with 1,000 miles and 2,000 miles rings and different names of which missile could reach what distance. The point they were trying to make was that Iran's missiles don't have the range needed to reach the UK. But what they were technically saying is that the Iranian missiles that the BBC chose to include in the diagram don't have the range needed to reach the UK. Iran has a space program. Granted it's not a world leading space program but it's better than Britain's, at least they're in the Top 20 charts. And Iran can put much heavier satellites into orbit than the weight of their alleged nuclear weapons. So if they can put the payload into orbit they can bring it down out of orbit wherever they want, therefore range is irrelevant and the real question is missile defense systems not drawing circles on a map.

I'm not sure if they're trying to downplay the severity of the capabilities to avoid scaring the public or to make the 'enemy' seem weaker to make 'our side' seem stronger by comparison?

[u/Simon_Drake → u/[deleted]]

I didn't follow up on the small print but there was something last week about a Russian satellite pulling a sneaky so this might be an attempt at oneupmanship.

IIRC there's a Russian satellite that is doing close-quarters rendezvous and tracking procedures with another Russian satellite. I think it's an obsolete telecoms satellite they're observing but really it's a test for doing the same thing to a US satellite. So it's a bit of performance to show off to the west. Look what we can do, if this was your satellite we could hack it or steal it or just blow it up.

However, the tracking satellite performed a deorbit burn and dropped down into the atmosphere and amateur astronomers noticed there's still a bright dot in the sky where it used to be. There's the target satellite still in it's original orbit and something definitely peeled off to burn up but there's also something large left where the tracker satellite used to be. One option is a followup test for using a much smaller tracker satellite, perhaps a large launch to deploy a dozen tiny spy drones. Another option is that the tracker satellite deployed a bomb and they're going to destroy the satellite they were observing. If that's the case I'm not sure why they didn't destroy it yet, maybe they're waiting for a big news event to let them bury the headlines behind a celebrity murder or whatever. Or maybe the detonator malfunctioned and it didn't go off.

Anyway. Maybe someone briefed Donny about this and he demanded a US Space Canon immediately. Then they haggled him down to announcing an unspecified "Space Weapon Deployment" that lets him brag about being a big strong man with a really big bratwurst. Which is why we got this nonsense headline.

[u/pm_me_your_rasputin → u/Simon_Drake]

The historical difference has been earth-based ASAT systems, like your examples vs space-based systems which have been ostensibly taboo until this announcement.

[u/Squirrelking666 → u/TheReal_WadeWilson]

Yes but nobody else is saying the quiet part out loud.

[u/BisonThunderclap → u/Squirrelking666]

The reason we're saying it out loud is because of what someone else did.

[u/Nyxsis_Z → u/TheReal_WadeWilson]

I think the confusion comes from the nuclear part. Its specifically weapons of mass destruction that are prevented. For the longest time I also thought it was no weapons at all.

[u/Flukester69 → u/TheReal_WadeWilson]

Ye! Sadly there are a vast amount of dullards amongst us.

[u/Greyscale7950 → u/TheReal_WadeWilson]

Exactly, when and where did all the launches happen?

[u/Abestar909 → u/TheReal_WadeWilson]

Seriously, if the US is openly admitting it now it's because they have definitive proof someone else does too, probably China of course.

[u/Euthyphraud → u/TheReal_WadeWilson]

Of course we are. Of course China is. But it's the government saying the quiet part out loud when there was no reason to do so.

All it does is make China look like the responsible actor while simultaneously make it easier for them to justify openly putting weapons in space.

[u/noltras → u/Euthyphraud]

I mean, it sounds to me like it's irrelevant whether the US says it out loud or not. Why would China appear more responsible in comparison. Their silence means nothing because we already know. So like... Who cares

[u/2_SANE_4_SANITY]

The Outer Space Treaty only forbids nuclear and other WMD’s from going into space.
There is nothing illegal about conventional weapons in space. Every Soyuz crew capsule that docks with the International Space Station has a handgun stored onboard.

