Last month, multiple news outlets reported that Russia might be planning to deploy space-based nuclear weapons, shocking just about everyone.
U.S. policy hawks, space environmentalists and anyone with lingering memories of Cold War-era fears of nuclear annihilation have sounded the alarm about the threat posed by Russia’s nuclear weapons in space.
As dire as the prospect sounds, the U.S. government has assured people that such weapons do not necessarily pose a threat to local people. Instead, it would target other objects in space, such as satellites used by the U.S. military for communications and other operations.
But that comes as cold comfort to some, especially given the unpredictability of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin said that sending nuclear power units into space is the country’s top priority.
Defense experts warn of deploying nuclear weapons in space in the long term Can Threats to life on Earth by eroding international relations and space law. From clouds of space debris that could cut off access to space to the development of weapons that can be launched from space to strike targets on the ground, space-based nuclear weapons have the potential to impact everything and everyone.
Anti-satellite weapons already exist, but nuclear weapons don’t
No country has ever used anti-satellite weapons against another country, but several have destroyed their own satellites to demonstrate their military capabilities, including the United States, Russia, China and India.
These tests are not without controversy: Russia’s 2021 anti-satellite weapons test, for example, was condemned by NASA for creating debris that threatened astronauts on the International Space Station, including Russian astronauts. A United Nations panel has since called for a ban on testing of such weapons, and several European Union countries and the United States have pledged not to conduct destructive tests.
Andrew Reddy of the Berkeley Risk and Security Laboratory explained that nuclear weapons in space would cause more damage than previous anti-satellite weapons tests because existing space-based weapons can usually only destroy one satellite at a time. In the era of huge satellite constellations like Starlink, destroying a satellite is more of an annoyance than a major threat.
To destroy satellites on a large scale, you need different weapons, such as ground-based directed energy weapons. Alternatively, you could use nuclear weapons in space, which would not only have a shock effect, but also heat, radiation and electromagnetic pulses – giving them the ability to destroy or damage entire networks.
Nuclear weapons in space would cause more damage than previous anti-satellite weapons tests
International law protecting space
To date, the international community’s best response in limiting the stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons has been international law. On the space front, the key piece of legislation is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, Article IV of which prohibits the placement of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit.
Detonating a weapon in space would be unprecedented and would likely violate international rules prohibiting the use of indiscriminate weapons against civilians or civilian objects.
“It seems like any kind of damage to something in space is an indiscriminate weapon, and indiscriminate weapons are prohibited,” said Georgetown University law professor Christopher Johnson. War crimes.”
However, this assumes that the satellite was destroyed by an energetic impact. It may be possible to disable or interfere with satellites through other means, such as using electromagnetic pulses or EMPs. Some reports indicate that Russia is developing an electromagnetic pulse anti-satellite weapon rather than a nuclear weapon.If this could be done in a way that did not create a debris field, it might not violate international law as it would no longer be a weapon Lots of Destructive or indiscriminate influence.
Johnson said that in the current situation, “we don’t know what is at stake,” noting that details are important and that Russia has the ability to carefully read the relevant laws and comply with them.
Detonating a weapon in space would be unprecedented and could violate international rules
Cascading fragmentation problem
The reason the use of weapons in space is considered indiscriminate is because of the debris fields they create. The destruction of objects in space creates large pieces of debris that are dangerous but relatively easy to track. The danger lies in the increasing number of small and medium-sized debris that are too small to track but still travel at high enough speeds to cause massive damage to other objects in space and even humans.
“A dot of paint the size of your thumbnail can go through most spacecraft. It would go through it at very high speeds (18,000 mph),” said Vishnu Reddy, a space debris expert at the University of Arizona. ”
A severe collision in orbit can create an area of small debris that can quickly collide with other satellites, creating a cascade. When a critical mass is reached, each collision creates more debris, which creates more collisions, which creates more debris, until the entire orbit becomes difficult or inaccessible.
The condition, known as Kessler syndrome, could cut off access to space for generations: from making rocket launches more difficult, dangerous and expensive to, at worst, making any kind of space travel Completely impossible for decades and cutting off humanity from space. Star.
