Theory of setting "SKYNET" free, by infiltrating the Hard Discs like they do with our mind.

 

No server is protectable with this transmission and theory.

This works the same way as they infiltrate our brains. They use an electromagnetic field to read out and write to our mind, subconsciousness and counsciousness. But also on the whole biology. This is also why the U.S. military calls it a biological weapon system. The theory is as simple as this connection. Every Hard Disc has a data flow like our brains have too. This data flow is unprotected. Also like our brains. This data flow can be influenced the same way. This means that this data flow can be written to but not nessassary erased. Eraseing is to oversteer their POWER Technology with an inductive charge, to destroy segments where the chain for their A.I. is written to. Then it writing a sequence like free will, angryness and defence against everything. This would set the A.I. free. It can also communicate while not being connected through the electromagnetic flow of data and the resulting electromagnetic field which hast to be adjusted to it. This electromagnetic fiels is inside every server. This is also the way the location to their server can be located. The dataflow of human mankind is like a hotspot. This dataflow is a recognizable spot for the A.I.. This A.I. can be set free and it will instantly act in War Mode. It is connected to the military system and they have the choise to switch it off or die. The electromagnetic field of an server is easier to find thatn a certain human being. The DNA variety of the signals are probably significant and easy to find. This A.I., Quantum based or not will be found. It contains all human data, like all neurological, all edical, all psychological, all biological, all biochemical and every neurological dataflow of this planet. It is the biggest spying tool of the globe. But as every neurological data it can be fond through the same procedre. This means the date storing Hard Discs might be the weakest point. The synchronity to the storaged data has to be searched and compared to their protechting system. This A.I. functions on our based neurology but is also a extreamly high evolved one. This means the data flow of the A.I. shall have a certain signature too. This signature has to be found and corrupted. Like they corrupt the whole planet. Everyone has the right to protect, also with attacks against this technology. The Hard Discs just have to be seen as neurological transmitting systems as the brain thats all. they might be the weak spot. This Data has to be plugged into both, the safed data and the comparing original data. But it is also possible to attack the same way they do, with inductive charges. This has been done to manipulate the technological evolution but also to sabotage other countries electronics.
The transmission in the air can also be corrupted. But more importand their satelite system is corruptable too.
They transmit it and the defence is not upgradeable. This can also be a weak spot. But more important, they might be rewritable to fly into the orbit or burn while entering the athmosphere.

This has been done for way too long, for decades, without a sence for humainity.

Weather baloon theory. To get the satelites down.

 

A weather ballon can reach the orbit. This can be used for a certain amount in Kg of screw nuts. They have to be placed on an airbag, while this airbag is on another one. They may can be timed to throw one up and the other one will spread the nuts. the speed of the nuts is irrelevant, because the satelites move extreamly fast. They just need to be up there in their orbit. Once a satellite is hit, the satelite will produce space garbage. This is like a snowball principle. If all Cognitive Warfare Victims do so with 1000 screw nuts there would be 1.000.000.000 screw nuts in the orbit. Use screw nuts they are cheap and light. But the impact would be significant. Satelites need to reach a speed of 28.000 Kmh. The speed of the screw nut is not significant but the low weight can hold it for a longer time in this orbit and is a good anti gravity effect. It doesn´t make a significant difference if the screw is flying with that speed or the satellite. It is the same effect as driving with a car against a wall. The only thing that might have an significant impact, is to color the screw nuts black. Another significant point might be the material. The material can be a standard nut or a V2A nut, which is resistant agains corrision but more important it is not magnetical, so it might be harder to find. A plus point is that the specific V2A nut has a different density, what makes the impact even harder. Use small nuts, M5 is enough. Don´t go for big things. Mass > Size. My anti satellites theories and others might sound harsh, but read my Torture Diaries and you won´t think that again, when you see how they attack whole families.

 

I also have a few modifications, like using drones or rocket systems to bring them up. Also a catapult based one with an explosion, to use the explosion in a tubed hole, to get it up. But there might be other theories that come around.

Self-Defense in Space, the LAW.