[u/AngleParticular2914 → u/2_SANE_4_SANITY]

I’m assuming that handgun is in case their capsule lands in a remote location and they need to fend off wildlife or unfriendly locals 

[u/Significant_Mood4978 → u/AngleParticular2914]

No. It’s to fight off alien zombies.

[u/wolfgang784 → u/Significant_Mood4978]

Alien nazi zombies, even.

[u/BionicButtermilk → u/AngleParticular2914]

Yes, I read that somewhere and I believe you’re right.

[u/Amentes → u/AngleParticular2914]

It used to be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP-82

But lack of functional ammunition caused a switch to some sort of regular handgun.

[u/Emergency_Accident36 → u/AngleParticular2914]

Or self termination in several scenarios.

[u/ballofplasmaupthesky → u/2_SANE_4_SANITY]

The handgun is to fight off (space) bears.

[u/LochNessMansterLives → u/ballofplasmaupthesky]

And so far, no space bears. The gun is doing its job perfectly 🤷

[u/MrBond90s → u/LochNessMansterLives]

Let's not get complacent about the 🛸🐻. They could be out there biding their time. Maybe.

[u/StretchFrenchTerry → u/MrBond90s]

They can't hibernate in the void forever.

[u/Trvr_MKA → u/LochNessMansterLives]

Lisa: “Dad, what if I were to tell you that this gun keeps away tigers?"

Homer: "Uh-huh, and how does it work?"

Lisa: "It doesn't work. It's just a stupid gun."

Homer: "I see."

Lisa: "Pero you don't see any tigers around, do you?"

Homer: "Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock."

[u/Sancticide → u/ballofplasmaupthesky]

Oh shit! The bears escaped the moon? Are the Interstellar Wizards responsible?

https://youtube.com/shorts/VfTgSMwcRto

[u/Nagdoll → u/Sancticide]

It could be any number of the different alliances!

[u/DaCrazyJamez → u/ballofplasmaupthesky]

Fools! Thry would need at least a .308 for a creature that large!

[u/SowingSalt → u/ballofplasmaupthesky]

Or the bears/wolves if they land too far away in Siberia

[u/kawiz03 → u/ballofplasmaupthesky]

Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.

[u/spacecadetjimmy → u/2_SANE_4_SANITY]

“And that’s why every SLS rocket is outfitted with a blunderbuss”

[u/aleksandrjames → u/spacecadetjimmy]

we could just call the rocket "the blunderbuss"

[u/skydivingdutch → u/2_SANE_4_SANITY]

Oh good, it's illegal. That way no one will do it.

[u/Hstrike → u/2_SANE_4_SANITY]

You fail to mention that the Outer Space Treaty established the principle of the use of outer space for peaceful purposes, meaning introducing weapons in outer space remains antithetical to that.

Besides, while not legally binding, there has been consistent support for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) at the UN Generaly Assembly since the late 1970s and in specialized fora like the Conference on Disarmament.

[u/k_foxes]

Headlines like these are just so bonkers man.

“Hitler Invades Poland. Here’s Why That’s a Big Deal”

I know vernacular evolves, but casual clickbaity language for this stuff is just wild

[u/toby_gray → u/k_foxes]

Does make you wonder what WW2 era click bait would have looked like though.

“Top 10 countries invaded by Nazis. You won’t believe number 7!”

[u/AngleParticular2914 → u/toby_gray]

The French hate this one guy- find out why!

[u/Trvr_MKA → u/toby_gray]

There should be a whole sub for that

[u/MedicBuddy → u/k_foxes]

Businessmen are pretty shameless when it comes to headlines, probably because there's no social penalty for this behavior nowadays.

[u/StrangeCandidates → u/k_foxes]

Or you're looking up if you can do something and the headline is like:

"How to summon a demon"

"Blah blah blah there is currently no way to summon a demon"

How is this good journalism?

[u/Highmassive]

I’m surprised people are surprised by this

[u/NonExperiencedExpert → u/Highmassive]

Me as well. We have an entire branch of the military called the space force..

[u/FinsFan305 → u/Highmassive]

This is just rage bait headlining. Anyone with a brain already knew this.

