>>509376679 (OP)There is no such thing as an "EMP Satellite".
Unless said "satellite" is just a disguised nuclear bomb.
But the Space treaty thingy prohibits putting nukes into space, so I'm thinking this is jsut straight up disinformation.
EMPs are a real thing, but to produce one big and strong enough to matter would have to be by detonating a nuclear weapon high up in the atmosphere above your target.
That's the only way to make it happen with current technology.
The strategy is to send one or more nukes first, detonate high up in the sky, producing the EMP, and then send in the nukes that actually do damage once the enemy air defense and systems are down.
A "EMP satellite" makes little to no sense.
Putting nukes in space is a big No-No.
Even then, satellites are far away in space, sio detonating a nuclear weapon so far from Earth won"t really generate an EMP strong enough to matter. You would need to drop the nuclear weapon back to Earth like with a rocket engine, but at that point might as well just use ballistic missiles.
Then there's the issue of response time of such a weapon.
A satellite can either be close to the Earth, or Geostationary, but not both.
If it's in a geostationary orbit then it's too far away from Earth. If its orbit is closer to Earth, then it's going around and drifting due to rotation of the Earth and can't stay above the same spot.
So what I'm saying is that while theoretically possible, it's practically impossible to make the concept of an "EMP Satellite" work.
The guy is full of shit.
