SPACE WEAPONS concepts include a variety of satellite killers-projectiles, microwave- and laser-beam weapons, and orbital mines-as well as arms launched from space at surface targets, such as
the heavy tungsten bunker busters nicknamed "rods from God."
Image: Illustration by Kenn Brown
In Brief
- Although the “high ground” of outer space seems to offer clear military advantages, nations have so far resisted placing weapons into Earth orbit. That strategic forbearance may be changing.
- The National Space Policy adopted by the U.S. in 2006 seemed to open the way to the further militarization of space. Soon afterward, China tested a ground-based antisatellite missile.
- But space weaponry could trigger a costly international arms race. Satellites and space weapons will remain vulnerable to attack no matter what defenses are mounted.
- And space warfare, or even “live” tests of the weapons, could create so much space debris that Earth orbit would become unnavigable to civilian satellites and crewed spacecraft.
More In This Article
-
Photo Album
Space Weapons of the Future
-
Sidebar
Space Wars: The Players, The Drawbacks, The Aftermath
“Take the high ground and hold it!” has been standard combat doctrine for armies since ancient times. Now that people and their machines have entered outer space, it is no surprise that generals the world over regard Earth orbit as the key to modern warfare. But until recently, a norm had developed against the weaponization of space—even though there are no international treaties or laws explicitly prohibiting nonnuclear antisatellite systems or weapons placed in orbit. Nations mostly shunned such weapons, fearing the possibility of destabilizing the global balance of power with a costly arms race in space.
In war, do not launch an ascending attack head-on against the enemy who holds the high ground. Do not engage the enemy when he makes a descending attack from high ground. Lure him to level ground to do battle.
This article was originally published with the title Space Wars.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
36 Comments
Add CommentThis whole idea is just disgusting and unfathomable. Think about here we are with this beautiful blue planet, and all around it we have weapons swarming, aiming down at you, ready to kill one another at anytime. Disgusting human beings. This truly should not be our nature, cohabitation should be. However we are a product of our environment, and obviously our environment is controlled by government contractors, and war mongering politicians in their interest of getting rich, have lead people to believe these things are necessary. It sickens me that U.S. has initiated this and not denounced it. Just goes to show that here are no true gentlemen left in our government. What would Ben Franklin or Einstein have to say about this? I can't express enough my utter disbelief in humans, or should I say governments, prepositioning our existence for death and annihilation rather than life. Spend more time on the patient rather than the pain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina is the one firing anti-satellite missiles. Contrary to the elitist echo chamber, blaming America for all the problems in the world does not show you are intelligent or sophisticated. Just ignorant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can see where most are appalled by the idea of having weapons in space. The thought of having something lurking above you, watching and waiting for the moment to strike is scary. It is almost like being an ant under a magnifying lens and a hot sun. Knowing that if the light hits that lens the right way, you are done. This technology will find its way to the skies above, if it hasnt already. The only question is whether people will look at the bigger picture and not just their own feet when trying to solve a world issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Achilleos at 02/18/2008 6:00 PM
There are other actions to take in response to China's new weapon besides making space weapons of our own. If we responded to other countries mistakes by making the same one, what kind of country would that make us. I would be more interested in an article describing the threat that has caused China to build such a contraption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhats the point of taking a holier than thou attitude to China or India? America came up with Star Wars a long way back and have remained pioneers and leaders in using space for combat purposes. Use satellite guided missiles and you already have weaponised space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that, the question is, what institutional mechanisms can we create to ensure that civilian use of space is not disrupted by a space arms race?
go fantastic,china
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf China has the technology to "paint" US spy satellites why would they refrain from using it? I would certainly use it if someone from the far side of the neighborhood were eavesdropping on me. Not that we should approve of it, but let the Chinese people put a stop to the fools and bullies of their own. Let the world press China using the brain, not guns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope most Americans have deprecated by now Roosevelt's Big Stick fallacy and understand that not only "outside is America" but outside is the rest of the world too. And the rest of the world wants to take its own decisions and make their own mistakes without the intervention of a muscular brute that thinks of himself as THE law-enforcer.
The US will fire 3 missiles to blow a failed satellite just for the threat of hydrazine? Of course not. It's a good excuse to test their war-toys though.
If only a fraction of the time spent in paranoia and weapon research were utilized in finding solutions for humankind real problems...
Eventually you could build a "space grenade", as the cheapest antisatelite weapon, a ballistic missile with a powerfull explosive and lots of srapnell intended to destroy all satellites orbiting at a particullar height, and return us to a MAD scenario like in the 80's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo frgough, what's "ignorant" is being unable to discuss an article in terms of facts or evidence without relying on namecalling or tired catch-phrases from Rush/Faux News (echo chamber), or being unable to distinguish between a specific criticism of US policy (militarization of space) with "blaming American for all the problems in the world." Please read up on this issue (and America's role in it) and offer something creative and fact/evidence-based please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDesde que se inicia la llamada " carrera del espacio" alrededor de los años 50 , y cuando las naciones desarrolladas en aquel entonces comienzan una inútil "guerra del espacio", las voces de los cientÃÂficos mas cuerdos y racionales abogan por estudiar primero las consecuencias derivadas de la posible polución del espacio circundante y de otros cuerpos celestes cercanos. Nada de ello es posible, en aquel entonces y -por lo contrario- se sigue enviando sondas espaciales que si bien nos dan valiosa información acerca de nuestros compañeros celestiales, no sabemos con seguridad si estamos enviando paralelamente microrganismos terrestres invasores. Tampoco sabemos las secuelas de ello. Por tales razones se impone que la cordura se apodere de quienes toman decisiones cuyas consecuencias se desconocen aun ,porque el avance tecnológico es mas rápido que el avance de los conocimiento cientÃÂficos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not understand why man cannot get along? It takes less energy than fighting! Ther are so many good things to work together for and only a few things to try to have as ones own! Doesn't make sense to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpace weapons can be cheap-the cost of a bag of marbles scattered in the path of a satellite will do as much damage as any star wars weapon in existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan will never be able to get along under the current sinful nature. I know it sounds too NEGATIVE, but let me assure you....IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN in this world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod made man to rely on Him, but man wanted his way. So this is man's way(which is Satan's way) of dealing with problems.
Ever heard/read the Bible? Wars and Rumors of war, nation against nation? If this is not what is taking place, can one disprove these prophecies? We're quick to adopt dreams of Nostrademus and his likes (which I have nothing against), but isn't this Bible prediction spot-on?
If not, let someone prove that its not happening. So we're heading to the 3rd world war which unfortunately, no man will survive. All these things (nuclear bombs, salt water being ignited by radio waves, antisatellite missiles, intercontinental warheads, atomic bombs, etc.) are preparations for 3rd world war.
I can tell you that all these things are just to show how evil man can be without the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
If your goal is One World Government and total domination of the masses, then the answer is YES ! Of course, you want to dominate and eliminate people on earth by controlling the airspace above them. This has been the goal of the New World Order for many years, so we earthlings just sit here meekly being consumed. Where's the "clicker?" American Idol is coming on and I heard that Britney Spears isn't wearing panties today. THAT is what is important !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that any orbital device, weapon or not, is easily disabled should make it clear to ALL governments that offensive weapons in space are not the smart thing to do. Let us stay with monitoring technology and avoid the added cost of a space weapons race. THE TRICK IS GOING TO BE TO CONVINCE THE POLITICIANS IN CHARGE !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA was formed because Eisenhower didn't want our space program to be military in nature. He had floated the idea of a treaty against military use of space in 1957. In January 1967, such a treaty was finally signed. US policy has retrogressed ever since Reagan's proposed "star wars" antimissile proposal. Eisenhower understood that we would have much more to lose than the Russians by introducing armaments into space. Today, we have much more to lose than the Chinese, the Iranians.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn another matter, the referenced article "Nuclear Explosions in Orbit" brought back memories of my initial assignments with NASA - studying radiation effects on NASA's manned and unmanned missions due to the low Earth orbit electron radiation belts resulting from the 1962 "Star Fish" high altitude nuclear explosion. The cover for that experiment (Trying to blow a hole in the (natural) Van Allen radiation belts) was as disingenuous as today's cover for shooting down the broken spy satellite.
In hope of generating some discussion and debate, I'm throwing out a few questions to see what folks might think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes the Navy's use of a missile defense interceptor to take down a satellite change the definition of space weapons?
Does it justify Russian and Chinese fears that the U.S. missile defense program is an offensive space control program in disguise?
