Non-Kinetic Anti-Satellite and Anti-Naval Warfare Tactics To Take Over Enemy Assets

There has been a lot of talk about cleaning up space garbage as it becomes an ever more complex cloud of debris to navigate, creates a perilous gauntlet of chunks large and small that fly at velocities faster than a bullet with respect to spacecraft that may collide with them. This of course necessarily leads to all kinds of solutions that will weaponize space to some degree. The fact that all major powers already fielded and tested ground based lasers and missile anti-satellite weapons that can destroy assets kinetically in low Earth orbit, only adds fuel to fire. Space will be weaponized, is being weaponized and the weapons creating debris will deny space access to all of humanity. Clearly one needs to field weapons that are either cybernetic, kinetic on the ground or a novel method of taking over satellites that does not change their orbit or breaks them apart into clouds of debris.

Special operations, for instance airborne units that can take over satellite command centers, are a sure way to take over hostile satellites. This of course will be heavily contested and often the infrastructure associated with control of space assets is spread over many locations. In a war where land troops are used to take over enemy territory, the communication equipment that allows for control of satellites may be overtaken along with the personel. This however is an afterthought and a bonus to a final result of a winning war effort, not an advantage in deterring a belligerent enemy that projects power across the globe. Not to mention that the enemy in this case will be able to use the space based assets until the final moment of definitive defeat. This does not make a good method of defeating space based assets.

Psychological operations, propaganda, diplomacy and brinkmanship exhibited by blackmail with the use of terrorist proxy or clandestine action can give a certain degree of control over enemy's space based assets or deter them. Electronic warfare can jam these assets, as was the case with RQ-170 where the craft landed in Iran when it lost its way after its GPS signal was jammed by the Iranian military. These however do not take out the space based assets for the duration of the conflict with respect to the entire planet, but are local countermeasures, temporary and can be overcome in a number of ways, for instance in this specific scenario Americans fielded navigation technology that does not need to rely on satellites and is too small to jam.

So what's my idea? Space based redio frequency shielding tarps, ones that are opaque to the visible spectrum, to wrap satellites and prevent them from transmitting and receiving transmissions or navigating. This weapons system can be deployed as four small rockets that are positioned near the satellite, then open up and wrap it like a Christmas present. The RF shield needs to be strong enough not to be torn when it is wrapped around the satellites. The weapons should be positioned near the satellites meant to be neutralized and given the command to disable them when decision to do so is made. As a case scenario let us assume Russia wants to neutralize all American GPS satellites, but wants neither space debris nor to permanently lose them as assets which millions of people across the globe rely on. Besides destroying American military command centers, what can Russia do? This precisely, cover them up with RF shields, thus blinding all existing space assets to incoming or outgoing communication. When hostilities are over, or satellite control is taken over by Russia, these assets can then be released.

The weapon system should be compact and only open up during the actual attack. These assets should be positioned to strike and be within minutes of a striking distance, in other words no more than 5 to 10 minutes after order to attack should all enemy satellites go blind. Multiple systems should be launched as one payload, then individually positioned within the required striking range.

Next topic. Electronic warfare can not only jam communications systems, incoming missiles and attack enemy aircraft or naval vessel's computing and control equipment, but it can attack the crew itself. Americans have been using mass mind control weapons for torture, propaganda, terrorism, espionage, media censorship, false flags and more notably they've attacked me in this manner for nearly two decades now. They consider this nothing more than "harassment" and it's not the police's fault that "someone made my head into a cell phone". Obviously attacking naval personel in contested waters or invaders on foreign country's territory is entirely justified within the rules of war, and for sure it should be rational within Americans' own reasoning, being that they attack diplomats and civilians in the same fashion and do so world wide with fatal results.

China for instance could deploy mind control weapons technology to target American naval vessels that trespass their territorial waters and order them to abandon ships to then confiscate them. China could use the technology at levels of power that causes extreme pain, physical contortion, or otherwise incapacitates the offending vessel's crew, as Americans have done to myself and my mother, so it can be boarded and the crew taken prisoner. In fact, every island in the East and South China sea should have the capability to triangulate offending belligerent actors, ships or aircraft. Americans have made me crash on my bicycle, a civilian, after denying all my human rights for two decades, I don't see why belligerent crews of B-52 bombers flying over Chinese islands should not be treated in the same manner. Make them crash land on water and incarcerate the survivors, this of course if they fail to respect ADIZ warnings. China may also choose to mind control the offending American aircraft to fly out of their air space, however keep in mind that Americans murdered the president of Poland with all top brass on board of Polish Air Force 101 along with a long list of dignitaries using this technology. I don't see why belligerent crews of bombers that may carry a nuclear payload should be given a better treatment, especially if they can safely eject or parachute and be picked out of the water to be interrogated and incarcerated alive.

The ocean itself has become a weapon, it is becoming acidic due to massive carbon dioxide emissions which historically United States have pursued to make the global temperatures rise, so they can make Alaska, which constitutes a third of their territory, into farmland. Americans threatened China that they're good at taking down small islands, but they are actually sinking entire archipelagos by pursuing policy of sea level rise and dissolving coral atol nations through making the ocean more acidic. The economic and ecological devastation is global, but benefits only three states: Russia, Canada and the United States. To use the ocean as a weapon is poetic justice. Mind controlled dolphins or drones can be equipped with dorsal fin covers that allow them to cut into hulls of enemy ships. This will create scratches in the hulls that allow for fast corrosion and make the vessels more expensive to maintain, taking some non-violently out of commission for repairs or permanently. It will also weaken hulls for torpedo attacks. (My cars and bicycles have been sabotaged repeatedly and three of them stolen by Americans). The blade itself can be as high tech as necessary, and contain the necessary tracking and communication equipment. Sharks can be used as well.