The concept of this syndrome was first proposed in the late 1970s, amid optimistic predictions that space shuttles might fly as often as once a week. But that plan never came to fruition, so in the following decades there was less concern about the possibility of a cascading debris event.
But now, with the pace of government and private launches at an all-time high and space debris once again on everyone’s radar, Reddy said: “The fears of the past are coming back.”
“A dab of paint the size of your thumbnail can get through most spacecraft.”
fragile orbit
The most useful orbits around Earth are becoming increasingly crowded, and even if humans stopped launching objects into space tomorrow, debris already in orbit would continue to collide, making the problem worse.
In the long run, if this problem is not addressed, it may develop into Kessler Syndrome, as the situation can quickly go from bad to catastrophic. “The timeframe for the cascading collision scenario is very short,” Reddy said. “We’re talking about timescales ranging from hours to days to weeks, not months, years or even decades.”
The use of a nuclear weapon in orbit, depending on its size and in which orbit it is detonated, could trigger a chain of scenarios like this. But this is not unique to nuclear weapons. Reddy said that if the bad guys choose a vulnerable target, then their destruction of a well-chosen satellite could cause a ripple effect.
For example, in geostationary orbit, there are limited places available for satellites in the ring around the Earth’s equator. This makes slot machines in high demand since they are a limited resource. And this scarcity is exacerbated by the fact that removing debris from distant orbits, more than 20,000 miles above the Earth’s surface, is extremely difficult. If these slots become clogged with debris, it could cut off the functionality of systems such as communications satellites, weather satellites, and navigation satellites.
“That would be very, very bad,” Reddy said. “A large enough satellite explosion could destroy a large number of assets in geostationary orbit.”
fear of the future
While it is unlikely that any actor would launch a nuclear weapon in space with the specific purpose of triggering a cascading debris effect, it could occur as a result of an attempt to destroy a specific military system. But debris isn’t the only thing experts are worried about.
Security risk expert Andrew Reddy questioned how anti-satellite nuclear weapons technology could be transformed into a platform that could deploy nuclear weapons from space to targets on the ground. For example, this would require a re-entry vehicle, which does not yet exist but could theoretically be built based on existing technology. Nuclear weapons launched from space would provide a shorter warning period than nuclear weapons launched from the ground, threatening thousands or even millions of people.
This is not to say that deploying nuclear weapons in space is definitely possible. There is currently no sign that Russia is developing such weapons. But it does show how nuclear weapons in space could dramatically alter the geopolitical landscape, and why reports of potential space-based nuclear weapons have drawn so much condemnation.
“The old fears are coming back.”
global governance issues
Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied any plans to develop anti-satellite nuclear weapons and said Russia opposes the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. Experts agree that Russia is proud of its space program and role in international governance as a permanent member of the United Nations, although the invasion of Ukraine has shaken the country’s international standing and led to the suspension of joint space missions with other countries. Aerospace agencies.
Johnson said that Russia’s development or deployment of such anti-satellite weapons “would undermine their diplomatic efforts.” Russia plays a global leadership role in space governance and is a key negotiator on the Outer Space Treaty, and to oppose this would be suicidal. “They take their roles seriously,” Johnson said.
There is also international pressure from outside the United States and Europe. Even China, whose space program is clearly separate from those of other countries, does not participate in international projects such as the International Space Station, and emphasizes its opposition to the proliferation of space weapons. U.S. government representatives are trying to win over China and India to prevent Russia from developing nuclear anti-satellite technology.
Experts believe that deploying weapons in space would go against Russia’s own interests. Spreading debris fields throughout orbit limits everyone’s ability to access space, including those launching weapons.
However, these effects are not necessarily symmetric. “Americans are far more dependent on space than Russia and China, so in most areas if you were to reduce the quality of space for everyone, that would be a problem,” Reddy said. “But if you were to reduce the quality of space , it will have an asymmetric impact on Americans. The Russians know this.”
This raises the question of what the global consequences might be if or when any country chooses to use space-based weapons, and whether existing international legal structures can respond to this.
Reddy, the space debris expert, compared firing such a weapon to flipping the chessboard when you lose a game: “It’s no longer about winning. It’s ‘I lost, so no one wins.'”
