Kosmos 2553 is the satellite that frights NATO.

There is claiming that the mysterious Kosmos 2553 involves a so-called dummy warhead. If that is true and the satellite is a so-called ASAT (Anti-Satellite) or ground-effect EMP (Electromagnetic pulse) weapon that can blind the USA. The detonator could act like a remotely controlled car bomb. The satellite sends its mark that it's in the right position. Then the system takes an encoded detonation order that triggers the bomb. If the system operator wants to destroy large numbers of satellites using that weapon there is no need to be smart. But if the satellite uses some more sophisticated methods like kinetic energy kill systems there is a need for some intelligent technology. 

The Russian Air Force satellite Kosmos (Cosmos) 2553 launched from Plesetsk in 2022. That satellite is at a very high altitude. That trajectory is called the satellite graveyard. Russians say that the "Neitron" radar satellite. However, there is suspicion that the Kosmos 2553 is the test of the ASAT (Anti-satellite) or EMP (Electromagnetic pulse) weapon that can blind the NATO defense. 

The position of the high-orbiting anti-satellite system is the thing that allows the killer satellite to shoot targets below it. Using rockets or some kind of cannons. It's possible. This satellite has multiple missions. Maybe its mission is to jam and observe other satellites. And in wartime, it can destroy other satellites. Or even try to blind the entire USA using the EMP bomb that detonated near the atmosphere. For that, the satellite must only come down and explode. 

Above: The EMP bomb. (GlobalSecurity.org)

The ASAT weapon uses a similar EMP weapon that is used in microwave burst weapons. The system can download electricity to its capacitors and then the system can release that energy to micro- or radio wave transmitters. The high-explosive detonator around the capacitor makes it possible to create very high-power EMP impulses. This kind of system can be installed in the radar system. The satellite can use its maximum transmitter power only once. So, maybe it has two power levels. Maybe the system uses regular transmitters to jam the signals. And then it can detonate the high-energy EMP weapon. 

Or if it involves a nuclear weapon. That weapon can send destructive plasma and radio bursts to the targeted satellites. It can detonate and send the energy burst to satellites below it. That system also destroys  Russia's own communication and spy satellites. But if new satellites are in reserve to fast replace the destroyed satellites that kind of ASAT is a suitable tool. The high-flying satellite can also eavesdrop and jam other satellites. 

 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hpm.htm

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/e-bomb-peril-high-power-microwave-weapons

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/putins-mysterious-cosmos-2553-satellite-34259316

https://swfound.org/news/all-news/2024/06/insight-faq-what-we-know-about-russia-s-alleged-nuclear-anti-satellite-weapon

https://russianforces.org/blog/2022/02/cosmos-2553_-_the_first_neitro.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_2553

One little point about nuclear weapons

 One little point about nuclear weapons

One thing, why NATO has been established is that the small Western European countries wanted that the nuclear weapons of the United States would protect them against Russia or the Soviet Union. The membership of that military alliance hoped to bring the nations under the Nuclear Umbrella. 

Then two European NATO countries the United Kingdom (1) and France (2) created their nuclear deterrence for their protection because they were afraid that the USA would not protect them against the Soviet Union and its allies. That thing delivered the pressure from the USA to other countries and the independent nuclear weapons of France and the United Kingdom highlighted the independence of the NATO countries. The United Kingdom was the first and it exploded its first fission weapon in 1952 and hydrogen bomb in 1956. 

France made its first fission weapon test in 1960 and the first fusion weapon test in 1968. Today the UK has the stockpile of 214 nuclear warheads and France has 300 nuclear warheads in storage. (1)(2).

In the Warsaw pact the only state, that had nuclear detonators was the Soviet Union. That thing was used as the propaganda weapon, and the thing was that the Soviet Union treated its allies by using nukes as the threat.  

In NATO those weapons are under the national command. So not a single nuclear detonator is not owned by NATO. 

NATO is the military and defensive alliance. It has not owned nuclear weapons under NATO military control. Three NATO states the USA, France, and the United Kingdom are states with national nuclear weapons. And this thing makes the role of NATO more problematic than we ever expect. 

Does that mean that what if the NATO troops would be lost conventional campaigns in Europe? What is the limit of the use of Nuclear weapons in that case? If NATO is under threat and outnumbered, that means that there would be also other nations than the USA, what would want to use nuclear weapons as the final change? And the thing is that what if the tanks of Russia would come too far, and the attack or campaign cannot be stopped? 

When the governments of the United Kingdom or France would start the nuclear attack against Russia? This kind of case would be possible if the USA would leave its allies, and some side would start the aggression. The nuclear policy is one of the most secretive things in the world, and if NATO loses its spine in the critical moment, the conflict can be started. And then the case is about the "limited nuclear warfare", what can expand to the global nuclear conflict. 

(1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

(2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Image:

https://nypost.com/2019/05/10/radioactive-remnants-of-nuclear-bomb-tests-found-on-ocean-floor/

Is NATO so powerful as it claims?

Is NATO so powerful as it claims?

The question is about how united NATO would be in the real situation? Donald Trump has brought one thing in the relationship with NATO to the front of the great publicity, and that is that the USA would not necessarily support its allies. The problem is that NATO is the defense union, and if the military actions would start in Europe, the attack would be claimed to began by the European NATO country.

Nuclear weapons are a very powerful tool in international conflict. The problem is that some people would claim, that NATO is only the shield for the USA, which has a too dominating role in that military union. The thing is that Russia would support the opinions, that NATO is gone, and the USA must go back over the Atlantic ocean, and the fights would be done in the European territory.

And the other thing is that there are many people in Europe, who would notice, that the USA collects the data from the European actors and private citizens. The thing is that Europe is addicted to the military satellites of the USA, and the role of intelligence has been claimed to be very little, in things like tracking the troops of the opponent.

That kind of cooperation along with the electronic surveillance in the cooperation of UKUSA (1) are things, that would be wanted to quit by the Russians and certain political actors. And the reason, why Russia is claimed to support Trump is that this man would be wanted to disband the NSA and other intelligence agencies. And this is why the so-called Panama-leak has been done(2). The idea was to affect the leaders of Europe, that they will stop the UKUSA and disband NATO. For those people, the UKUSA is a synonym for "Echelon" (3) the NSA global surveillance network.

Those people argue that this kind of military unions is connecting European countries to the conflicts, which can be avoided by staying neutral. And if somebody would disagree, that thing means that the "real leaders" must not tolerate any kind of criticism. For those people, criticism is only a negative thing. And people should just follow their leaders.

One of the things, what pleases some people in Russia is the military forces. People claim that liberalism is caused by the back reaction and nations want moral and militarism. The democracy is too soft for those defensors of militaristic and authoritarian governments. But then we must remember that democracy is not the same thing with liberalism. When we are thinking of the cases where democratic governments started to persecute minorities, we find many cases in history.

In many South American states, the democratic government has been started to systematically persecute minorities, and the same things have been made in South Africa and Australia. During the Apartheid the South African government was democratic, but it was democracy only for white people. Black people were persecuted systematically.

And Australia closed Aboriginals to the concentration camps, but otherwise, the government was democratic. Those examples show, how the democratic government can start things, what is not acceptable. Also in many European countries, gypsies and other minorities have been isolated more or less by official permission.

So that kind of thing is embarrassing when we are looking at the history. The thing is that Russia would benefit the Internet very effectively in its information operations makes that kind of actions more effective than ever before.

(1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

(2)

https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/

(3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON