“All I could see was…burning in the skies. Millions of people and billions of dollars’ worth of hardware destroyed in orbit and on the ground.” -ADM Higgins, EX SUPRA
When I wrote the EX SUPRA chapter “Burning in the Skies” about a nuclear event that devastates US military and commercial satellite constellations just before the outbreak of World War III, I considered the possibility of a *purposeful* nuclear anti-satellite (ASAT) program by Russia or China to be a low possibility. But I did consider it a worthy, if terrifying, concept to consider for space operations. This week, it was revealed (via the circus) that the Russians are working on either a nuclear-powered or nuclear-tipped orbital weapons system designed to disrupt/degrade/destroy our satellite constellations. As of writing this, the WH and rest of the interagency (and their leakers) can’t seem to get their verbiage straight on what they think this weapon may be. Some description, including by the WH press office, have called it a violation of the Outer Space Treaty (which only covers WMD in orbit, see below for more) which would mean it would have to be a nuclear weapon, not a nuclear-powered energy weapon. Others have provided different descriptions but nearly all sources describe the threat as grave, in development, and not yet operational/in orbit. Of course, I’d rather us figure this out now and have this debate before the Russians put a nuclear warhead in orbit. And even if it’s just nuclear-powered, that provides its own collateral damage issues (what goes up must come back down) and prompts a real, frank conversation and public debate over orbital warfare. Lemme break it down.
We are at the dawn of a new space race and arms race all in one and that requires a greater degree of public debate, discourse, and training for senior leaders and commanders. The Schrodinger’s Space Nuke is only the latest revelation in a series of increasingly complex and potentially destructive weapons programs designed for the heavens above. We’ve been working on orbital and ground-based ASAT weapons for a while. And we’ve known about the impact of nuclear weapons in orbit since Starfish Prime in the 1960s. We also signed the Outer Space Treaty that principally governs the militarization of space, celestial bodies, and weapons of mass destruction in orbit. And while we signed that treaty, we did look for ways to fight the orbital war conventionally. Captured best in the weapons air-launched weapons test pictured below.
In fact, there are already a plethora of systems by which to temporarily and permanently degrade/disable/destroy orbital systems from space and ground-based jammers to on-orbit kinetic strike systems. But, at a time when satellite constellations are proliferating in number and shrinking in size (we can launch satellites the size of your torso in great quantities), the challenge of killing those systems becomes ever more complex as we reduce the number of single-point failures by growing the sheer volume of objects in orbit. Going forward you have a number of options to meet that volume challenge. As of right now, they still require some engineering but all center around some sort of directed energy (microwave or laser) or kinetic strike with smaller satellites. In December 2022, I wrote my treatise about the future of attrition warfare in space operations, or as I call it: collision warfare. I recommend reading this if you’re not caught up on orbital warfare and want to know the basics.
For an EXSUM, collision warfare refers to the mass industrialization of orbital warfare at a stage of conflict after first strike, when both sides are vying to control orbit and throwing whatever they can up there, as fast as they can, to gain the advantage. This incentivizes cheap, expendable reconnaissance, communications, and strike systems over exquisite, larger satellites. This is the orbital reflection of attrition on the ground, when maneuver grinds to a halt and great volumes of cheaper munitions dominate the playing field until one side reaches exhaustion.
Anyway, why would the Russians want to put a nuke in orbit? Well, because a nuclear blast is a pretty effective (if catastrophic) method by which to level the playing field during a great power war. This is particularly true if, after wrecking your modernized military in a war that has turned to a bloody standstill, you needed to find a way to reduce the technological disparity between you and your main rival (NATO). If you’re the Russians, one of the lessons you have pulled from Ukraine is that your strategic depth can exceed Western capability if 1) the West is politically divided and 2) their technological advantage is dramatically reduced by blinding them in orbit. I need not explain point 1 because *gestures at 2024* but point 2 isn’t new either. The PLA talks about this a lot, like they are building their space capabilities around this idea for a war over Taiwan with the US. Back to Russia, if your war machine can’t keep up with technology, then you lean back on old reliable: your nuclear arsenal and your ability to suffer pain worse than the West (or so the thinking goes).
When we conducted Starfish Prime back in 1962, only a few satellites were in orbit for us to accidentally fry. There are now thousands and growing by the hundreds every year as low-earth orbit constellations like Starlink and its competitors expand their operations. Simply put, there would be a lot of collateral damage from a nuclear detonation(s) in orbit. And that’s before we get into Kessler Syndrome. Kessler Syndrome is the hypothesized catastrophic scenario where whole swaths of orbit are rendered useless by a series of cascading collisions of space debris that make even more space debris lethal to other satellites. A nuke or series of nukes is a really bad, dumb idea. It is an act of desperation, much like most Russian policy, not the strategy of a great power in the 21st century.
So how would it work? Well, Russia has two options: launch one when crisis hits from the ground, or pre-position their nukes in space during peacetime without warning like an orbital version of the doomsday weapon in Dr. Strangelove. Either as a means of escalation or first-strike, the Russians would detonate some or all of their nukes in orbit to wipe out our satellite constellations, likely timed with ground offensives or other strikes. For a whole bunch of reasons, this would be obviously bad. But before detonation, let’s say we are not at war and we know where those nukes are floating. Could we knock them out preemptively? Well, here’s the thing: we, the Russians, and the Chinese all consider attacks on nuclear weapons (even by conventional weapons) to be worthy of nuclear retaliation. So, that’s an issue that is not easily solved. Moreover, what happens if we miss and they see that we missed? That’s the ballgame. This sounds like a pretty good deal for Russia right? Well…those detonations would undoubtedly bring about a whole mess of collateral damage that would undoubtedly hurt not just some of their assets, but a lot of Chinese assets too. So unless Beijing is willing to write off decades of space progress as a loss for Russian shenanigans, they won’t be too happy. There’s a reason why Beijing has pursued conventional systems and not this option for space operations. They want to win and still enjoy the victory.
So, what’s stopping the Russians from putting nukes up there already? Well, the lift part was solved 60 years ago. We all know how to put something heavy into orbit. If there are engineering challenges it’s likely because 1) people think this is insane and want to slow-roll it, 2) the Russians are trying to maximize warhead effectiveness for space which might take some tinkering, 3) they want to ensure proper command, control, and containment of the warhead(s). There’s also, see reason 1, likely some big policy disputes in Moscow as to whether this is the correct route to take, this is a bit of a Pandora’s box moment. Once we find out you have a nuke up there, that is a dramatic shift in strategic dynamics that makes everyone really nervous. Again, I cannot emphasize how very stupid putting nukes in orbit would be (but also Russia has a lot of Bond villain schemes involving nukes and the Kremlin is increasingly isolated and paranoid out of its own stupidity.)
In the end, what does this all mean? Well, nuclear weapon or a nuclear-powered microwave device, this is all a recipe for a very bad and dangerous new era in space that was already getting rough with conventional systems. This is a very serious policy issue, and deserves an honest public discussion between the US government, its allies, and the general public. Additionally, there needs to be a public education campaign surrounding space policy just as we’ve spent the last two decades trying to get people up to speed on cyber. I have an immense concern that senior leaders and commanders, as well as most staff, do not have a firm grasp on even the basics of space policy, warfare, and its implications. We have to do better. We are today where we were with cyber policy in the 90s. In other words, we don’t know jack shit and that ignorance and lack of communication is only doing harm to us. Personally, I’d rather we talk today about the impact space warfare can have on the entire population from emergency services to GPS to military operations, than wait until we hear the proverbial Sputnik beep of a megaton device watching over us from the heavens above.
If you would like to read more about the future of US-China conflict, the invasion of Taiwan, and what the future of orbital warfare looks like, check out my book, EX SUPRA. It was nominated last year for a Prometheus Award for best science fiction novel! And if you have any suggestions for topics for future newsletters, please send them my way on Twitter @Iron_Man_Actual.