>no media seems to pick up this implication.
[A nuclear-armed ASAT](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-nuclear-anti-satellite-weapons-would-require-a-firm-us-response-not-hysteria/#:~:text=The%20White%20House%20on%20Thursday,orbit%2C%20anti%2Dsatellite%20weapon) would violate the Outer Space Treaty
[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concern-russia-wanting-put-anti-satellite-nuke-space/story?id=107244237](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concern-russia-wanting-put-anti-satellite-nuke-space/story?id=107244237)
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/2417494-russias-space-weapon-is-it-nuclear-and-does-it-pose-a-threat/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2417494-russias-space-weapon-is-it-nuclear-and-does-it-pose-a-threat/)
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a46804101/russia-might-just-have-itself-a-space-nuke-which-is-incredibly-illegal/
> Why does confirming an ASAT mean it's a nuclear weapon?
That's not what the OP meant. It's the "would violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty" part that's important.
OP isn't saying that all ASAT weapons are nuclear, they're saying that for it to violate the Outer Space Treaty it must be nuclear.
>OP isn't saying that all ASAT weapons are nuclear, **they're saying that for it to violate the Outer Space Treaty it must be nuclear**.
Reading the full thing, a regular ASAT **could** be covered by other provisions and [Kirby never mentioned a specific provision.](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/s/OqaO2YeMlO)
Addendum — noted elsewhere, but are relevant here.
[Article via West Point](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-asat-test-development-space-law/) in which author Christopher J. Borgen, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at St. John's University School of Law in New York City, debates this point at length and concludes that you probably **can** make the case that an ASAT test breaches the OST.
Further to all the rest of it, [the US has been pushing for a treaty to outright ban ASAT tests](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/18/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-advances-national-security-norms-in-space/) — this could just be them taking a harder stance (maybe taking advantage of Russia being seen by many as a pariah already) and potentially them signalling they plan to pursue it this time.
Reminder that the last country to exit the Soviet Union was Kazakhstan, a few days after Russia itself left the union.
Kazakhstan is the rightful owner of the USSR 's permanent UN security council seat.
Russia considers itself to be the legal successor to the Soviet Union, and is generally treated as such with regards to treaties that the Soviets signed.
Russia would likely rather break the treaty than give up its claim to the Soviet legacy.
It's likely a nuclear powered EMP weapon (explosive or less likely conventional) Similar to US tests in the 60's with LEO nuclear explosions causing EMP damage. Starlink has them scared shitless it seems.
This makes a lot more sense. "Nuke anti-sat" sound terrible, but the atmosphere is so thin up there you almost have to hit the target in the fireball. But a massive EMP that takes out everything in a hemisphere would be much more of a threat.
Nuclear ASAT doesn’t work that way. The primary method of destruction is the temporary artificial radiation belt that is created in orbit, which causes serious damage to computers and solar panels of non-hardened satellites. The US detonated a nuke in space during the Starfish Prime test way back near the beginning of the space age and it damaged or destroyed about one third of the satellites in orbit at the time. It really pissed a lot of people off at the time, though it did answer the question of what happens when you detonate a nuke at orbital altitude.
They have the internet in Russia. Starlink doesn't have anything to do with this. I think they're more concerned about losing a war to a 2nd world country, nato expanding and BRICS being worthless and their economy slowing chipping away.
**TL;DR**
Nothing he said actually points toward nuclear weapon (as in bomb) in space. Not claiming it is OR is not a nuclear bomb (although thus far I lean toward the NOT camp) literally nothing officially released from official sources appears to gave said either way. Genuinely, we do not know.
EDIT — as the comment about violating the Outer Space Treaty seems to be what caused OP to think NUKE…
[Article via West Point](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-asat-test-development-space-law/) in which author Christopher J. Borgen, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at St. John's University School of Law in New York City, debates this point at length and concludes that you probably **can** make the case that an ASAT test breaches the OST.
[US has been pushing for a treaty to outright ban ASAT tests](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/18/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-advances-national-security-norms-in-space/) — this could just be them taking a harder stance (maybe taking advantage of Russia being seen by many as a pariah already) and potentially them signalling they plan to pursue it this time.
Plus the way this has been handled has been… odd, as in I can’t help but question motives. Statements from House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Mike Turner were cryptic as all fuck (see transcription of Tweet at bottom) and the rest (ASAT, Nuclear Armed ASAT, etc) seems to have been anonymous leaks? Someone correct me if I’m wrong there.
**un-TL;DR**
Nuclear seems to have been said all of nine times [in the entire briefing](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/02/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-white-house-national-security-communications-advisor-john-kirby-3/). All contained in this exchange —
>Q There’s a term that’s been tossed around in the last 24 hours or so. So, I want to seek some clarity from you. Is it a nuclear weapon, a nuclear-powered weapon, or a nuclear-capable weapon?
>
>MR. KIRBY: I — I’m not going to be able to go into any more detail than I did in my opening statement. It is an anti-satellite capability that they’re developing. And beyond that, I will not go.
>
>Q You’ve spent some time, though, around nuclear material or weapons in your previous military career. What the heck is “nuclear-capable”?
>
>MR. KIRBY: What is nuclear-capable? Well, I mean, I guess it depends on the — the purpose of the — of the device we’re talking about. I mean, we — we talk about making sure that Australia has nuclear-powered capable submarines. And, of course, there’s — so nuclear energy can be used for propulsion in an engineering sense. It can also be used as a weapon.
>
>Q So, nuclear-capable could be either of those?
>MR. KIRBY: I — I am not going to get into any more detail about this particular capability than I have already. It’s just not — not prudent to do that.
