Intensified global competition fuels escalation of space capabilities and weapons

The global race to develop space capabilities and weapons is escalating, with countries not only focusing on exploration and technology advancements, but also building forces and weapons for space warfare. Admiral Christopher Grady, vice-chairman of America’s joint chiefs of staff, bluntly states that ‘Space has emerged as our most essential warfighting domain.’

Of particular interest are the recently launched robotic space planes, smaller versions of the space shuttle. On 28 December, America’s X37-B was launched from Cape Canaveral, and China’s Shenlong, or Divine Dragon, was launched two weeks earlier. These missions remain highly secretive, but their potential as important weapons is highlighted by their capabilities to undertake long-duration missions, deliver and retrieve payloads, change orbit, and refuel. Russia’s launch of Cosmos 2570 in October, which deployed a second satellite that subsequently released a third, raises concerns among American commanders who see it as a potential test of a “kill vehicle” designed to destroy satellites.

A preview of space hostilities was witnessed on 14 November 2021, when a missile fired from Russia’s Plesetsk cosmodrome was detected, targeting a defunct Soviet spy satellite. The incident caused approximately 1,800 pieces of debris, compelling astronauts in the International Space Station to seek shelter. Earth-based anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles, directed energy weapons such as lasers and high-power microwaves, and radio-frequency jammers pose further threats in space. The close proximity of satellites through ‘rendezvous and proximity operation’ satellites leads to increased concerns, while the possibility of a nuclear blast in space is also alarming. The US claims that its satellites are regularly dazzled, jammed, and remotely probed.

While the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits territorial claims on celestial bodies and the stationing of nuclear weapons in space, it remains silent on conventional weapons. This lack of regulation has not deterred the ambitions of countries such as America and China, which seek to establish bases on the Moon. The destruction of satellites results in debris that poses long-term risks and could trigger a chain reaction known as the “Kessler syndrome,” rendering certain orbits unusable.

Different orbital regions play a vital role in space warfare. Low-Earth orbit (LEO), below 2,000km, is where most functioning satellites operate, necessitating large constellations for continuous coverage. Geostationary orbit (GEO), approximately 36,000km away, is heavily congested, serving broadcasting, missile-warning systems, and more. Medium-Earth orbit (MEO) is used for GPS, while highly elliptical orbits (HEO) support the poles. Stable positions with minimal fuel can be achieved at the Lagrange points in ‘cis-lunar’ space.

Deterrence becomes crucial in the contest for space dominance, with efforts focused on reducing the benefits of an attack through greater resilience. Shifting from a few large satellites in GEO to numerous smaller satellites in LEO, similar to the Starlink project, aims to minimize the impact of losing or jamming individual satellites. The contest in space is novel and ambiguous, with uncertainty surrounding the existence of space weapons. The lack of defined rules and arms control makes the situation more complex, and “grey-zone” attacks, falling short of full-scale war, may become tempting. Disabling satellites, like cyberattacks, can have significant repercussions without directly causing human casualties.

Source: The Economist