|
 |
Washington says weapons are already operating in orbit.
And while this may not technically violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, I think this announcement could have consequences far beyond whatever weapons the United States currently has circling above us.
Because now that America has publicly admitted it has weapons in space, what stops Russia, China, or other countries from doing the same?
Or perhaps the better question is:
How many countries already have weapons in space and simply haven’t admitted it yet?
The United States military has now publicly confirmed something governments have generally preferred to keep much more ambiguous.
America has weapons operating in orbit.
U.S. Air Force Secretary Troy Meink confirmed that the United States possesses what he called “on-orbit space control weapons” capable of defending American forces against hostile action.
The head of U.S. Space Force operations has also confirmed that American personnel are operating weapons in orbit.
But the Pentagon isn’t telling us exactly what these weapons are.
We don’t know how many there are.
We don’t know exactly when they were launched.
And most importantly, we don’t know exactly what they’re capable of doing.
And to me, that’s one of the biggest parts of this story.
Because the question is no longer whether America has weapons in space.
They’ve admitted that.
The question now is what these weapons actually do — and who else already has similar systems above our heads.
First, let’s be clear about what the term “space weapon” actually means.
We’re not necessarily talking about nuclear bombs floating around the Earth waiting to fall on cities.
A modern space weapon could look completely different.
It could be a satellite capable of jamming another country’s military communications.
It could interfere with GPS.
It could use electronic warfare.
It could potentially blind the cameras or sensors on another satellite.
It could maneuver next to another country’s satellite.
It could potentially have robotic systems capable of grabbing or moving another spacecraft.
And at the extreme end, it could potentially damage or destroy another satellite.
The Pentagon isn’t telling us which of these capabilities its newly acknowledged weapons have.
Now, one of the first questions people are going to ask is:
Is this legal?
Because most of us have heard that weapons aren’t supposed to be allowed in space.
But that’s not exactly what international law says.
The main agreement governing this is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
That treaty specifically prohibits countries from putting nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction into orbit.
But here is the important part.
It does not create the same blanket prohibition against conventional weapons orbiting the Earth.
That is a huge legal distinction.
If America put nuclear weapons into orbit, there would be a very serious treaty issue.
But if these are conventional systems designed to jam, disable, interfere with or potentially attack another satellite, simply placing them in orbit does not automatically mean the United States has violated the Outer Space Treaty.
Using them is another question entirely.
International law still applies in space.
So if the United States used one of these weapons to attack another country’s satellite, the legality would depend on the circumstances, including whether there was an armed conflict, whether it was an act of self-defense, and how international laws governing the use of force applied.
But I think focusing only on whether America technically violated a treaty misses the bigger story.
Because America is not operating in an empty space.
Russia, China, the United States and other countries have been developing counter-space capabilities for years.
Russia has a long history with this.
The Soviet Union developed and tested co-orbital anti-satellite systems during the Cold War.
More recently, Russian satellites have conducted complicated maneuvers around other objects in orbit.
Russia has also demonstrated that it can physically destroy a satellite from Earth.
In 2021, Russia used an anti-satellite missile to destroy one of its own old satellites in orbit.
China also has increasingly sophisticated capabilities.
Chinese satellites have demonstrated rendezvous and proximity operations — basically the ability for one spacecraft to approach and maneuver very close to another spacecraft.
China has also demonstrated robotic technology capable of moving a satellite from one orbit to another.
Now, that does not automatically mean those spacecraft are weapons.
And this is where things become extremely complicated.
Many of these technologies are dual-use.
A satellite that can approach another satellite could inspect it.
It could repair it.
It could potentially refuel it.
It could move it out of a dangerous orbit.
But that same technology could potentially be used to interfere with an enemy satellite or disable it.
So when somebody asks me:
Do Russia and China already have weapons in orbit?
The truthful answer is:
We don’t publicly know for certain.
But we do know they possess, or are developing, many of the technologies that could provide those capabilities.
And I think it would be extremely naive to believe that the United States is necessarily the only country with military systems in orbit simply because Washington is now the country publicly admitting it.