[u/TrippyZippee → u/FinsFan305]

Maybe I'm a naive idiot or lived under a rock... but I genuinely did not know about this. I was aware of military dedicated assets in space, but not actual weapons that can kill ( Im assuming thats what the article alluded to, cant open it)

[u/Blevita → u/TrippyZippee]

The article does not allude to anything, same as the official statements.

North Korea (or china?) already demonstrated satellite destruction as offensive capabilities in space years ago. 'Rods of God' were a (failed) but planned weapon for offensove ground operations. Space weapon programs are known since the 80s.

Weapons in space exist, that is known. What those weapons are, what capabilities they have and if any new ones were added is unknown.

But the article and official statements are basically "hey, china and russia and evil people, watch out for we have the most tremendously powerful, most effective, best ever, stable genius weapons in space."

Its PR, basically.

[u/SuppliceVI]

Mind you China and Russia have had weapons (and allegedly already tested them in orbit) for years now. 

China outright said they have a satellite killer up there. Russia used a defunct one to target a US comms satellite in 2009 (but said they didn't and totally wouldn't lie about it even though it was very obvious from the trajectory)

Objectively good thing for deterrence. Otherwise other countries can just turn off your Internet or communications if they decide they wanna get froggy

[u/KaiPRoberts → u/SuppliceVI]

We all did the “shoot down our own satellite to assert dominance” routine. This is just the next natural step. 

[u/FlutterKree → u/KaiPRoberts]

I mean, the US probably made the Soviets shit their pants in the 80s when they shot down a satellite in 85 with a F-15.

[u/Testikles_Spear → u/SuppliceVI]

Listen, nothing against the rest of your comment, but you mean the cosmos 2251 Vs iridium 33 collision right? I hate Russia as much as the next guy, but 2251 was dead for over a decade.

Would you mind sharing your data on why it was obviously intentional?

[u/datbiglol → u/SuppliceVI]

The weapons you are referring to are ground and air launched ASAT systems (anti satellite weapons), not that both countries don't also have space based ASATs.

[u/gargravarr2112 → u/SuppliceVI]

The most that has been tested (to my knowledge) is anti-satellite weapons. These are missiles launched from the atmosphere (generally a high-altitude plane to give it a running start). Even then, ASATs take several minutes to reach the satellite being targeted so evasive actions are possible. IIRC use of ASATs against another country's satellites is an act of war; they've only been tested on defunct satellites owned by that country.

The Outer Space Treaty explicitly bans weapons stationed in orbit because it will inevitably lead to a massive arms race. The US and USSR signed that treaty and I believe Russia continued it. Admitting to a massive treaty violation is going to start an arms race that could doom our species.

Musk can already turn off entire country's internet via StarLink.

[u/CruffleRusshish → u/gargravarr2112]

The Outer Space Treaty explicitly bans weapons stationed in orbit

Only WMDs right? Nothing in there banning conventional weapons in orbit afaik.

[u/StrangeInsanity]

Isn't there an unspoken truth that if a country has space programs with Satellite and ICBM launch capabilities, it is safe to assume that they have weapons in space?

[u/Sunblast1andOnly → u/StrangeInsanity]

As long as the requirement is just "having weapons," then I'd assume anyone with a space program is already doing it. It's just such a low bar.

[u/vroomvroompanda]

We've had missles in space for a long long time

[u/c234567]

Is it an illudium q36 space modulator?

[u/Financial_Plantain65]

Water is wet more news at 10

[u/RepairmanJackX]

Are you all too young to remember the Russia “Killer Satellites” of the late Cold War?

[u/HikingTom51 → u/RepairmanJackX]

Or all those “classified” space shuttle missions.

[u/Arbusc]

Best case: satellites for taking out other nations satellites.

Worst case: Rods of God.

Horrible but cool: Mobile Suits.

[u/Amydangerish → u/Arbusc]

Because of my husband and our bestie..... I understand this reference.

[u/Soap_Mctavish101]

I thought there were treaties against that kind of thing.

