Opinion: Russian Weapon Could Eliminate US Space Superiority

This opinion piece explores the potential threat of a new Russian weapon that could undermine US dominance in space. It discusses the strategic implications and the future of space superiority as global powers compete for control and technological advantage.

Editor’s note: Clayton Swope serves as the deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and a senior fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, DC. He has also worked as a congressional staffer and at the CIA. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. Read more opinion at CNN.

CNN - Earlier this month, senior US officials publicly expressed their alarming concern that a Russian anti-satellite weapon could render parts of space critical to American economic and national security unusable for up to a year.

As the United States collaborates with international partners to prevent Russia from developing this weapon, it must acknowledge an inconvenient truth: an adversary could deploy a weapon that leaves the US military without access to some or all of its space capabilities. Such a loss would be devastating for US national security and, more broadly, our livelihoods.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, an Ohio Republican, alluded to this new national security threat in February. The White House later confirmed it, noting that while such a weapon hadn't been deployed and did not pose an immediate threat, the potential danger remains significant.

The success of US military operations relies on the availability of space, with satellites carrying out essential functions such as navigation, missile warning, and communications. Some of these functions are classified as "no fail" missions, underscoring their critical importance.

The disruption of satellites would lead to unimaginable interruptions in our daily lives. For example, in 2018, the NanoRacks-Remove Debris satellite was deployed from the International Space Station.

The last time the military had to operate without satellite communications was during the Korean War. The first military communications satellites were launched in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, and GPS was initiated in the 1970s.

A disruption to GPS satellites would force a platoon of Marines to navigate using a compass and map, just as their great-grandfathers did on Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima in World War II. Additionally, without satellites, the United States would struggle to detect the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles or nuclear detonations.

The interruption to our daily lives would be equally unimaginable, impacting our ability to communicate and navigate. GPS, which provides positioning and location information to numerous apps on our phones, is also the gold standard for timekeeping. Power utilities, communications networks, and financial institutions all rely on the precision timing derived from GPS.

Additionally, commercial air travel is increasingly dependent on GPS. In late April, the international airline Finnair suspended flights to Tartu, Estonia’s second-largest city, for a month due to GPS interference suspected to originate from Russia. Furthermore, internet access and connectivity for remote communities, airplanes, ships at sea, and first responders all depend on satellites.

Before revelations about Russia’s development of a nuclear anti-satellite weapon, there were indications of global recognition that using certain space weapons was detrimental to everyone. No nation has conducted a destructive anti-satellite test for almost three years.

In December 2022, with 155 nations voting in favor, the United Nations adopted a US-led resolution supporting a testing moratorium on destructive anti-satellite weapons. However, these are peacetime trends related to weapons testing. During wartime, China or Russia may choose to use a weapon that risks sabotaging their own space access to deny the United States its space-enabled advantages.

Russia’s veto and China’s abstention on a US and Japanese-sponsored UN resolution in April banning nuclear weapons in space suggest that both nations may be considering such capabilities.

This stance is puzzling since nuclear weapons in space are already forbidden by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, signed by over 130 countries, including Russia and China.

Moscow defended its veto, with Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, calling the UN draft a “dirty spectacle” and a “cynical ploy.” Russia and China had proposed an unsuccessful amendment that would have called on all countries to prevent all weapons in outer space.

To address this risk, the US military and policymakers need to reconsider baseline assumptions about the availability of space and prepare for worst-case scenarios. They should identify which critical missions can only, or best, be conducted in space, and allocate resources to protect and enhance the resilience of these highest-criticality, space-exclusive functions.

The proposed defense budget for 2025 does not adequately address the urgency of countering space threats and protecting space systems. It's crucial to learn how to operate satellites in environments filled with debris or increased radiation caused by space weapons.

For space missions that could be conducted differently, it's time to learn or relearn backup methods and integrate them into military operations. A government watchdog found that efforts to find alternatives to GPS could be improved.

Military planners should identify capabilities that can only be performed by satellites and consider how to fight without those capabilities or with them severely degraded. Planning for these scenarios now, rather than during a conflict, is essential. Demonstrating the ability to operate without space-based capabilities could deter adversaries from disrupting space, as they might conclude it's not worth the effort if the United States can maintain its military effectiveness without them.

According to the protagonist in Frank Herbert’s science fiction novel "Dune," "The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it." At least three nations have this power over space—one being the United States, and the other two not being our allies.

Too much is at stake to assume that China or Russia, when faced with the possibility of victory or defeat, would not risk their own access to space to cripple many of our most critical national security and defense capabilities, rendering us vulnerable in an armed conflict.

We need a two-pronged effort to prepare for the worst: double down on efforts to protect and maintain access to space in a hostile environment and develop strategies to operate without space.

Source: CNN