Should we fear a deployment of nuclear weapons in space?

 

In mid-February,  concerns were raised among American authorities about Russia's development of nuclear weapons designed to destroy satellites in space. Such an act, refuted by the Kremlin, would contradict international commitments made within the framework of the Outer Space Treaty signed in 1967. Since its inception, this treaty has prohibited any object carrying weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, in orbit. This new concern has just been addressed in a draft resolution reaffirming the provisions of the 1967 treaty before the United Nations Security Council. This project was jointly written by the United States and Japan and supported by 63 other nations.

The only country to have voted against the project and therefore vetoed it was Russia. China, for its part, abstained. The Middle Kingdom is also under scrutiny by the United States for its space program, which is deemed too secretive to be solely of a civilian nature. Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, considered this draft resolution as manipulation by its sponsors. In his remarks, he added that implying that Russia is not respecting the obligations of the initial treaty is "completely absurd." In reaction, the American ambassador was surprised by this veto, finding it confusing, even suspicious, that a country which would support the resolution did not wish to reaffirm it. However, Russia and China proposed an amendment to the resolution aimed at preventing the placement of weapons of all kinds in space. This request was rejected because this approach does not include anti-satellite missiles launched from the ground.

The American nuclear experience in space

What would nuclear weapons be used for in space? Essentially, they would be used to destroy satellites in practice. A thermonuclear explosion in space does not have the same characteristics as on Earth's atmosphere. It would have the ability to disable communication and observation satellites. The terrestrial consequences would be disastrous given the omnipresence of accessories and devices requiring satellite data.

Until now, the Americans are the only ones to have tested a nuclear bomb in space. The experiment was carried out in 1962 as part of the Starfish Prime project. The 1.4 megaton bomb was 500 times more powerful than the one used to destroy Hiroshima in 1945.

The explosion at an altitude of 400 kilometers had unexpected consequences with the loss of two satellites and numerous electrical failures on Earth due to the electromagnetic pulse generated. This experience made it clear that such use was not desirable when, at the time, unlike today, satellites were very few in number and their use restricted. If Russia or China developed such weapons, they could, in fact, destroy their own satellites in addition to constellations of satellites considered enemies. The consequences could also endanger the occupants of the ISS. While the militarization of space worries the international community, for the moment, these tensions seem to stem more from distrust than from real intentions to deploy this type of weapon.

Russian nuclear weapons in space: the new threat hovering over our heads?

According to American intelligence, Russia is developing a satellite equipped with nuclear weapons. Is this threat credible?

Goldeneye, a fearsome Soviet-era satellite, was hijacked to exploit its electromagnetic pulse weapon to cause an international financial crisis. This was fiction, and Agent James Bond, played by Pierce Brosnan, managed to neutralize this threat. Could reality once again exceed fiction, given the level of international tension between Russia and the West since the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022? In any case, this is what Republican Mike Turner, chairman of the Permanent Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, suggests. According to sources from American intelligence services, Russia is developing a nuclear weapon to destroy satellites in space. This would be a serious threat, but one for which there would be no urgency according to Reuters information from a source. According to the latter, the United States even expressed this concern to its European partners.

A nuclear weapon in orbit, really?

Nevertheless, the preparation of such a "nuclear" weapon would be surprising. Conventional weapons fired from the ground could be largely sufficient to neutralize enemy satellites. This is also what Russia did in November 2021 to destroy one of its old satellites. An operation which also endangered the International Space Station (ISS) due to a cloud of debris. Suffice to say that the collateral damage for its own satellites and those of its allies could be counterproductive for Russia.

It is more likely that electromagnetic weaponry, like the famous Goldeneye, would be much more effective. Unless Russia plans to deploy nuclear weapons aimed at land targets to strengthen its deterrence. This scenario remains questionable, since it would violate a space treaty dating from 1967 which prohibits any object carrying weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, into orbit. However, as we learned with the invasion of Ukraine, Russia can disregard international law in an attempt to achieve its goals. While waiting to learn more, the Kremlin claims that the allegations are nothing but tricks and lies on the part of the United States."