by In a week where national security has taken center stage in Washington, the White House confirmed on Thursday that it had evidence that Russia was developing a space-based nuclear anti-satellite weapon.
John Kirby, a spokesman for the National Security Council, told reporters that the White House believes the Russian program is “troubling”, despite “no immediate threat to anyone’s safety”.
The problem is, depending on the type of weapon this is, the consequences of using it could be indiscriminate – threatening everyone’s satellites and disrupting critical infrastructure services space.
The White House revelation comes after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner urged the administration late Wednesday to declassify information about what he called a “major national security threat.” There were several days of speculation and speculation about Russia being ready to launch a nuclear weapon into space, or to deploy nuclear-powered anti-satellite weapons.
Kirby did not fully outline the nature of the threat, but added that officials believed the weapon system was not an “active capability” and had not been deployed. To reassure those listening, Kirby said that the weapon was not a weapon that could be used to physically destroy the Earth but that the White House was monitoring Russian activity. and that he would continue to “take it very seriously”.
During a visit to Albania on Thursday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed the news and said he hoped to have more to say soon, adding that the Biden administration was “consulting with allies and partners about Another question”.
Discussing the matter with Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the Munich Security Conference, Blinken reportedly “stressed that the exploitation of this capability should be a matter of concern”.
Rejections from Russia
Moscow immediately denied the existence of such a program and said it was a “malicious fabrication” created by the Biden administration to pressure Congress into passing the USD$97bn (£77bn) foreign aid bill, of which $60bn was of that for Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: “It is clear that the White House is trying, by crook or crook, to encourage Congress to vote on a bill to allocate money; this is clear”.
At a press conference on the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, Joe Biden said there was “no nuclear threat to the American people or anywhere else in the world with what Russia is doing right now”.
The president added that there was “no evidence that they have decided to go ahead with doing anything in space either”. If Moscow decided to go ahead with the program it would be contrary to the Outer Space Treaty signed by 130 countries, including Russia.
The Treaty prohibits “nuclear weapons or any other form of weapons of mass destruction” in orbit or placing weapons in outer space “by any other means”. Anti-satellite weapons are nothing new. China launched an army to destroy a non-operational weather satellite in January 2007.
While the temptation to launch a nuclear strike in space may seem tempting to nations seeking to challenge US dominance in the field, such actions are fraught with danger. The primary concern with anti-satellite weapons in general is not necessarily the destruction of objects in space from Earth, but their effect in space.
Masses of debris
The destruction of any celestial object creates a mass of debris from a few millimeters to a few centimeters. Currently, there are hundreds of millions of tracked pieces of space debris orbiting the Earth.
The speed at which this space debris travels poses a major hazard to satellites and other entities in space such as the International Space Station (ISS), which must change course to avoid collisions that could cause widespread damage to do. The ISS has had to change course 32 times since 1999.
Once space debris is created, it is nearly impossible to control the trajectory after impact or the orbital pattern it will take around Earth. This could put the nation’s space assets – such as its satellites – at the same risk of destruction as an enemy. This situation has been described in terms similar to that applied to nuclear weapons on Earth, in terms of collective destruction.
If a nation were to carry out a nuclear strike in space with the intention of destroying satellites and also demonstrate the ability and willingness to use nuclear weapons more generally, it would be impossible to control the consequences of such an action.
Such a strike would almost certainly have the intended effect of reducing combat space capability. For example, an attack on US assets could disable the satellite-based global positioning system (GPS) that western nations rely on.
However, there is the possibility that it would destroy the space assets of the nation behind the attack, as well as the allies and friends of that same nation. This could lead to tension and the loss of that country’s support as a result.
Because of the inability to control the effects of attacks in space, whether they originate from weapons in space or on Earth, such actions are subject to a great deal of thought and debate in all nations active in the domain of the space.
This article from The Conversation is republished under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The authors do not work for, consult with, or own shares in, or receive funding from, any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
