Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by perihelions on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:36AM (#44959259)

Very expensive to take down 10-100k at once. No one today has that many antisat-capable missiles stockpiled.

Relevant, Chinese domestic media reporting on China's own perspective:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3178939/chin... ("China military must be able to destroy Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites if they threaten national security: scientists" (2022))

> "Researchers call for development of anti-satellite capabilities including ability to track, monitor and disable each craft / The Starlink platform with its thousands of satellites is believed to be indestructible"

"Easy to bring down" vs. "believed to be indestructible"—some tension there!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by ceejayoz on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @03:39AM (#44959617)

EMP?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by perihelions on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @04:57AM (#44960044)

If you're talking about nuclear weapons, their major effect on satellites (Starfish Prime as the reference point) isn't EMP effects, but ionizing radiation—creating a persistent radiation belt of MeV electrons. (A physical process that took months to disable some satellites). Beyond that I don't know much.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by lazide on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @08:55AM (#44961517)

At the point anyone is using nukes in LEO, things have gotten really out of control already.

[ Parent | on HN ]