The world is on cusp of a nuclear arms space race - but it is not a cause for panic
How big a threat are space-based nuclear weapons?
Thursday 15 February 2024 16:46, UK
The US military routinely provides security briefs to senior US political leaders, which include land, maritime, air and space threats.
Notwithstanding the sensitive nature of such briefs, reports suggest that the latest briefing included a report that Russia was aiming to launch space-based nuclear weapons to target US satellites, sparking US security concerns.
US officials stated that the Russians had yet to develop an operational capability, but the head of the US House Intelligence Committee called for a rapid declassification of the associated intelligence to enable a better understanding of this "serious national security threat".
US satellites provide a broad spectrum of military capabilities including communications, navigation and intelligence, and there have long been concerns that the satellite constellation is vulnerable and thus needs protecting.
There have also been concerns that Russia might be prepared to abandon the Outer Space Treaty that was signed in 1967 that bans all orbital nuclear weapons. Plus, there are enduring concerns about the increasing militarisation of space.
Satellites provide a very broad array of capabilities to both military and civilian consumers, so protecting the growing constellations has been a focus for political leaders for decades.
In 1983, the Strategic Defence Initiative - nicknamed Star Wars - looked at the potential for US space-based lasers to target enemy satellites.
Since that time, all space-based military capability has been very highly classified, and it is extremely unlikely that Western space-based military capability would be shared publicly.
If a nation wanted to deprive an adversary of satellite capability, it could either develop precision strike capability - such as lasers - or an "Armageddon" option.
Read more: Russia has signalled that the space arms race is on - with enormous risks
The problem with the latter is that it is indiscriminate, and would deny everyone access to satellite capability.
Indeed, the last time nuclear weapons were tested in space in 1962 - Operation Starfish Prime - the US detonated a series of weapons which led to the accidental destruction of several US and UK satellites. A significant proportion of those were in orbit at the time.
A much safer way to deny access to low-earth orbit satellites would be to explode a quantity of sand into orbit - the sand particles, travelling at thousands of miles per hour, would wreak havoc.
And it would be much safer to launch than a nuclear weapon.
In short, despite the headlines, it is not clear why Russia would need a nuclear weapon to target US satellites.
So why has this story captured the headlines?
The US presidential campaign is generating debate about national spending priorities, such as whether to support Ukraine or a USA-first focus.
There are also numerous US political voices calling for a more robust response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with suggestions that more needs to be done to tackle the emerging Russian threat.
The US will not wish to expose the full spectrum of its more sensitive military capabilities, but by talking up a threat it inevitably raises the prospect of attracting more funding for specific projects.
Read more:
'Kiss my ass': Taylor Greene has no respect for Cameron
SpaceX rocket launches for moon's mysterious south pole
NATO and Joe Biden criticise Donald Trump
Besides, the US led the Space Race in the 1960s, but since 1967 it does not appear to have been a priority.
Over the past 20 years, several other countries - including China and India - have successfully launched missions to the moon, and the US is likely seeking to refocus policymakers on the importance of space, both commercially and militarily.
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
In short, we do not appear to be on the cusp of a nuclear arms race in space.
Indeed, even senior US politicians have stated that despite Russia presenting a "significant" threat, this is "not a cause for panic".