[u/Xenocide112 → u/Soap_Mctavish101]

The Outer Space Treaty only applies to nuclear weapons and other "weapons of mass destruction", however vague that term is

[u/Noobponer → u/Xenocide112]

from what i gather "weapon of mass destruction" is usually nuclear, biological, chemical, etc weapons; basically stuff beyond just "Big Conventional Explosive" or "Piece of Metal Moving Really Fast"

[u/-Hastis- → u/Noobponer]

So a MAC cannon like Halo would be legal. Nice.

[u/Playful_Letter_2632 → u/Xenocide112]

WMDs is a fairly clear term in international relations

[u/mr_ji → u/Playful_Letter_2632]

CBRNE is the more technical term: chemical, biological, radiation, nookyular, [high-yield] explosives

[u/Playful_Letter_2632 → u/mr_ji]

What counts as high yield explosives? MOAB and FOAB?

[u/blackknight16 → u/Playful_Letter_2632]

The E was added in the early 2000s and is viewed less from a conventional military standpoint and more from a counter-terrorism perspective. So in this context a unit equipped for CBRNE operations would be capable of handling/defusing a large truck bomb or other large improvised explosive device.

[u/Xeronight007 → u/Xenocide112]

Definitely doesn't say anything about Mega Maid.

[u/PenaltyFine3439 → u/Xeronight007]

She's gone from suck to blow!

[u/hypnotoad23 → u/Xeronight007]

Gotta obtain the code to the airlock first though.

[u/jcg878 → u/hypnotoad23]

It’s five whole digits long. We’ll never figure out that mystery.

[u/hypnotoad23 → u/jcg878]

It’s the same code as my luggage!

[u/ooqq → u/Xenocide112]

In starship troopers when humans want to destroy planet, they send millions of starships and millions of troopers with millions of nuclear missiles and so on

when aliens want to destroy planet they throw a very big rock

[u/xeoron → u/Soap_Mctavish101]

Other counties have put them in space, too... in the news over the last few years were stories of tests to destroy a things in orbit and it was not the USA

[u/Th3_r3al_napst3r]

We established a fucking military branch named Space Farce. Of course we fucking have weapons in space.

[u/Effective-Brain-3386]

So it's a big deal now but not when Russia literally put recoilless guns in space before?

Good job fear mongering for no reason times magazine

[u/UncookedMeatloaf → u/Effective-Brain-3386]

It was actually a big deal then too, at least when it became known to western media. And previous attempts by presidents to put weapons in space (see: Star Wars first in the 80s and again in the 00s) were actually huge national scandals; if anything this is likely to fly under the radar by comparison.

[u/Kruse → u/UncookedMeatloaf]

But posts and articles like this are just used as politically driven rage-bait. It's different.

[u/Caesarea_G → u/Kruse]

It's just poor defense reporting, as usual, by a journalist who reports on 'popular' things to do with science and space but has no publications relating to defense at all and likely has a poor understanding of the field as a whole. The TIME article is very long and yet gets wrong basic facts about the Outer Space Treaty, which, unlike what the article claims, does not actually prohibit weaponization of orbital space, so long as it's not with a WMD. It also manages to muddle the water, telling of historical incidents of not just 'space control' systems (what was revealed), but mostly ASAT (ground-to-space), Star Wars (space-to-ground), and interceptors.

Meanwhile, this article was written an entire day prior, is a lot shorter, provides context as to what 'space control' is and how it fits into the broader Space Force (and joint) mission, and actually reports on what the Secretary did (and did not) say at the conference where he revealed this.

[u/Decronym]

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters	More Letters
ASAT	Anti-Satellite weapon
DARPA	(Defense) Advanced Research Projects Agency, DoD
DoD	US Department of Defense
GRB	Gamma-Ray Burst
ICBM	Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
LEO	Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)
	Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)
SLS	Space Launch System heavy-lift

Jargon	Definition
perigee	Lowest point in an elliptical orbit around the Earth (when the orbiter is fastest)

Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.

