Viewpoint: A Russian Arsenal May Eliminate America's Space Superiority
As the US collaborates with international allies to impede Russia's development of a potential space weapon, it is crucial to acknowledge a difficult reality: an enemy could disable US space capabilities, leaving the military without access to some or possibly all of its space resources. Such a loss would be detrimental to both US national security and our overall well-being.
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Turner, a Republican from Ohio, hinted at this new national security threat in February. The White House subsequently verified this, stating that no such weapon has been deployed yet and that it doesn't currently pose an immediate threat.
The success of US military operations depends heavily on access to space. Satellites perform essential functions, like navigation, missile alerts, and communication. Certain of these functions are considered "no fail" missions.
In the past, the military has had to operate without satellite communication, notably in the Korean War. It launched its first communications satellites in the 60s during the Vietnam era, and GPS was introduced in the 70s.
If there were a disruption to GPS satellites, a platoon of Marines would need to navigate by a compass and map, like their great-grandfathers did in Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima during World War II. The US would struggle to detect the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles or nuclear explosions without satellites.
This disruption would significantly impact our daily lives as well. GPS provides location and positioning information for various phone apps, and it serves as the standard for time. Major sectors such as power grids, communication networks, and financial institutions all rely on GPS for exact timing.
Commercial air travel is also becoming increasingly reliant on GPS. In late April, Finnair, Estonia's second-largest airline, temporarily suspended flights to Tartu due to speculated GPS interference from Russia. Internet access for remote communities, airplanes, ships, and first responders also rely on satellites.
Before the recent news about Russia's development of a nuclear anti-satellite weapon, there were signs of global understanding that using space weapons wasn't beneficial for anyone. For the past three years, no nation had conducted a destructive anti-satellite test.
In December 2022, the United Nations, with 155 countries in support, passed a US-led resolution advocating for a testing moratorium on destructive anti-satellite weapons. This was a peaceful trend related to weapon testing. However, during times of conflict, China or Russia could use a weapon that could hinder their own access to space to deny the US its space-enhanced advantages.
Both Russia and China's opposition to a US and Japan-sponsored UN resolution in April banning nuclear weapons in space suggests that both nations might be considering such a capability.
Their decision to veto this resolution is surprising, as nuclear weapons in space are already prohibited by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which over 130 countries have signed, including Russia and China.
Moscow defended its veto, with Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, calling it a “dirty spectacle” and a “cynical ploy.” Russia and China had previously suggested an unsuccessful amendment urging all countries to discontinue developing weapons in outer space.
To mitigate this risk, the US military and decision-makers need to reconsider long-standing notions of the dependability of space and contemplate the most disastrous possibilities. They should identify which crucial tasks can only be performed by space-based resources, allotting resources to protect and enhance the highest criticality, space-only functions.
The proposed defense budget for 2025 doesn't reflect the scale and necessity of combating space threats or safeguarding space systems. Acquiring the skills to operate satellites in an environment filled with debris or enhanced radiation caused by a space weapon is equally important.
For those space missions that could be completed differently, it's time to relearn or learn backup methods and include these alternatives in military operations. A government audit found that endeavors to find alternatives for GPS could be enhanced.
If military strategists determine that specific capabilities can only be executed through satellites, leaders must consider how to accomplish the mission without those capabilities or with them significantly compromised. It would be preferable to consider these scenarios now, rather than during a war. Additionally, demonstrating that we can carry out operations without space could deter actions to disrupt space, as adversaries might see it's not worth the trouble since the US can still maintain its military effectiveness without it.
American science fiction author Frank Herbert once said, "The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it." Tremendous stakes require us to assume that China and Russia—two hostile nations—might not hesitate to disable some of our most critical national security and defense capabilities if they believe it could contribute to their victory.
A dual approach is necessary to get ready for the worst-case scenario: Increase our efforts to secure and maintain access to space in a threatening space setting and ponder how to function without the use of space.
Read also:
- This will change in December
- Dikes withstand water masses so far - Scholz holds out the prospect of help
- Fireworks and parties ring in 2024 - turn of the year overshadowed by conflicts
- Attacks on ships in the Red Sea: shipping companies avoid important trade route
Given the current situation regarding Russia's development of a potential space weapon, it's essential to seek diverse perspectives on this issue. Different stakeholders, including experts and the general public, have various opinions on how to handle this threat.
Moreover, the impact of this perceived threat on international relations and global security dialogue is a matter of ongoing debate among international policy analysts.
Source: edition.cnn.com
