According to reports, the latest intelligence circulating in the US Congress indicates that Russia is developing an anti-satellite with a nuclear component in space**.
On February 14, 2024, House Intelligence Committee Chairman and Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio issued a cryptic but worrying statement about the information, which he characterized as a "serious *** threat."
Some *** hint that there is a nucleus**. Others suspect nuclear **, but not nuclear warheads.
The next day, the White House confirmed that the system Russia is developing is a space-based anti-satellite** that, if deployed, would violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits the use of mass destruction in space**. The Kremlin responded that the reports were "maliciously fabricated."
While the public still doesn't know the exact **, these events have raised the specter of a space nuclear ** in a tense moment. Relations between the United States and Russia are at their lowest level in decades, and Russia is currently waging a war of aggression in Ukraine.
As a nuclear strategist, I know that the U.S. report comes at a time of significant changes in the world's nuclear order. China and other countries are expanding and modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Iran is close to being able to produce nuclear **. Other countries may eventually want to have their own nuclear **.
At the same time, a number of countries are developing new ** for attacking space targets. The list includes Russia, the United States, China, and India, although there are currently no deployments in space**.
Cold War plan. Recent revelations about Russian space** have raised concerns that countries may decide to deploy nuclear weapons in space at some point. Some have tried it before.
During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union studied space nuclear**. At the end of the 60s of the 20th century, the USSR tested a missile that could be placed in near-earth orbit, capable of deorbiting and carrying a nuclear warhead to Earth.
A man stands in front of a red, blue and white flag and next to a large rocket.
Russia** Vladimir Putin speaks during a visit to the Vostochny cosmodrome on April 12, 2022. (Yevgeny Biatov, Sputnik AFP via Getty).
Neither country has permanently placed nuclear ** in space. Both countries are parties to the Outer Space Treaty and the 1963 Partial Test-Ban Treaty, which prohibits nuclear conduct in space. Moscow and Washington negotiated these treaties to curb the arms race during the Cold War.
These treaties limited behavior in the late Cold War. However, Russia's violation of nuclear arms control treaties, as well as the withdrawal of the United States and Russia from various treaties since 2002, suggest that they may not be in the future.
But why would a country want space nuclear**? There are several reasons for this.
Countries can point space-based nuclei ** at Earth. Theoretically, ** from space can evade early detection radars and missile defense systems. However, launching a nuclear ** directly from space also has significant drawbacks.
Placing ** strikes on targets on Earth in space may have a motive for defense or offense. Dodging the ** of missile defense may ensure nuclear deterrence. It is a defensive tactic designed to prevent aggression against the countries that place them in space.
Alternatively, these** can help a country achieve a first-strike capability. The first strike requires destroying enough of an adversary's nuclear **, or managing the nuclear command, control, and communications systems needed to prevent nuclear retaliation.
Countries can point space-based to other space regions, such as those being developed by Russia. This is reminiscent of the image of a nuclear ** hitting an asteroid to protect the Earth from a collision.
Satellite killers. The reality is less dramatic, but no less worrying. The most likely use is the destruction of the enemy's military satellites. The destruction of navigation satellites hinders the combat capabilities of the adversary. Both precision strikes** and ground forces rely on satellite constellations such as GPS or the Russian GLONASS system to find and reach targets.
States may also want to have the ability to destroy enemy space**, including space-based missile defense systems. While no country has yet deployed these**, leaders may be concerned about future capabilities and deploy space** first to counter this threat.
Most dangerously, these could destroy or damage satellites critical to an enemy's nuclear command, control, and communications systems, including early warning satellites that track missile launches and communications satellites that relay military orders.
Nuclear ** damages satellites because of gamma radiation waves produced by nuclear **. This radiation can damage critical subsystems within the satellite.
But this kind of ** creates major drawbacks. **Can damage any satellites within gamma radiation, including satellites of attacking nations, their allies, and neutral nations.
However, space-based nuclear anti-satellites may have some advantages over other attacking options. Ground-based anti-satellite systems can only reach targets in near-earth orbit.
Even nuclear-powered anti-satellites in space**, without nuclear warheads, create new threats. Such a device will have a greater range than an anti-satellite ** on the ground and can perform tasks for a long time. Both of these factors increase the number of satellites it can damage or destroy.
Many of the satellites that a country may want to launch are in higher orbits outside the range of ground-based systems. The same goes for some of the American systems that Russia might want to target.
The Kremlin's interest in space** may be an attempt to weaken America's ability to do war; threats to nuclear command, control and communications systems; Or hedge space-based missile defense systems. Alternatively, the Russian defense industry may promote its development for profit.
A new arms race?
Whatever the original purpose, placing a nuclear ** in space can be destabilizing. While there is no universally accepted definition of strategic stability, scholars often define it as a combination of crisis stability and arms race stability based on the risk of nuclear escalation during a military crisis, i.e., actions and reactions in which states can avoid a costly and dangerous arms race.
Space-based nuclear increases the risk of a country using nuclear ** during a crisis. Both pointing at Earth and aiming at space targets will motivate people to preemptively use nuclear.
The threat of either strike creates or uses or loses pressure, incentivizing a preemptive nuclear strike to limit the damage that an adversary can inflict. In turn, a preemptive nuclear attack could provoke further escalation that would eventually end in a full-scale nuclear war.
Placing nuclear weapons in space could trigger a new arms race. Because one of the purposes of space ** is to destroy the opponent's space**, the United States may respond to Russia with its own **. Then Russia may strike back with a new ** in order to maintain its superiority. Other countries, such as China, may react to the United States, which may provoke a reaction from India, and then from Pakistan.
Even if the first mover is placed defensively in space, there is escalating pressure and the threat of an arms race. The introduction of space could create what international relations scholars call a security dilemma: intensifying actions that make one but another insecure.
Defensive and offensive are often indistinguishable. It can be strengthened by hedging space-based missile defense, and it can also be used to attack nuclear command, control and communications systems. Even if the leader of one country thinks that another country is acting defensively today, there is no way of knowing that they will not take offensive action tomorrow.