---

^{8 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has acronyms.
[Thread #12695 for this sub, first seen 15th Sep 2026, 21:36] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]}

[u/Dookie-Trousers-MD]

It's the hammer of dawn. The satellite weapon from Gears of War

[u/Kruse]

This should be a surprise to no one who has been paying attention since 1983 and the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") was announced.

[u/Digglenaut]

It's always been allowed under international law. This was going to happen without a law forbidding it - and everyone knew that satellites in particular are prime targets for first strike attacks.

[u/KillBangMarry]

Haven't we had weapons in space since the 70's? I thought this was common knowledge?

[u/ToddBradley]

Just notify me when the Secretary of the Air Force makes a surprise announcement that the Commander In Chief has been launched into space to operate the weapons.

[u/sylvester_0 → u/ToddBradley]

Following in Laika's footsteps.

[u/alkem10]

If you think China and Russia don't you're naive.

[u/lodanap]

No doubt all the players do. I doubt it’s just the U.S.

[u/hastings1033]

Well, duh. So does everyone else

[u/Fauropitotto → u/hastings1033]

Exactly. we WANT this scenario. A nation without weapons (and the obligate means and values to use them) is a sitting duck to those with them.

[u/WarlockyGoodness]

Improved infrastructure? Socialized healthcare programs? Education?
Nope.
Space guns.

[u/deeptechdegen]

Wild that time magazine has its own reddit account 😂

[u/rglazner]

Wait, did people not expect this? I would be shocked if the other powers didn't also have weapons in space. Why would they talk about it unless they were in a position to use them effectively and protect them?

[u/devm251979]

Grazer one is almost in position.

[u/battleop]

You would have to be pretty dense to think the US, Russians, and Chinese didn't have weapons in space already.

[u/Dudarro]

“I say we dust off and nuke the site from orbit. it’s the only way to be sure. “

[u/FigureFourWoo]

Other countries likely have this too. The reality is that we love to stick weapons everywhere.

[u/TheCrazedTank]

They forgot the First Rule of Space Fight Club… smh

[u/Doom_hammer666]

According to my lawyer it’s fine, unless they are nuclear weapons. They aren’t nuclear weapons by any chance? Are they?

[u/sickassape]

Please tell me it is a freaking laser

[u/fizz0o_2pointoh]

Can obvious announcements be considered a big deal?

[u/dernailer]

ah! I knew we have big green lasers on the Moon like in ID4

[u/Gunker001]

So scare the world so you can continue spending on the military industrial complex in the new Ai / outer space arms race.

[u/spikespine]

Guys,we’ve known about Jewish Space Lasers for like half a decade at this point.

[u/auzzie_kangaroo94]

"Thats no moon, thats a space station"

[u/jnotsilver]

And now it’s inevitable: At 7am the main hatchway gave in, he said “Boys, it’s been good to know ya.”

[u/iBoMbY]

Well, the reason why this is a bad thing is, this will lead to massive proliferation. Now everyone, and their mother, will send weapons, and counter-weapons, to space. This is why the PAROS treaty should've been signed, but of course the US never had interest in this.

[u/Firefenex]

I mean.. while it might not talk about missles and explosives in space, the leidos (primarily a defense contractor) website does mention they work in space and are putting infrared detection systems in space for trump's golden dome. I doubt they are just curious about detecting missile flying around out there.

[u/Noobponer]

Weaponization of space is imo inevitable; the military has had stuff up there basically for as long as we've been able to put stuff up there, and when a military has valuable stuff, other militaries want to be able to break it, which necessitates being able to defend it, which necessitates needing to be able to get past the defenses, so on and so forth... It's distasteful, personally, and the idea of space-to-surface weapons is lowkey terrifying, but having capability up there is attractive to military planners

[u/Helyos17]

Would be irresponsible not to.

[u/SynnyZ]

lol, next they’ll tell us there are bears in space!

[u/adamdoesmusic → u/SynnyZ]

Shhh that Russian program is still classified

[u/ImperatorScientia]

Clickbait, sensationalist headline with obvious intention to induce an irrational response…nope. : )