There is a major difference between not having a capability and simply not admitting you have it.
For years, governments have benefited from keeping these things ambiguous.
Everybody knew that space was becoming part of the modern battlefield.
Everybody knew satellites could be jammed.
Everybody knew satellites could potentially be destroyed.
Everybody knew spacecraft could maneuver around one another.
But governments generally avoided coming out and openly saying:
We have operational weapons orbiting the Earth.
Now America has said it.
And I think that matters.
Because once one major military power openly acknowledges something like this, it becomes easier for the next country to do the same thing.
Maybe Russia eventually says:
Yes, we have weapons in orbit too.
Maybe China does.
Maybe other countries follow.
And they may not even need to develop entirely new systems.
Some of those capabilities may already exist.
What could change is simply whether governments are willing to publicly admit what they have.
And this is how an arms race can accelerate.
America says:
We need these weapons because Russia and China are developing threats against our satellites.
Russia and China can then turn around and say:
America openly has weapons in space, therefore we need our own systems to defend ourselves against America.
America looks at what they’re developing and says:
Now we need even more.
And the cycle continues.
We have watched this happen with weapons on land.
We’ve watched it happen at sea.
We’ve watched it happen in the air.
And now we could be watching the same process move openly into space.
Russia has already been pushing for international restrictions on weapons in space.
China has also warned about an arms race.
Of course, Washington’s position is that the United States needs these capabilities because its satellites and military forces face threats from countries including Russia and China.
So every side can point toward the other side as justification for developing more.
And that is the dangerous part.
Because wars in space would not necessarily stay in space.
Think about how much of modern life depends on satellites.
Navigation.
Communications.
Banking.
Internet infrastructure.
Weather forecasting.
Emergency services.
Global transportation.
Agriculture.
Military communications.
Intelligence.
Missile-warning systems.
And of course GPS.
If countries begin attacking each other’s satellites during a major conflict, the effects could eventually reach almost everyone.
There is also another huge problem.
Debris.
Destroy a satellite traveling thousands of kilometers per hour and you don’t just eliminate that satellite.
You can create thousands of pieces of debris flying around the Earth at enormous speeds.
Those pieces can then threaten completely unrelated satellites.
Past anti-satellite tests conducted by countries including the United States, Russia, China and India have already created thousands of pieces of orbital debris.
Imagine what an actual large-scale conflict in space could create.
And this is why I think the American announcement is much bigger than simply another Pentagon press release.
A line has now been crossed publicly.
The United States has openly said that it has weapons operating in orbit.
Based on what we currently know, that does not automatically mean America has broken international law.
The Outer Space Treaty was written almost sixty years ago.
It clearly prohibited nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit.
But it never created the same clear prohibition covering every type of conventional weapon technology that could eventually be invented.
Technology has moved forward much faster than the law.
And now we’re reaching a point where countries are going to have to answer some very difficult questions.
What exactly is a weapon in space?
When does a satellite become a weapon?
Is a spacecraft with robotic arms a repair vehicle or an anti-satellite weapon?
Is an electronic warfare satellite a weapon?
What constitutes an attack in space?
And what gives another country the legal right to respond?
I’ve spent years reporting from conflicts where technology has completely changed the battlefield.
We’ve watched relatively cheap drones transform modern warfare.
We’ve watched electronic warfare become an everyday part of fighting.
We’ve watched satellite communications and satellite intelligence become absolutely essential to military operations on the ground.
Space was already part of modern warfare.
That’s not new.
What’s different now is that one of the world’s largest military powers has publicly acknowledged that weapons themselves are already operating up there.
And I don’t think the most important question is simply:
What did America put into orbit?
I think the bigger question is:
What is already orbiting above us that other governments haven’t told us about?
And after America’s admission, what are Russia, China and other countries going to put there — or admit they already have — next?
That could be the real beginning of the next arms race.
And this time, it is happening above all of us.
Support my independent reporting.
My work is funded directly by viewers and readers, allowing me to continue reporting independently and go directly to where the stories are happening.
Patrick Lancaster’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten