Militarization of space

Context: Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan has recently remarked that the very nature of warfare is on the cusp of major transformation and what is being witnessed is the militarisation of space and steady progress towards weaponisation. He also stated that space is being used to enhance combat capabilities in land, sea and cyber domains.

The militarization of space involves developing military technologies and conducting military operations in space and from space towards Earth. This includes developing space-based weapons as well as using space to support military forces on Earth like surveillance, communication, navigation, etc.

Space militarization began soon after the first artificial satellites were launched. Early efforts focused on space-based surveillance, intelligence gathering and ICBM detection using satellites. The Cold War spurred the growth of military space programs.

Space Surveillance

  • Early missile warning satellites: The US and USSR developed missile warning satellites during the Cold War to detect intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launches. The US Vela and Defense Support Program satellites monitored the Soviet Union, while Soviet satellites monitored the US. These provide limited warning of an attack to initiate countermeasures.
  • Synthetic aperture radar satellites: SAR satellites provide all-weather, day-night imaging using radar signals. They penetrate clouds and darkness to generate high-resolution images useful for reconnaissance. Military space programs operate SAR satellites to monitor adversaries, assess damage from strikes and track space objects. Civilian programs also use them for applications like disaster relief.
  • High-resolution imaging satellites: Electro-optical imaging satellites provide visible light images for military surveillance and intelligence gathering. They monitor military installations, bases, ports, nuclear/missile sites, etc. Risks of misuse and overuse of data without oversight or regulation pose challenges. As technology improves, increasing resolution expands threats to privacy and security.
  • Space tracking and surveillance capabilities of major powers: The US, China and Russia have advanced space surveillance networks to detect, track and identify space objects and space-based threats. The US Space Surveillance Network uses telescopes/radars while Russia’s Program for Space Observation warns of space attacks. China’s space program remains opaque but focuses on counter-space capabilities like ASATs, surveillance and monitoring US space assets. 

Satellite Communications

  • Military communication satellite programs: Major space powers operate dedicated military communication satellite constellations like the US Wideband Global SATCOM system and the Russian Raduga satellites. These provide jam-resistant, global communications to connect military commanders, aircraft, ships, land vehicles, and forward-deployed forces anywhere on the planet using radio frequency links and increasingly laser connections.
  • Laser and radio frequency communications: RF communications via satellites using microwave or radio bands support broadband data exchange for mobile users. Laser links beam tight narrow signals between satellites to relay data at high speeds with minimal interference/detection risk. Both expand available bandwidth for military use but lasers provide advantages like compact equipment, narrow beams and higher data rates for secure networking with a “low probability of intercept”.     
  • Importance for coordinating forces and expanding battlefield: Military satellite communications enable expeditionary operations in remote regions by providing links between manoeuvre forces, weapons systems, drones/robots and command centers. They expand the battlefield by connecting all war fighters and assets across land, air, space and sea to gain battlefield awareness and coordinate troop movements, targeting, logistics, search & rescue, etc. This connectivity and networking give strategic advantages to space powers that develop advanced high-bandwidth secure communications for war.

Space Weaponization 

  • ASAT programs and ASAT weapons testing by various nations: The US, USSR/Russia, China, India and other nations have developed ASAT programs to demonstrate anti-satellite capabilities. The first successful intercepts were by the US (1960s) and USSR (1970s), followed by China (2007) and India (2019). While these programs claim defensive intentions, testing creates orbital debris and signal worries of offensives space weaponization. Notably, India’s latest test created over 400 pieces of trackable debris threatening space objects.
  • Space-based weapons like lasers, railguns, interceptors, etc.: Concepts of space-based weapons include lasers to damage satellites, railguns to launch projectiles and space-based missile interceptors. While technologically challenging, weapons deployed in space undermine stability, threatening peaceful space access and fuelling arms races. US “Star Wars” programs explored these concepts during the Cold War but were abandoned due to feasibility issues; focus returned recently with growing counterspace threats but remains controversial.
  • Dangers of space weaponization including space debris: Space weaponization refers to placing weapons in space with the capability of damaging space systems and/or inflicting damage on Earth. Dangers include intensifying geopolitical conflicts by expanding the battlefield to space; creating clouds of long-lived debris from explosions that threaten all spacecraft; enabling preemptive strikes from space that compress response and escalation times; undermining cooperation in space by fueling distrust in programs’ intentions; and costing resources that could fund peaceful space discovery.  

