The White House will meet with congressional leadership as a top Republican is requesting President Biden declassify information on a "serious national security threat"
You insinuate you know what it would be used for. Even more, you trust wiki and the Russians on what it would be used for. It’s like saying you have a gun, but will only shoot birds.
The phrase “It is not to drop a weapon on Earth but to possibly use against satellites” is not from Wikipedia. It is the subtitle of the article that you linked to; I’m quoting your material and pointing out that there are substantial side effects when using nuclear weapons against satellites.
Even if it is part of an article, I wouldn’t believe it.
Okay, fine, you’re free to do that, but I don’t see why yelling at me is reasonable. You’re the one who provided the material that you’re complaining about. If you disagree with the article, it seems far more reasonable to provide a top-level comment responding to it saying “I don’t agree with the article here and think that the real intent might be to use a warhead directly against the ground”.
I’m pointing out that even if the intent is as an anti-satellite weapon, which is what your article is saying, it can cause serious collateral damage, not to mention that it is in violation of a treaty to which Russia is party.
Cause Wikipedia says so? Really?
What are you referring to?
You insinuate you know what it would be used for. Even more, you trust wiki and the Russians on what it would be used for. It’s like saying you have a gun, but will only shoot birds.
The phrase “It is not to drop a weapon on Earth but to possibly use against satellites” is not from Wikipedia. It is the subtitle of the article that you linked to; I’m quoting your material and pointing out that there are substantial side effects when using nuclear weapons against satellites.
Even if it is part of an article, I wouldn’t believe it. Putting nukes in space is not minor and they may be used for than one thing.
Okay, fine, you’re free to do that, but I don’t see why yelling at me is reasonable. You’re the one who provided the material that you’re complaining about. If you disagree with the article, it seems far more reasonable to provide a top-level comment responding to it saying “I don’t agree with the article here and think that the real intent might be to use a warhead directly against the ground”.
I’m pointing out that even if the intent is as an anti-satellite weapon, which is what your article is saying, it can cause serious collateral damage, not to mention that it is in violation of a treaty to which Russia is party.
Wow your ability to completely miscomprehend things is only equal to Philo’s. Interesting that similarity.
Similar anger responses as well
Your comment tells us nothing useful, least of all your opinion, unfortunately.
Instead, could you offer your hypothesis and quote and cite some sources?