Space has been called the final frontier and experts say governments are becoming more focused on strengthening defense and exploring the military potential of low Earth orbit.
Evan Ellis, an analyst and research professor for the U.S. Army War College, told The Epoch Times that expanding and protecting space infrastructure is becoming increasingly important from a national security perspective.
“It’s a recognition that space is important as a war-fighting domain, but also how you protect and use your assets in times of war,” Ellis said.
As a defense analyst, Ellis has participated in space war game scenarios. He says there are multiple kinds of weapons that can be used in Earth’s orbit. Some are kinetic such as missiles, but non-kinetic weapons such as electromagnetic pulses, micro-waves, and lasers are also possible.
He noted some are more practical in a space-to-space or space-to-Earth combat scenario than others. For example, lasers are less practical to have in a space-based platform since they would have energy supply and stability problems.
“If you want to penetrate someone’s [ground] bunker, then it makes more sense to use kinetic weapons than a laser from space,” Ellis said.
He said that targeting ground objects from space isn’t impossible, but it’s not a likely scenario. Instead, Ellis said it would be more pragmatic to hit other celestial targets.
“It makes sense to have things in space that can take out other things in space.”
National security lawyer and Scarab Rising president, Irina Tsukerman, said weapons don’t need to be put into space to be a threat to orbiting objects.
“Countries like China and Russia have developed various ASAT [anti-satellite weapon] capabilities, including kinetic kill vehicles and electronic warfare systems, aimed at disabling or destroying U.S. satellites,” Tsukerman told The Epoch Times via text.
Earth-based weapons with the ability to cripple or destroy satellites have existed for years. Yet with more countries investing in counter-space assets, worry over the possible use of ASATs as a wartime weapon is growing.
“As countries’ reliance on space increases, the ability to hold other countries’ satellites at risk is a significant and concerning capability.”
Investment in space from a national security perspective also grew this year.
There’s widespread concern over the weaponization of space, especially given current geopolitical tensions between the United States, Russia, and China.
However, groups such as the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation say increased militarization efforts in this domain already pose risks to national security.
“Converging trends make the proliferation of space systems likely. The miniaturization of satellites combined with falling launch costs and the commercialization of the space industry means that more players are entering the space game—not all of whom will use space for peaceful purposes,” the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation stated in a 2023 fact sheet.
The organization added that due to a lack of clear regulations and ambitious government regimes, militaries are already pushing the boundaries of acceptable space behavior.
“This could mean greater chances of conflict in the future as outer space is increasingly congested with dangerous capabilities,” the group said.
Space-Based Threats
In April, U.S. Representative to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield expressed concern over Russia blocking a “straightforward resolution” that would legally forbid the nation to launch WMDs into orbit.“Of course, this is not the first time Russia has undermined the global nonproliferation regime. Over the past few years, Russia has irresponsibly invoked dangerous nuclear rhetoric and walked away from several of its arms control obligations. It has remained unwilling to engage in substantive discussions around arms control or risk reduction. And it has defended and even enabled dangerous proliferators,” Thomas-Greenfield said.
“Russia launched a satellite into low Earth orbit that we assess is likely a counter-space weapon presumably capable of attacking other satellites in low Earth orbit,” he said.
“Russia deployed this new counter-space weapon into the same orbit as a U.S. government satellite,” Ryder stated, adding that the United States has a “responsibility” to protect and defend the space domain.
The report noted that Beijing prioritizes “soft-kill counter-space capabilities” that can be used in the early stages of a conflict, thus lowering the risk of an escalation. A soft kill is often a preventative measure aimed to render an incoming threat, such as an anti-tank missile, ineffective or inaccurate.
“Our findings highlight how first-strike stability in space differs from robust to tenuous depending on means and targets, with soft-kill attacks being harder to deter,” the study authors said.
At the same time, poorly defined language in the existing Outer Space Treaty (OST) has the potential to be exploited and create near term threats, according to legal experts.
Tsukerman believes the existing OST isn’t enough to prevent an arms race in space.
“The OST needs to be revised with an eye towards, at the very least, having sufficient defensive capabilities against rogue military threats,” she said.
Written at a time when the idea of countries fighting each other in space was mere science fiction, the OST contains language that Tsukerman says is open to interpretation.
“It should then delineate the specific types of military activity or dual action activity that would be prohibited, how it can be monitored and enforced effectively, and what happens if the international monitoring and enforcement mechanisms fail, as they have failed all too often,” she said.
Nick Storrs, partner at the international law firm Taylor Wessing, also views the current OST language as a problem.
“Even the current prohibitions on the use of space for major military activity may be inadequate for the modern day without clear and refreshed enforceable commitments,” he said.
But even with an updated treaty, Tsukerman believes it may be a wasted effort.
“I think prohibiting military space activity is futile because it puts law-abiding states at a disadvantage before powerful rogue regimes, which under various pretenses can ignore, misinterpret, or withdraw from this treaty and refuse to be bound by international law,” she said.
Meanwhile, Ellis says space already presents a security concern due to increasing reliance on equipment based in low Earth orbit.
“It’s an emerging warfare area, but we’re already there. Just about all the systems we have for communications and navigation are in space, even before you get into exotic weapons,” he said.
Nevertheless, space-based conflict is something the U.S. government has anticipated for decades.
Regarding counter-space initiatives, Ellis said, “Just about anything you can imagine can be explored.”
Tsukerman suggests that any government’s space initiatives will likely mirror its activities on the ground. In some cases, this is good news. But when it comes to malign actors or authoritarian regimes, Tsukerman said, expect the same behavior in space.
“Expecting anything different, such as resolution of disputes through legal action or political deliberations as opposed to military activity, is an exercise in futility. It’s only a matter of time before prohibitions are violated, starting with small encroachments that fall into gray areas,” she said.
