what weapons will space combat be fought with? will we use small

>>9112689
Either lasers or very fast projectiles.
There's no attenuation or air resistance in space, so both of these don't have the same drawbacks they do in atmosphere.
Railguns would work well if you have large enough superconductor or similar.
Launching shells with nukes is more compact, maybe more powerful too.
Lasers are most compact of all and would make for effective reusable small drones.
You'd want to make the other things on drones, too, though they have to be bigger.
Nukes in the explosion sense are bad because you have to get close, which is not very efficient in the vast expanse of space.

File: 1501817663074.jpg (15KB, 244x209px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 244x209px

>space combat
/sci/ isn't scifi

>>9112689
Just play Children of a Dead Earth.

>>9113076
you think it's impossible to fight in space?

>>9113112
no, just that it would be retarded and pointless

File: Mdkc9Zl.png (98KB, 491x357px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 491x357px

>>9112689
When the US tested nukes in space they had a blast radius of several miles/kilometers for a several hundred kiloton yield. So nukes in space are not ineffective, they just don't have as wide a blast radius.

And if you're asking about future space warfare that's really difficult to tell. Alot of people will suggest lasers, railguns, and nuclear missiles, but political and technical realities can place limits on them (e.g. Outer Space Treaty). In the present day real world, current counterspace deterrent involves things like anti-satellite missiles, co-orbital killer satellites, and cyber/electronic attacks. For that, there's a whole lot of reading out there if you're interested. If you are looking for something in between, you can check out this semi-plausible concept https://imgur.com/a/LhpyX (pic related).

>>9113076
All science is born from science fiction

>>9112689
>what weapons will space combat be fought with?

Lasers and missiles.

Unless you are talking about future tech... then it will be graviton wake accelorators, lethal meme viruses, molten metal railguns, neuro-feedback cannons, phased neutron arrays, Neutrino field enhancers, Charge cancellation beams, and atom deactivators.

>>9112689
Nukes could be useful as themonuclear temperatures can destroy strong metals.

Nukes can also be used to create and EMP to fry the electronics on a ship and immobilize it.

I have been thinking alot about the future of robots and such and I am of the opinion that EMPs and RF jammers are going to be powerfuk weapons.

I would assume that anti EMP lightning rods could be installed on robots or land vehicles. But it would be difficult to create a lightning rod on a spaceship or plane. Maybe some sort of faraday cage.

>>9112689
>I heard nukes are ineffective in space, is that true?
bullets are also ineffective, unless you vire them with springs.
And space combat will never occur

>>9116475
>And space combat will never occur
what a horrible timeline that would be

>>9116475
That's not true at all. Rockets work based on combustion. Even in the vacuum of space, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

>>9113187
so it blowing up goat herders in a desert, yet that doesn't stop trillions of dollars from being spent on it