The study of Anthropocene politics is dedicated to analyzing humanity’s interaction with the our planet’s environment through a political lens. An often overlooked and vital part of the Earth’s ecosystem is the upper levels of the atmosphere, or what scientists designate Low-Earth orbit (LEO). The LEO is vital to our civilization and planet for two main reasons: firstly, leftover particles from burned up spacecraft create a pollutant effect, which can hinder the ozone layer’s efficacy and manipulate the atmosphere. Secondly, thousands of satellites circle the earth in the LEO which provide myriad vital services, including not merely telecommunications but also vital information for meteorology, agriculture and military operations. Thus last week’s comments from a DOD official that Russia is developing an “indiscriminate” nuclear weapon to use in orbit is concerning from both an ecological as well as geopolitical perspective. This article investigates the possibility of the development and deployment of a nuclear weapon in orbit, and the political and ecological implications of such an action. Additionally existing sustainability issues concerning the LEO are explored, which if neglected pose a serious threat to the future of both space travel and the health of the earth’s atmosphere.
Is Russia developing a Nuclear Weapon for Space?
Earlier this year, rumors within the American intelligence community surfaced that claimed Russia was developing a nuclear weapon to be utilized in orbit. The rumors purported that the weapon would likely be a nuclear warhead affixed to a rocket capable of traversing the LEO with the intention of destroying a large number of satellites as they circle the Earth. On April 24th, the United States in conjunction with Japan proposed to the U.N. Security Council a reaffirmation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which includes language that specifically bans WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) in orbit or outer space. Russia refused to adopt the resolution in spite of it being cosponsored by 60 other nations, casting doubt upon the Kremlin’s ambitions for the possible deployment of a nuclear weapon in orbit. Kremlin officials have insisted these claims are false: Putin himself has insisted Russia has no such intentions, and Russia’s U.N. ambassador cited the resolution’s “inadequacy” in banning all space weapons as the reason for Russia’s refusal to adopt. Russia has since considered proposing a resolution banning any weapons in outer space “for all time.”
If such a weapon sounds akin to science fiction, it’s because it is. The United States and Soviet Union have both launched nuclear weapons into space before, the largest of which was the U.S.’s 1962 detonation of a 1.45 megaton nuke 450km above sea level, which destroyed eight of the twenty-four satellites that were in orbit at the time. While a 33% efficacy rate sounds appealing, there are numerous ecological and scientific reasons why nuclear detonations in orbit are ludicrously dangerous. Analysts believe that such a detonation would produce an electromagnetic blast which would destroy hundreds of satellites, however it remains dubious whether a nuclear blast would be more efficacious than conventional weaponry.
The U.S.’s concern for the development of such a weapon is not unfounded: an integral part of the U.S. military’s combined arms warfare tactics rely upon surveillance and communications data from satellites in low orbit. Additionally, Ukraine has used Starlink satellites to gather intelligence to help repel Russia’s invasion since 2022. Thirdly, an indiscriminate nuclear blast in low orbit would not only destroy satellites which are vital for civilian infrastructure, but would release radioactive chemicals and render the LEO “unusable” for up to a year. As the LEO is an important part of the Earth’s macro-environment, it is imperative that it remains demilitarized and neutral.
Further Sustainability Problems posed by Satellites
While destroying satellites at mass scale certainly presents a potential threat to both military and civilian infrastructure, satellites themselves represent an often overlooked sustainability issue. Nasa scientists last year were able to determine that particles from satellites which have burned up in the atmosphere pose a pollutant threat to the climate. The researchers flew a specialized aircraft through the Stratosphere (10-50km above the Earth) equipped with specialized sensors to analyze the composition of the layer’s particles. They found high traces of aluminum, lithium, copper and lead, which naturally should not occur as this area of the atmosphere is out of range for pollutants originating from the Earth. The team was able to assert that such levels were too high to come from meteorites or cosmic dust, and were remarkably consistent with satellite composition.
Scientists have subsequently begun in recent years to raise the alarm about the rate of satellite launches as well as the amount of debris that is now circulating in orbit. Aluminum oxide is known for its ability to destroy ozone; thus the healing of this vital layer of the Earth’s atmosphere is being hindered by the pretense of such chemical. It also affects the ability for the Earth to reflect light back into space, which effects the Earth’s temperature and climate. Additionally the sheer number of satellite launches, and subsequently the rate of orbital debris, has increased drastically with the advent of the privatization of space. Megaconstellations such as Starlink, which are massive networks of satellites, pose a new issue as the earth’s orbit becomes more and more crowded. Just like the natural ecosystems on the Earth itself, the planet’s orbit is also a vital part of the climate and natural ecology, and polluting it with massive numbers of man-made debris is merely following other destructive practices already enacted on the Earth’s surface. Debris from broken satellites ironically poses a further threat to new satellites; it is estimated that over 36,000 objects larger than 10cm are currently orbiting the earth, and at least a million objects which could damage a satellite. This is likely to create a cascading effect: one collision would produce thousands of new pieces of debris, which would likely hit even more satellites, which would produce more debris and so on.
Furthermore an increase in satellites reduces astronomers’ ability to study the cosmos from the ground; undetectable satellites create smears on astrological images, and the brightest rival even the most robust stars in the sky. This is a drastically growing issue: the number of functional satellites in orbit has doubled since 2019, due to the expansion of the private space industry. The result has created a 10% brighter night sky since the beginning of the space age, rendering the ability to perceived the stars more difficult in even the most remote regions. Astronomers can doctor images to reduce the aforementioned smears, but doing so loses vital data and thus is not a legitimate solution.
Future Political and Environmental Implications
Astronomers have expressed their concern over this issue due to the myriad problems it causes, and the simplest solution is a reduction of satellite launches. As no one nation can lay claim to an area such as the atmosphere, it is imperative that the U.N. steps up to legitimately regulate the amount of objects that arebeing hurled into orbit - not only are new states such as India making huge leaps in their cosmic abilities but the explosion of investment into the private space sector demands more stringent regulation. The current trajectory would render us to pollute and make our orbit significantly more dangerous to use and traverse, impeding both astronomical research as well as hindering our species’s cosmic ambitions.
Immediate security implications remain obfuscated and indeterminate. While there is an argument that a nuclear detonation in space could in theory be less harmful than on the Earth itself, they are still catastrophically harmful compared to a scenario in which no nuclear weapons are at play. If the Russian federation was bold enough to both develop and use a nuclear weapon in space, it would certainly escalate tensions with the West even further, raising the ever ominous possibility of a direct conflict. Thus it is imperative that the Kremlin is discouraged from pursuing such technology at all costs, and vital that the U.N. steps up and introduces further regulatory measures to mitigate the issues unregulated satellites already present.
Article by Conall Hirsch