The U.S. Military just provided a very strong argument for Flat Earth

   The article, published all over the media, is titled : “The U.S. military imagines war without GPS”. Just google this title, if you want to read the article.

   This are the first two paragraphs of the article published today, all over the world :

With GPS-guided bombs, armed drones beaming footage via satellite and spy cameras scooping up intel from the heavens, America’s military machine is growing ever more reliant on space-based technology.

But what would happen if an enemy were to target the military’s satellites, or somehow jam their signals?

I understand that most people do not know much about military strategy, or ballistics and physics, or satellites.But, most people “know” that the GPS system is a satellite system, and they “know” that satellites are flying in space.

   The U.S. military just made an extremely solid case for Flat Earth. From the article :

Our force structure today is built around the assumption that we have GPS and we have satellite communications. We are very lethal when we have those things,” said Colonel Richard Zellmann, commander of the 1st Space Brigade based in Colorado.

“But when you start taking away those combat multipliers, we need to go back then to the days of the industrial-age army where you must have three times as many people as the adversary does.”

About 70 percent of the Army’s major combat systems depend on signals being beamed from space, Zellmann said, a fact that has not slipped the attention of other countries.

“Militaries around the world have begun to understand the advantages that the US has enjoyed because of uncontested access to the space domain,” Zellmann recently told reporters.

So, what we have learned after reading the intro and what Col.Zellman said? Well, we have learned that without the space capabilities, the U.S. military loses the edge over its enemies.In other words, of somehow, an enemy, or multiple enemies can disable the satellites, the U.S. military must rely on old tech and change its entire strategy over night.

   I am not going into explaining the reasons for such a scenario, because any military in the world should prepare for ANY POSSIBLE, and IMPOSSIBLE scenario.It is how the military works.

   I am going to focus on what prompted the U.S. military to publicly admit that they are preparing for such a warfare scenario : disabling the satellites.

   There are only a few, real possibilities, that can directly or indirectly disable a satellite.There is no particular order :

1.A direct hit

2.An indirect hit


   A direct hit on a satellite can be done using a ballistic missile, a laser or a collision with another satellite or object.An indirect hit can be done by detonating a missile at very high altitude, and the generated EMP will knockdown the satellite electronics.Jamming, using another satellite or a ground based electronic jamming radar.

   A ballistic missile can reach maximum 1,200-1,500 miles altitude, and a speed of maximum 18,000 mph.A geostationary satellite (all military and GPS satellites are geostationary) flies at an altitude of minimum 22,200 miles and a speed of 6,700 mph.

   When you look at these numbers, a direct hit using a ballistic missile is impossible.The military and GPS satellites are located at 22,000 miles altitude, and a ballistic missile can only reach 1,200-1,500 miles altitude.

   The other option for a direct hit is using a laser beam.This is, today, impossible.First and the hardest issue is the power needed to fire up a laser able to successfully disable a satellite that is 22,000 miles distance.A 50 kW laser successfully shot down a drone, from 2 km distance (just over 1 mile).Today, the most powerful military laser are powered by less than 100 kW installations.A 100 kW laser might be developed by 2030.

   How much power we would need to fire up a laser able to reach a satellite 22,000 miles up, flying at 6,700 mph and destroy it? The short answer is A TRUCKLOAD of power.Even assuming that the military have laser with zero rate of divergence (that is basically Star Trek tech) which is currently impossible, the power needed to fire up a laser able to destroy or disable a satellite flying at 22,000 miles up is bigger than the power generated by dozens of nuclear power plants.The size of such an installation will be the one of a mid-sized town.The costs would surpass the entire world GDP.And it will take decades to build it.

   What about lasers mounted up on other satellites?It won’t need too much power, because the target-satellite would be much closer.Yes, it won’t need too much power, but it will still need a lot.Theoretically, a 50 kW powered laser beam mounted on a satellite can destroy another satellite that is 1 mile away.Why theoretically?Because realistically speaking, it is impossible to have 2 satellites so close to each other.One mile distance, in space, when considering the speeds, is a fraction of a second.A rocket that puts a satellite in space needs to be hundreds of miles away, in all directions, from any other satellite or debris, in order to successfully deploy the satellite, to avoid accidental collisions.

   So, the best that an enemy can do, is to deploy a satellite, with a mounted laser, at a distance of at least 50 miles away from the closest object, and that in perfect conditions.In these scenario, you would still need an installation big enough to power up a laser needed to hit a satellite 50 miles away, something around half-megawatt power, which would be the size of ISS, at least.