What do you think the Pentagon's real reasons were in conducting the satellite strike?
Do you think the Russians and Chinese are sincere in their effort to kick start treaty negotiations to ban weapons on orbit?
Given that weapons that shatter satellites create enormous amounts of junk in space -- such as the one the Chinese tested last year, and the capability that the U.S. displayed last night -- do you think that the United States should lead an effort to ban testing and use of these types of weapons?
And I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can.
Admitttedly, escalation makes more money for those in the business of war. But species survival is important too. Couldn't energy based weapons be redesigned and used for energy transference from solar capturing devices? How realistic is this prospect scientifically?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot bad for a complete hack job. Plays to the masses with barely any factual information. No interviews of anyone of consequence in any policy making position. No new information presented, no serious analysis of ongoing policy debates and certainly no balance in the presentation of so-called facts. Well done, Sci-Am for publishing an article that wouldn't pass muster in a basic poli-sci course (that was sarcasm for those who like the article).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Couldn't energy based weapons be
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> redesigned and used for energy transference from
> solar capturing devices? How realistic is this
> prospect scientifically?
It is [u]very [/u]realistic to capture solar energy in space and beam it to earth. It would have happened in the 1970's if not for some rather silly anti-technology fear-mongering about low density microwaves over huge multi-mile antennas. Had we done that, we probably wouldn't be in this global warming fix right now. We would be happily using low cost solar energy from orbit with no idea about global warming. We would also have space industry by now.
Hmmm. Come to think of it, we probably would have cheap lift to orbit vehicles powered by solar satellites by now. (See: Lightcraft http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/ )
Excuse me, Mr. DFingles, but I've actually lectured at NDU and GWU's Space Policy Institute on this issue, so I think the article would pass muster in a basic polisci class. Also, in case you were wondering about political leanings, I've cosponsered two conferences with the U.S. Air Force Academy's Center for Space and Defense, and participated in NDU's Space Power Theory exercise. Just sayin' -- unfair ball on your part to not have done your homework and called SciAm biased. I'm perfectly happy to argue, but you have to be upfront with the politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPS: I have articles published in Air & Space Power Journal, High Frontier, (both USAF pubs) Astropolitik, and Brown Journal of International Affairs -- all with the same theme. So, respectfully, I sort of take issue with "hack job" as an adjective. While many of my colleagues in the USAF disagree with me, we have a respectful relationship and understand that there is room for disagreement while also a great deal of common ground -- most of which falls into the "rules of the road" and "space traffic management" realm. Knowledge is power, and I would hope anyone reading this article would take the time to do some research and make judgments only from an informed perspective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Theresa,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI finally had the opportunity to read your excellent article.
I have also read over the postings on this forum.
On the day USA 193 was hit there was almost no news source that raised any of these issues other parroting that China had started this first. I was actually writing a post in another newspaper and came to sciam.com to look for a reference to an editorial that had been at the start of one of the printed magazine issues from a few years ago.
The front page carried the article [url http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=navy-shoots-down-satellite]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=navy-shoots-down-satellite[/url] and I had to get involved. Here there was a debate and some thought going on.
As you can see by my posts [url http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Navy-Shoots-Satellite-Slideshow/Navy-Shoots-Satellite-Slideshow/300009629]there[/url], I made my stance on different points but we share parallel perspectives. However this subject is obviously your field of expertise. I fall into the category of self-educated citizen.
Your work and your voice is important.
I’m certain that I’m not alone when I say that I for one do care.
I look forward to your analysis on the fallout of the most recent events.
I thought it was most interesting that DFingles had nothing but criticism and did not back up any of his perspective with information himself. If he genuinely felt that the topic was poorly represented by the article then he certainly took no pains to cast any light on what he thinks is a more informed position. The simplest of endeavors to undertake is finding fault with others. He offered nothing but sarcasm as evidence for his disdain, not even the courage for a verbal debate. I should think this is all we need to know about his motivations. He will probably let himself feel that we are not worthy of reply further indicating his superior perspective. Pity, I should so look forward to any presentation he might make so that I might have the opportunity to deconstruct his perspective with at the least a modicum of consideration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood article by Ms. Hitchins. Unasked question in it concerns the possibility of there being enough space junk put into orbit to render space effectively useless. Any particle the size of a grain of sand, travelling at orbital velocities, hitting a core portion of the satellite, is capable of rendering useless most satellites I can think of. If an international player wanted to play some sort of Samson option, and close off outer space for everyone's satellites, how much mass in orbit would it take to dirty up outer space enough to do this? Two part question, I know--low orbit and geostationary orbit. Certainly the USA is the international player who would be most hurt by this. We all would suffer immensely, for a very long time, if this were to happen, but this does make a lot of something like sense, in the same way that mutually assured destruction made sense, for a whole lot of smaller international players to adopot this policy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDaniel N. White
It is true that the use of space could be shut down by a load of ball bearings (although I can't answer the mass question, sorry but perhaps one of the physicists at Union of Concerned Scientists could) or for that matter a nuclear explosion in space. And there has been some fear in U.S. defense circles that a rogue state (read North Korea) or a terrorist group might be willing to go that route, I think the threat is probably pretty small. Why? Because it wouldn't be in any nation's self interest to make space unusable, in that most nations, even North Korea, rely on space for their civil well being even if they aren't major space powers or military space powers. As for a terrorist group, they'd first have to get access to a launch facility (not necessarily easy and any country allowing them to do so would eventually be toast) and, if al-Qaida did obtain a nuclear weapon they would likely see higher priority, and more easily reached, targets, such as Los Angeles. So, while the scenario is technically feasible, it's not all that probable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! I clicked on a link to an article about bisphenol and was sent here instead. This is the second Sci Am newsletter in a row with bad links.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a fact that war is the most profitable business. We are eventually going to destroy ourselves in the line of fire, so-called "friendly fire". It is a real shame that we have not matured to a higher level of sensibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn entire humanity deluded by the mental hallucination that we are separate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy does the author have to insert the India = Pakistan paradgim that is no longer relevant? It destroys the credibility of the article. The author is NOT aware of the latest developments in Indian space defence scene.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm disappointed with this article. It is a very important topic and deserves better treatment. The author concludes that space warfare is not inevitable but the arguments that support that conclusion are weak. She advocates negotation to address the anti-satellite problem. But anti-satellite weapons are a fact of life. The US is too dependent on satellites for both military and economic reasons for any potential enemy to throw away that card. We can negotiate all we want but if it comes to a shooting war, our satellites will be attacked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author in a single paragraph dismisses the rods-from-god weapon system as too hard and thus unworkable. The US Navy is currently working on advanced rail gun technology that will solve most of the problems associated with the use of space based kinetic energy weapons. That one weapon system will eventually make space war inevitable.
I wish the author were correct in her conclusion, but I fear she is not.
Space war is inevitable.
With space already being used extensively for military communications, spying, and GPS guided precision weapons. It's only a matter of time before some country like Iran or North Korea will gain the capability to explode a nuclear device in Earth orbit and render all those US sattellites inoperable. And such a country will do it too in any fight to the death with USA. After seeing the execution of Saddam Hussein. Any other dictator will do his best to even up the odds in a fight with USA, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the world. The biggest military advantage USA has over most other countries comes from its use of space for military purposes. And when your enemy can destroy that huge advantage with one single shot. Then he will most surely do it in order to survive and fight another day. If war continues to be the way to resolve international conflicts. Then that one nuclear shot in space will happen sooner or later. It's inevitable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore weapons don't solve the problem; they are part of the problem. Until all the WMD wouldn't be under the strict command of the UN nobody will stop other and other nations to realize them (if not to use them). US must understand that no power is eternal; all these money would be better spend for the real needs of people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason China did what it did was to let the U.S. know that the G.P.S. warfare it has been using won't work on them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe E-Bomb, which I suggested to Dr. Teller to be installed in an anti-anti-missile worked fine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the "Patriots", selected to work on the project, (clearance of the CIA of course) sold it to China, which used it to zap a brand new Japanese Spy Satellite.
Then the cheapskate US DOD refused to pay me my fee.
Well, In the Bible it says (Chapter 12 of the Revelation)... and there was a war in the heavens.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone, wo thinks that it will not happen, take one step forward.....
China bought the secret of the anti-missile-missile, after the US failed to stop an X- American who had worked on the development of it, took a trip and sold it to them.
The system had been suggested by the Canadian Inventor.
Then the US DOD refused to pay the inventor.
Nothing but the highest integrity there though.