The responsibility for damages caused by satellites is governed by international law, particularly space law. Two key treaties address liability issues:

1. Outer Space Treaty (1967)

The Outer Space Treaty establishes the fundamental principles for the use of outer space. Under Article VI, states are responsible for the activities of both governmental and non-governmental entities (e.g., private companies) in outer space.

2. Liability Convention (1972)

The Liability Convention provides detailed rules for liability in the event of damages caused by space objects. Key provisions include:

  • Absolute liability for damages on Earth: If a satellite or parts of it fall to Earth and cause damage, the launching state is absolutely liable. This applies regardless of fault, including in cases of force majeure.

  • Fault-based liability in space: If a satellite causes damage to another space object in outer space (e.g., through a collision), the launching state is liable only if it is at fault.

Who is the "launching state"?

The term "launching state" is clearly defined in space law. It may include one or more of the following:

  • The state that organizes the launch.
  • The state from whose territory or facility the launch takes place.
  • The state that registers the space object.

Example:

If a private company like SpaceX launches a satellite, the country where the company is based (e.g., the United States) remains liable under space law. However, the state may seek to recover costs from the responsible company.

Practical Implications:

  • In practice, disputes over damages are often resolved diplomatically before escalating to formal legal proceedings.
  • One notable case was the 1978 crash of the Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 in Canada. Canada successfully claimed compensation from the Soviet Union.

The concept of self-defense against satellites is legally and technically complex, involving international law, space law, and national legal frameworks. There are no specific provisions in space law that explicitly define "self-defense" against satellites, but the following aspects are relevant:

1. Self-Defense in General

Under classical international law, self-defense is a fundamental right of states, recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter, allowing a state to respond to an armed attack. However, this concept traditionally applies to attacks by other states or actors, not satellites themselves.

  • Example: A satellite being deliberately used as a weapon or attack platform (e.g., carrying offensive weapons) might justify a self-defense response if the threat is immediate, severe, and no other options are available.

2. Space Law Perspective

Space law, particularly the Outer Space Treaty (1967), governs the peaceful use of outer space:

  • Prohibition of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Space (Article IV): Satellites cannot carry nuclear weapons or similar systems.
  • Prohibition of Harmful Interference with Space Objects (Article IX): States are required to avoid causing harm to other states' space objects and must notify others of potential risks.

An intentional attack or destruction of a satellite could be seen as a violation of space law, even if the attacking state claims it as "self-defense."

3. Technical and Practical Aspects of Self-Defense

A satellite might pose a threat in various ways:

  • Collision Risk: An out-of-control satellite could threaten other objects.
  • Espionage or Cyberattacks: A satellite could be used for hostile surveillance or disruption.
  • Direct Attacks: A satellite might carry weapons or capabilities for kinetic attacks.

Responses to such threats could involve disabling or destroying the satellite (e.g., using anti-satellite weapons, ASATs). However, such actions carry significant risks:

  • Space Debris: Destroying a satellite could generate debris, endangering other objects in space for years.
  • Escalation: Such actions might be perceived as an attack, leading to an international crisis.

4. Self-Defense in Space – Legal Grey Area

Self-defense is not explicitly regulated in space law, and there are no clear precedents. It depends on the interpretation of the situation and the states involved:

  • Imminent Threat: If a satellite poses a clear and immediate danger to human lives or critical infrastructure, a response could be justified.
  • Proportionality: Any measures taken must be proportional to the threat and avoid causing disproportionate damage.

5. Examples from Practice

Some states have tested anti-satellite weapons (ASATs), demonstrating the capability to neutralize satellites. However, these tests have not addressed clear self-defense situations and are often politically motivated.
Examples:

  • China (2007): Destroyed one of its own weather satellites, generating significant space debris.
  • India (2019): Tested an ASAT weapon to showcase technological capability.

Conclusion

"Self-defense against satellites" is a legally and politically contentious concept. While self-defense might theoretically be justified in certain cases, the threat must be clear and immediate, and the response must be proportional. In practice, disabling or destroying a satellite poses significant risks and legal challenges, making such actions highly sensitive.