Bind Russia to a new arms control treaty to ban nuclear weapons in space

Imagine yourself strolling the streets on a quiet night in Honolulu, breathing in the fresh salty sea air. Feel the small explosion of air pressure as an orange glow illuminates the cloud cover far above the ocean. What could it be? As you wonder, the nearest streetlight blinks out.

Months before the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States lit up the Pacific sky with its first nuclear test in space: Starfish Prime. The electromagnetic pulse and radiation damaged multiple satellites in orbit and disabled electrical equipment in Honolulu (some 900 miles from the detonation point), clearly demonstrating the catastrophic potential of nuclear weapons in space. A year later, the US and the Soviet Union signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty, formally making nuclear weapons in space taboo.

Earlier this year, reports that Russia would develop a nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon system (ASAT) caused alarm. Such an act could spark a new nuclear arms race and push space to the brink of catastrophe. To prevent this, the US should initiate the development of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), with clauses that explicitly outline a nuclear-weapon-free space and ban ASAT nuclear weapons.

In the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the US and the Soviet Union agreed on a complete ban on nuclear weapons in space. Policy decisions and further nuclear weapons deals have since reinforced this taboo, so Russia’s decision to develop a nuclear-armed ASAT system raises an immediate question: why? Has the balance of power in space shifted so much that Russia sees real value in violating such a long-lived taboo?

I would say the answer is an emphatic ‘No’. Russia has as much to gain from the rapid democratization of orbital space as anyone. What Russia – or rather Putin – sees value in is forcing others to respond to its actions and gain some semblance of control.

Placing a nuclear weapon in orbit would be a direct and indiscriminate threat to thousands of satellites that benefits no one. As seen with Starfish Prime, the result of an explosion cannot be directed. It would wreak havoc all at once and potentially make orbital space radioactively unstable for years. However, because Russia’s footprint in orbital space has become relatively smaller than that of the US and other countries, the risk-reward ratio of that outcome would be smaller for Russia than for other countries. This calculation alone could explain the country’s potentially dangerous behavior.

Detonating a nuclear weapon in space may not benefit anyone, but putting a nuclear weapon into orbit – or even taking the stance of doing so – as a general threat would in fact force a response. This kind of risky strategy (see the Cuban Missile Crisis) was the basis of the Cold War and the original arms race between the US and the Soviet Union. Russia is simply continuing the same risk/reward strategy that dominated Soviet behavior in the last century. Instead of allowing similar consequences to occur this time, let’s learn from our history. Let us bypass the crisis and move straight to the new treaty. A New START, with clauses guaranteeing a nuclear-weapon-free space and banning nuclear-armed ASAT systems, could prevent a new nuclear arms race and create a new paradigm for the peaceful use of space. Running at home.

There are people who object to the idea of ​​reaching a settlement with Russia, and that is understandable. To be clear, Russia’s aggressive behavior in recent years is unconscionable, and the US should not take any action that could fuel that behavior. However, as mentioned earlier, the risk/reward ratio for Russia is low and for the US it is very high. Even if Russia never finishes developing ASAT nuclear weapons, it would only be a matter of time before China or another country does.

And why wouldn’t they? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Russia’s nuclear posture and aggression in space have increased since the US announced the Space Force in March 2018. From announcing new nuclear delivery systems in 2018 to testing an ASAT weapon in 2021 to threatening nuclear strikes and strikes. on satellites during the war in Ukraine to possibly place a nuclear weapon in space, Russia is escalating out of fear. The Space Force may not have been created to weaponize space, but it certainly sends a strong message to the rest of the world that the US could.

Russia fears that outcome and being left out.

So let’s bind Russia to another treaty. Let’s set the precedent of behavior. By leading with diplomacy and stability, the US can achieve its desired goal. We can find a way to equalize the risk/reward ratio so that the taboo on nuclear space continues well into the future.

We can keep the street lights on so we can follow a safe and clear path.

Kendall Marston is a second-year student in the ISTP program focused on space policy at George Washington University. He is a veteran of the United States Army and has a bachelor’s degree in history. His current studies focus on the intersection of national security, international diplomacy and space exploration.

Related