By Shawn Rostker
News of a threatening new adversarial space weapon isn’t something you hear about often, but we heard quite a bit on this front last week. Last Wednesday, Congressman Mike Turner (R-OH), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, made an alarming and discomforting disclosure when he made cryptic remarks about an imminent national security threat, alluding to a new military capability by a foreign adversary. Leaks and speculation soon surmised that the foreign adversary in question was Russia, and that the threatening new capability was a space-based nuclear weapon system. While there appears to be credence to the reporting that Russia is indeed seeking to test and eventually deploy some sort of nuclear-capable counterspace capability, the more concerning issue is the irresponsible disclosure of sensitive national security information by a sitting Member of Congress. Such haphazard use of intelligence for political aims undermines U.S. national security far more than long-standing Russian military plans and may have obstructed quiet efforts to persuade Russia to abandon the program.
To be clear, Russia’s interest in nuclear-capable space systems is nothing new. The U.S. intelligence community has known of Russian plans for such platforms for years. Russian military doctrine views space as a warfighting domain and the country has been developing a suite of counterspace capabilities as a means to erode U.S. space superiority. This latest revelation, therefore, should not be seen as a blindsiding escalation, but understood as an anticipated development occurring within the broader context of heightening military competition in space between great powers. This is not to downplay the seriousness of a Russian counterspace system with nuclear capabilities. Such a system, whether nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered, would return us to a dangerous Cold War-era dynamic while also setting a perilous precedent for the accepted norms and behaviors in the final frontier.
However, nothing about this episode represents an imminent or existential threat to the United States. Contrary to early reporting, the system in question has not been deployed and is not operational. At this time, it’s also unclear what the precise nature of the nuclear aspect of the system is, whether it is a nuclear-powered anti-satellite weapon with non-kinetic means of disabling space systems, a nuclear weapon mounted on an orbiting asset designed to disable large constellations of satellite systems with the electromagnetic pulse produced by the weapon’s detonation, or a direct-ascent kill vehicle that would essentially shoot a nuclear warhead into space to destroy a specific military target.
Without more details, we’re left to speculate, but it’s important to understand that if Russia does intend to place a nuclear weapon into orbit it would be unlikely to be designed to fall back to earth and strike a terrestrial target. Such blunt methods would bestow no added military benefit. Rather, a loitering space-based nuclear weapon could be used as a tool of coercion to threaten significant societal costs without directly risking human lives. A nuclear weapon detonated in earth’s orbit would destroy not just military satellites, but those critical to civilian and commercial services as well, and the consequences would be felt globally.
Given the importance of satellite systems to modern life, conflicts of the future will include the space domain, so planning for such potential conflicts will involve probing for new limits on military presence. Although there is no immediate threat posed to people’s lives or livelihoods at this time, including by whatever new weapon system the Russians are working on, attacks on satellites will have far-reaching consequences and need to be discouraged.
As has been made clear in the days since Rep. Turner’s irresponsible leak, Russia’s plans for this new weapon were well known to the U.S. government, and the Biden administration was actively engaging Moscow behind the scenes in an effort to convince the regime to forgo testing of the system. The public disclosure of this program by Rep. Turner scuttled those efforts and provided Russia a reason to shut the door on diplomacy. Moreover, the revelation likely placed sensitive intelligence sources and methods at risk. Given current relations between the United States and Russia and the general lack of transparency, placing such invaluable sources of high-value intelligence at risk only serves to harm U.S. security in the long term. None of this is conducive to a stable relationship with Russia despite their recalcitrance. Episodes such as this can only damage bilateral relations and close whatever limited space may currently exist to explore cooperation on arms control and non-proliferation matters.
The national security of the United States requires better judgment on the part of our elected officials. Short of that, the next time alarmist headlines stir fear of frightening new space weapons, it would be in everyone’s best interest to simply keep calm and orbit on.
