Are there space weapons

Cyber tools do not constitute a one-size-fits-all capability — they must be tailored to the target. As a result, it is unclear whether a cyber operation would be able to negate an adversary space system in a timely manner. If the goal is to permanently destroy an adversary space weapon in orbit, electronic warfare systems might not be deemed sufficient to eliminate the threat. Kinetic space weapons can be unreliable, too.

Program , for example, had multiple problems with its ability to accurately target adversary satellites. Destroying a satellite requires highly accurate locational data that can be quickly transmitted to the anti-satellite weapon operator. If the targeting information from a space surveillance network is out-of-date because of a minor satellite maneuver, for example, the anti-satellite weapon could miss its target.

For countries like Iran and North Korea that have the capability to build rudimentary kinetic anti-satellite systems, their space surveillance networks are likely not robust enough to field an effective weapon. Given the technical challenge involved, it is not clear if even the space surveillance networks of China and Russia can reliably target U. While these adversary programs should be monitored, the United States and its allies should not overreact to them.

To prevent the arms competition in space from becoming even more dangerous, Washington should work with its allies and adversaries to establish a moratorium on testing kinetic weapons in space. Concerns about verification mechanisms have been the primary impediment to progress on limiting kinetic space weapons.

During the Cold War, U. Debris generated from tests cannot, however, be hidden. Focusing on banning kinetic testing is a feasible and immediate step to be taken. Due to increased awareness about space security issues among U.

The United States should prepare for any and all contingencies, including a war that extends into outer space.

Space security concerns have been a source of anxiety for American officials going back to nearly the beginning of the space age. History provides important lessons about space policy. For example, American and Soviet intelligence satellites operated unimpeded during the Cold War, which was an essential source of nuclear stability. However, it is also essential to recognize changes in the strategic environment.

Space is a contested military domain that is now inextricably linked to the global economy. The Cold War mentality of matching any and all Soviet capabilities should not be the framework employed for responding to space threats in the 21st century. In the immediate future, the United States should establish an international moratorium on weapons tests involving the destruction of man-made objects in space. This could be a useful framework for ensuring that spacefaring countries do not create debris that harms other states operating in the space domain.

It is unrealistic to expect the United States, China, and Russia to develop a framework that bans all kinetic space weapons. This would require an effective verification mechanism, and monitoring treaties involving space systems is especially difficult.

A ban on kinetic anti-satellite tests involving the elimination of a target is, however, a realistic and necessary development. Four decades after Adm. The United States can achieve lethality in space without resorting to the permanent destruction of adversary satellites. Striking this balance is key to securing American interests in space. Aaron Bateman is a Ph.

Previously, he served as a U. Air Force intelligence officer. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent any institutions with which he is affiliated.

Aaron Bateman. While the Partial Test Ban Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty place limits on the weaponization of space, Harrison argues there is no real consensus on what the weaponization of space means — even as it is becoming impossible to deny that a number of nations already have space weapons. So I think in a practical sense, countries will continue to define space weapons to mean whatever they want it to mean to suit their own purposes. The report organizes space-based weapons into six categories, featuring kinetic and non-kinetic versions of Earth-to-space, space-to-space and space-to-Earth systems.

Of those, three categories have been proven through testing, deployment or operational use:. Harrison does not include all counter-space capabilities in his framework, specifically excluding weapons that are based on Earth and have an impact there. Aaron Mehta was deputy editor and senior Pentagon correspondent for Defense News, covering policy, strategy and acquisition at the highest levels of the Defense Department and its international partners.

By Aaron Mehta. May 27, This type of laser system was used in tests to shoot down a rocket at the White Sands Missile Range in The third type of chemical laser that might be used in ballistic missile defense is the chemical oxygen iodine laser COIL , which made its debut in In this laser system, a reaction generated between chlorine and hydrogen peroxide excites oxygen atoms, which transfer their energy to iodine atoms.

This transfer of energy causes the iodine atoms to become excited, creating a laser with a wavelength of about 1. This smaller wavelength means that smaller optics could be used to develop a space-based lasing system. Right now, this is the most promising of the spaced-based lasers in development.

One of the problems with space-based lasers is that they would have to be fixed to a moving satellite as they tried to hit another moving object moving at thousands of miles per hour. Imagine trying to shoot a bird from aboard a supersonic jet. The laser and the object it is trying to hit will likely be traveling at different speeds, making it an almost impossible shot.

This is why the U. Department of Defense is also considering a particle beam weapon , which would be able to fire beams of subatomic particles, at near the speed of light, at a military target. If a beam could be fired at those speeds, it would, for all intents and purposes, freeze the targeted object.

A particle beam weapon would be able to generate power many times more destructive than any laser in development. Such a weapon would essentially be composed of two parts: a power source and an accelerating tunnel. If a functional particle beam weapon could be built, it would use its power source to accelerate electrons, protons or hydrogen atoms through the tunnel, which would focus these charged particles into a beam that would be fired at the target.

The "bolts" of energy fired from the particle beam weapon would enter into the target's materials, passing the energy onto the atoms that compose the target. This impact would be like a cue ball striking a racked group of billiard balls on a pool table. The rapid increase in the target object's temperature would cause the object to explode in a matter of seconds following impact. The major obstacle in developing a functional particle beam weapon has been creating a power source that is light enough to put into space, but that can produce millions of electron volts of power and tens of megawatts of beam power.

A conventional power station would be able to meet those power demands, but it is far too large to put into orbit. So far, scientists have not been able to develop a suitable lightweight power source that can meet those power demands. A third space weapon in development is the military space plane.