   A collision using a satellite to knock off orbit another satellite, or destroy it, is, again, impossible today.For starters, one would need a satellite that have engines, and that alone is a very costly option, because once you use that satellite to hit another satellite, both of them will be disabled.Its not like you can use it multiple times.So, one will need at least the same number of satellites needed to hit the target satellites.Assuming all of them will hit.And assuming you know how many satellites the U.S. military have and where they are.Playing pool in space, with objects the size of a car, traveling at over 6,700 mph, in a sea of at least 4,000 satellites, when you don’t know which one to hit, is something nobody can do, realistically speaking.

   A direct hit, using a ballistic missile, or a  ground based laser, or a satellite based laser or a controlled collision between 2 satellites are all impossible today.

   Jamming a satellite seems (only seems) a more realistic approach.Firstly, a jamming radar installation, while still requiring a massive amount of power, is something any military power can build.They already exist, and (allegedly) are successfully used in jamming the electronics of planes, missiles or other radar installations.

   The problem with a jamming installation radar is not the building costs, or the energy requirements.The problem is exclusively military.The moment a jamming radar is fired up, it becomes a fat, big target, on the conventional radars.While such an installation today can be mobile, a jamming installation used against satellites, is too big to be mobile.It is basically a sitting duck ( a very fat duck, that screams ‘here I am”) once it is activated.Militarily speaking, it is far better to build dozens of ballistic missiles instead a big jamming, immobile radar.

   Jamming a satellite is a logistical nightmare, even if successful.Those installations will be destroyed even before they will be activated, because they become primary targets for a preemptive strike.

   An EMP able to knockdown a bunch of satellites, including your own, is out of the question.Militarily speaking, it would be dumb, at best.Technologically speaking, is impossible.Since a ballistic missile can only reach as far as 1,500 miles up, it can only be detonated at 1,500 miles up.The closest military satellite would be at 20,500 miles distance.To be able to knockdown a satellite at that distance, using an EMP generated by a nuke, whoever does that, needs a BIG ASS NUKE, so the EMP will be strong enough to reach 20,000 miles.Nobody have such nukes, and even if someone builds one, that someone needs to build a huge ass rocket, able to carry suck a nuke.

   Unless we are using imagination, disabling a satellite today, is, in the best case scenario, (jamming), not feasible and costly, or simply impossible (all other options).

   The title of this article is “The U.S. military just provided a very strong argument for Flat Earth”, and I must justify this title.Well, here it is :

   If the Earth is flat, and the GPS system is ground based, and the satellites are attached to balloons flying at maximum 30 miles up…everything changes.Not only that every option that is impossible if the Earth is a spinning ball and satellites are 22,000 miles up becomes entirely possible if the Earth is flat, there will be additional options that can be used to disable the GPS system.

   First, we can use almost any type of missile to destroy a satellite, flying at 30 miles up, attached to a balloon the size of a building, traveling at 30-40 mph speed.A fighter jet flying 15 miles altitude can take down a bunch of balloons in one go.A single fighter jet, not hundreds or thousands.Secondly, we can jam the satellites, using mobile jamming radars, because those satellites are just 30 miles up…and barely moving.Thirdly, we can use artillery, or bombers, or conventional missiles to destroy any land based tower.Heck, we can even build lasers to knockdown a satellite that is 30 miles up.

   And last, but not least, sobotage.The sabotage option, in space, is impossible.Down here, in the real world, sabotage becomes a very reliable option.Small teams on the ground can disable or destroy the GPS land towers that a missile, or artillery projectile or a bomber cannot reach.

   There is more, but I guess you got the point.The U.S. military is considering a warfare scenario that is impossible if the Earth globe model is real; such a scenario is not only possible, but highly probable if the Flat Earth model is real.

   I am sure that NASA fanboys and space noobs will argue “Well, you don’t know what capabilities the Russians or the Chinese have”.Absolutely.I do not know that.But that is not an argument, that is imagination.I can imagine that the Chinese have motherships in orbit, or the Russians have teleportation devices, or the Americans have mastered the time travel.I can imagine all that, and more.But the reality is that nobody, today, have lasers that can hit a target 22,000 miles up, travelling at 6,700 mph, and destroy it, nobody today have ballistic missiles able to reach such an altitude, and nobody today is dumb enough to spent trillions in building jamming radars that will be destroyed after being used once.

   Oh, and I also know that nobody, today, can play pool in space, hitting satellites with other satellites.

   I also know that our world is flat, the GPS is a ground based system, the satellites are 30 miles up, attached to huge slow-moving balloons…and that the U.S. military also knows that.And prepares for a scenario only possible if the world is flat.


Flat Earth Education.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s