In February, it was revealed that Russia has been developing a nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon. The Biden administration's response has focused mainly on arms control efforts aimed at preventing Russia from acquiring a space-based nuclear weapon in the first place. These efforts are important, but they are also insufficient. Steps must be taken now to prepare for the possibility that diplomacy fails. Nuclear anti-satellite weapons have the potential to fundamentally alter existing nuclear paradigms, creating a much more destabilizing environment than exists today.
The U.S. must take action now to ensure it is ready to deal with the challenges posed by nuclear weapons in space. By preparing now, before nukes are put in orbit, the U.S. can better work to prevent such a day from ever happening at all.
U.S. deterrence strategy has long centered on its ability to tailor both conventional and nuclear response options to a wide range of different contingencies, as well as deliberate ambiguity surrounding when it would use nuclear weapons. Both these concepts would be thrown out the window if a nuclear anti-satellite weapon were detonated today. While the exact capabilities of Russia's space weapon are unknown, it is likely to pose as much a threat to its own satellites as it is those of the United States.
In May, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb testified that Russia's weapon would be "indiscriminate," and "pose a threat to all satellites operated by countries and companies around the globe."
The U.S. would therefore likely be left without the ability to retaliate against Russia in space if it detonated its weapon.
The only option would be to strike targets on the ground. At present, conventional U.S. forces rely heavily on access to satellite-provided GPS, intelligence, and communications. A conventional strike in this environment would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. A nuclear strike would be more feasible (though also challenging). A serious conversation should address whether a surface nuclear strike would be an appropriate response to a nuclear attack that does not directly kill people on Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment