Warnings of an arms race in space have emerged after the United States confirmed it has deployed a weapon in Earth's orbit. The US has revealed little about the weapon, with Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink stating it is necessary to protect US forces from hostile actions, but offering no specifics on its capabilities or deployment date.
This announcement has prompted questions about the nature of existing space weaponry and the strategic importance of space for major powers.
Space has been a militarized domain since the dawn of the space age. In the late 1960s, the Soviet Union deployed weapons such as the Istrebitel Sputnikov (IS), designed to destroy other satellites with projectiles and shrapnel.
Today, advanced militaries utilize satellites for reconnaissance, secure communications, missile launch detection, and precision targeting. As warfare evolves technologically, the use of military hardware in space is expected to increase.
Dr. Bleddyn Bowen, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, speculated that the US weapon could be an electronic warfare or radio-jamming platform, a non-destructive anti-satellite weapon that disrupts satellite communications. He also acknowledged the possibility of more destructive kinetic kill vehicles or grappling satellites.
A very quick guide:
Space weapons
Earth-to-space weapons
Several countries have tested systems from Earth that target spacecraft by interfering with signals, such as navigation data, to misdirect or disable enemy assets.
Space-to-space weapons
Orbital weapons designed to disrupt enemy satellites and other space systems are becoming increasingly feasible due to advancements in space technology.
Space-to-Earth weapons
Weapons carried in orbit that could be launched against terrestrial targets are the least developed but theoretically offer faster and less interceptable strike capabilities than traditional methods.
Which countries have them?
The US, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and India are all believed to have tested some form of space weapon. These can be either kinetic (direct physical force) or non-kinetic (disruptive methods).
Kinetic weapons
These typically involve a warhead or projectile that directly strikes or detonates near the target, causing destruction or permanent damage.
Non-kinetic weapons
This category includes jammers, lasers, and cyber-attack methods that interfere with a system's operation, with effects ranging from temporary disruption to permanent disablement.
Regarding whether rivals like Russia and China possess similar orbital weaponry, it remains unclear. Juliana Suess, a researcher at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, noted that both Russia and China have shown activities that hint at co-orbital weapons testing, such as potential projectile tests in orbit. However, without knowing the specifics of the US weapon, direct comparisons are difficult.
While the newly deployed orbital weapon may be notable, the US, Russia, and China have possessed ground-based and air-launched weapons capable of targeting space for some time. Bowen dismissed China's reaction to the US announcement, calling it hypocritical given their own development of counter-space capabilities. He stated that the US, Russia, and China, along with India, have developed various anti-satellite weapons, and Russia and China have deployed numerous technologies in space with weaponization potential.
In the past decade, Russia and China have increased their rendezvous and proximity operations (RPOs) in space, described as "buzzing" Western satellites. Dr. Rod Thornton, a reader in Russian Defence and Security Studies at King's College, London, explained that these RPO satellites could theoretically be repurposed as hunter-killer satellites capable of colliding with or nudging other satellites out of orbit. Bowen added that China has demonstrated "space tug capability," where a vehicle can grapple and reposition a satellite, which could be used for removing space debris or disabling operational satellites.
However, certain types of space weaponry, such as direct ascent anti-satellite missile tests like the one conducted by China in 2007, can create significant and long-lasting space debris. Suess highlighted that debris from such tests remains in orbit and poses a danger, as even small fragments can cause damage at orbital velocities.
The nuclear threat
Thornton noted that Russia, despite having fewer satellites than the US and China, compensates with advanced missile capabilities. Russia possesses ground-based missiles and air-launched anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles designed to target satellites in low Earth orbit. This investment in ASATs is seen as an effort to counter NATO's perceived satellite superiority.
Thornton also pointed out that Russia could, as a last resort, deploy nuclear weapons in space, where a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) blast could disable unhardened satellites over a wide area. However, he emphasized that a nuclear conflict in space would likely occur only in conjunction with a ground-based conflict.
Given the long-standing existence of space weaponry, the timing of the US announcement is seen by experts not as a major technological leap, but as a political signal. Bowen suggested it might be a response to China's military modernization and expansion of its space-based assets, which have created more attractive targets for the US military.
This situation has led to a curious imbalance, with Thornton suggesting Russia could be a significant beneficiary in a space war due to its limited satellite assets compared to the US and China. Such a conflict would likely involve missiles, maneuvering satellites, and ground-based lasers.
