.png)
Humans first ventured into space during the Cold War. Despite the intense animosity and belligerence on Earth, in space, both sides competed for ideological bragging rights, rather than for a military advantage. However, since the 1980’s “the militarisation of space” has changed this and with it, the very nature of warfare. No longer can a country win a war without controlling the high ground of space. Whilst the hypotheticals of space conflict are endless, in the present, the role of satellites dominates the discourse and the decision-making of states' military space divisions, a burgeoning branch of the military.
For more into what a space war could look like today, check out this fantastic video below 👇
Satellites explained
Satellites orbit the Earth, but understanding the different layers of orbit gives you a better understanding of space warfare. Most of the 4,900 active satellites, including Musk’s new Starlink constellation and the International Space Station, float around in low earth orbit (LEO). LEO is cheaper to get to and provides sufficient coverage for most satellites, making it prime real estate. Mid-Earth orbit is less useful but is host to the US Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Chinese and Russian equivalents. Finally, the geostationary orbit, often synonymous with high earth orbit, is different because its orbit matches that of the Earth, meaning that satellites always hover over one location, useful for long-term weather forecasting and some military satellites.
We must now look to the importance of satellites, both in an economic and military capacity. The modern global economy relies on satellites more than we realise, as without them every time you tapped your credit card nothing would happen, and for the agricultural sector, food yields would plummet, consequently stoking mass inflation and economic downturn. For example, since the 1980s GPS has added $1.4trn to the US economy, and for a major economy like the UK, one day without satellite connection could cost £1bn.
For more on the importance of satellites, see more of their real world applications below ⬇️
Dual arms race
Militarily, satellites provide countries with large offensive and defensive advantages. Defensively, they are used as early warning systems and trackers for nuclear weapons and other conventional missiles, diminishing the threat and effectiveness of enemy weaponry. For example, the US Tracking Layer will consist of 100 satellites in LEO to track manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles using infrared lasers when it becomes operational in 2028. More excitingly, space-based interceptors (SBI) are being discussed earnestly, whereby satellites release debris to intercept the path of an enemy projectile.
Offensively, satellites are used to enhance the power and effectiveness of other weapons, although soon satellites themselves may become weapons. Satellites provide up-to-date positioning and information on enemy troops and guide missiles to increase accuracy. In WWⅡ, 9,000 bombs were needed to destroy a bridge on average; during the Iraq war this fell to 1, as 68% of all US missiles were guided by satellite imagery [Marshall, Tim 2023]. Furthermore, satellites provide highly secure and resourceful communication channels. Unfortunately, due to the usefulness and importance of satellites, they induce a dual arms race. Firstly, the race regarding satellites themselves, principally between the big three to ensure they remain economically and militarily ahead. Secondly, comes the inevitable arms race regarding weapons to destroy satellites, as taking them out gives rise to immense military advantage.
Anti-satellite weapons, known as ASATs are joining military arsenals globally, but the form in which they take is highly variable. For simplicity I will break them down into two categories; kinetic direct ascent weapons (DA-ASATs) and non-kinetic ASATs. DA-ASATs are kinetic kill vehicles (KKVs), or missiles sent from Earth with the intent of decimating a satellite. These are very effective but create large amounts of space debris. Infamously, in 2007 China tested a KKV on its own satellite, in turn increasing LEO debris by 15%. Thus, there is a tacitly accepted norm not to use such weapons, although in a time of war whether this will be abided by is uncertain.
The second category is more expansive, although I would argue less cool and ‘star warsy’. Firstly, jamming the signal between a satellite and Earth makes them redundant, although this is challenging and often temporary. In a similar vein, cyber-attacks are a burgeoning ASAT as they have the co-benefit of potentially gaining control of hostile satellites. Moreover, dazzling or blinding satellites are a common tool to destroy imagery capabilities, with dazzling temporary and blinding permanent. Russia is developing a laser which will be able to blind enemy satellites with ease. Finally, whilst not yet fully developed, satellites can immobilise or destroy other satellites, principally by releasing microsatellites that travel to hostile targets and dismantle them. In sum, ASATs are numerous and variable, but all of them stoke an arms race as each state desires to become dominant and protect the valuable satellites they have.
This article has been an introduction to ‘astropolitics’ and the future of conflict in space. Much of the logic of earthly conflict carries over, with states continuing to compete in arms races to ensure they stay ahead. In the context of satellites, there are two concurrent arms races; one for satellites and one for protecting them, both of which are engrained in the psyche of key military officials. As a final note, this article focuses on the present, which is dominated by satellites. But extending beyond this time frame, conflict for resources in space as well as key locational chokeholds will inexorably come. It is also likely that satellites and new space weapons will be used as direct weapons, rather than enhancing conventional terrestrial weapons.
Links to Further Reading
Comments