Space Policy and Governance 

  • Existing laws and treaties governing space like the Outer Space Treaty: The OST prohibits placing nuclear weapons in space but not other space weapons. It limits militarization but not weaponization of space. Amending or replacing the OST is controversial but may strengthen governance. 
  • Proposals for space arms control, protecting space infrastructure, limiting space debris, etc.: Proposals include banning ASAT tests, limiting debris-producing weapons, adopting rules of responsible behavior in space, etc. But differences over definitions and verification pose challenges to multilateral agreements. 
  • Challenges of attributing responsibility for irresponsible behavior in space like ASAT tests: ASAT tests destroying satellites at 800+ km altitudes create persistent debris fields, but lacking verifiable sensors in space, irresponsible tests may continue unpunished, signaling acceptability of dangerous actions.    
  • Transparency and confidence-building measures for responsible militarization of space: Data sharing on space programs and notifications of unusual activities build trust. Reciprocal site visits and joint simulations enhance understanding and cooperation. Best practices codes and norms of behavior provide guidance should conflict arise in space.   

Geopolitical dynamics and future trend

  • US-China space relations: China’s space program is advancing quickly, fueling perceptions of a space race for tech/power dominance. But cooperation continues on some issues like space science or debris mitigation based on shared interests. Managing this mix of competition/cooperation is key to global space stability.
  • US-Russia space relations: Tensions have strained cooperation, but interests in space discovery and ISS operations persist. Renewing cooperation would benefit scientific progress and geopolitical stability. But realpolitik factors shape the potential here.
  • Europe’s place: Europe allies with the US but also cooperates independently with other space powers like Japan or India to advance shared interests affordably. As a bloc, the EU shapes space geopolitics but national programs within also compete/cooperate.
  • India as a rising space power: India operates independently but also partners with space agencies worldwide to gain technical experience, cost-efficiencies and global legitimacy. How India balances national ambitions and shared interests with other space powers impacts geopolitical dynamics.
  • Japan and geopolitical balancing: Japan allies strongly with the US but also forges partnerships with Europe and other space powers to advance national interests and hedge geopolitical influence. Japan’s space relations reflect its balancing on Earth. 
  • Commercial space and geopolitics: Corporations form global alliances and supply chains, cooperating across borders, but also compete for government contracts and resources. Their influence on space policy is growing but complex as public and private sectors shape each other.
  • Globalization in space: Space tech upgrades and supply chains are increasingly globalized. While facilitating innovation, overreliance on other nations’ tech poses risks if geopolitical tensions disrupt access or cooperation. Balancing globalization and national security is key. 
  • The role of space in global power dynamics: Space access and technology provide strategic advantages and prestige to leading space powers. Losing relative gains to adversaries in space fuels geopolitical competition; cooperation provides opportunity to balance/hedge these dynamics constructively. But incentives differ between state actors.
  • Policy choices today determine trajectory: Investing in cooperative programs and partnerships versus competitive posture and weapons programs. Deterring/attributing irresponsible acts versus signalling acceptability. Integrating versus antagonizing commercial space. Prioritizing sustainability or national dominance. Choices now shape scenarios decades ahead; opportunity or peril emerge based on building shared purpose despite differences or stoking zero-sum competitions for power and control over this domain. The space future is within our grasp to build together or weaponize against one another.

In summary, space geopolitics emerge at the nexus of policy, technology, globalization and complex relationships between public and private actors across the world. While competitive dynamics drive militarization, the cooperative opportunity also exists to forge stability and shared benefit. The trajectories ahead depend on choices today – we navigate this new frontier for humanity’s benefit or wage new battlegrounds of confrontation and distrust.

Overall, enlightened self-interest calls for cooperation regulation space without weaponizing, yet global politics often fuels default competition skyward. Forging purposes together remains challenging but necessary for sustainability as space becomes increasingly complex and intertwined geopolitically in the 21st century.

Mains practice question

How can major spacefaring nations balance competitive dynamics driving the militarization of space with cooperative interests in sustainability and shared benefit? (150 words 10 marks)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 20 MB. You can upload: image, document, archive, other. Drop files here

Online Counselling
Table of Contents
Today's Current Affairs
This is default text for notification bar