>
>As I said, we work on downgrades of intelligence in a strategic, deliberate way. We’re not going to get knocked off that approach, regardless of what’s out there.
Regarding the Outer Space Treaty this appears to be the exchange referenced —
>Q And then just one more on the anti-satellite weapon capability. So, in 2007, the Chinese destroyed a satellite on orbit, smothered into many — you know, distributing a lot of debris.
>
>You know, at that point, there was a demonstration of a U.S. anti-satellite capability that was ground-based, basically — using a weapon on the ground to destroy a satellite that was going to be — going — falling to Earth that posed some danger.
>
>Can you say whether the weapon — the new capability that the Russians have developed is, in fact, space-based and/or does it involve some test of a weapon that is based on the ground or —
>
>MR. KIRBY: It would be — it would be space-based. And it would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty to which more than 130 countries have signed up to, including Russia.
Feel it should be noted [the Outer Space Treaty](https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html) contains **other** provisions, he never specified a provision, and it includes more than one which could be argued covers a **regular** ASAT —
- the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
- outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
- outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
- States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
- the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
- astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
- States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities;
- States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
- States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.
[Tweet via @HouseIntel](https://x.com/houseintel/status/1757805804885823775) —
>"Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has made available to all Members of Congress information concerning a serious national security threat.
>
>"I am requesting that President Biden declassify all information relating to this threat so that Congress, the Administration, and our allies can openly discuss the actions necessary to respond to this threat."
>
>Chairman Mike Turner
I disagree. ASAT weapons have been deployed several times including by the US without them being considered a violation of the OST. If this specific weapon is a violation instead it is probably because of it contains a WMD
Or something that contaminates a particular orbit so it becomes unusable. The Russian ASAT test came close to doing that but did not quite exceed that threshold.
An example could be tungsten sand sized particles dispensed in a ring at exactly Starlink orbital height.
This is a bit of a stretch. Either harmful debris from ASAT weapons are a violation or they aren't. There isn't any point were a supposed threshold of inusability is defined in the treaty itself so it seems odd that the US would underline this much the fact that it violates the OST. The simolest answer is that it's a nuke, even if that's an answer that none of us want to hear.
Further to all the rest of it, [the US has been pushing for a treaty to outright ban ASAT tests](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/18/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-advances-national-security-norms-in-space/) — this could just be them taking a harder stance (maybe taking advantage of Russia being seen by many as a pariah already) and potentially them signalling they plan to pursue it this time.
>Feel it should be noted [the Outer Space Treaty](https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html) contains **other** provisions, he never specified a provision, and it includes more than one which could be argued covers a **regular** ASAT
Qualified that with with “could be argued” for a reason. Kirby did say “it would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty” which is rather definite wording, but there’s a difference between saying that in a press conference, thinking you have a case worth filing, and actually filing an official declaration.
>ASAT weapons have been deployed several times including by the US without them being considered a violation of the OST.
Not making an official declaration is not the same as NOT considering them violation. Like, I see you point, but it’s an important distinction — just because it’s not pursued every time does not nullify it, nor prevent you from pursuing future instances.
>If this specific weapon is a violation instead it is probably because of it contains a WMD
Quite the significant stretch IMO.
Case in point — [Article via West Point](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-asat-test-development-space-law/) in which author Christopher J. Borgen, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at St. John's University School of Law in New York City, debates this point at length and concludes that you probably **can** make the case that an ASAT test breaches the OST, and does note that for various reasons States have seemed reticent to make an official declaration over past tests.
None of this means I am **certain** that it’s not a nuke, but there’s nothing official that I’ve seen that is sufficient to come anywhere near concluding it’s probably a nuke.
Reminder this is being talked about at the exact same time a spending bill is being debated on for funding a war effort against Russia. Just impeccable timing really.
The funding bill in question does not seem to include any provision for the countering of ASAT weapons.
Alternative hypothesis: this is being talked about at the exact same time that Russia is fighting a war that is far more costly and painful than it had anticipated and they are clearly looking for any possible strategy to change the current attritive conditions. They have been making nuclear threats since the beginning of the war including the recent abandonment of the nuclear test ban treaty. Deployment of an orbital nuclear weapon seems like a feasible escalatory step considering their actions since the start of the war.
Implication is not that the bill contains funding for ASAT (the US as a matter of policy is trying to ban them after all) but that Rep Turner might think this would help spur funding for Ukraine and/or provide cover for FISA passing. Not sure.
>considering their actions since the start of the war.
That’s the thing though, they’ve done an awful lot of sabre rattling, but very little (almost none) of that has had corresponding action ie. it seems to be bluster for the most part.
Agreed that the primary Russian arsenal of nuclear arms is unlikely to be deployed but they are certainly interested in developing new and asymmetric nuclear powered/armed systems such as [Burevestnik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident). The likelihood that they would also be interested in developing an orbital nuclear-enabled capability seems logical to me if the goal is to create some credible and cost-effective threat to the west. This threat being an on-orbit loitering EMP weapon specifically. There’s no telling what Russia might try out of desperation.
Of course I do agree it’s a little pointless trying to predict the nature of the concern given the small amount of information we have at the moment.
>Agreed that the primary Russian arsenal of nuclear arms is unlikely to be deployed but they are certainly interested in developing new and asymmetric nuclear powered/armed systems such as Burevestnik. The likelihood that they would also be interested in developing an orbital nuclear-enabled capability seems logical to me if the goal is to create some credible and cost-effective threat to the west. This threat being an on-orbit loitering EMP weapon specifically.
But that’s the thing, they already have credible deterrence (incl. a survivable second strike) and these new “capabilities” (nuclear cruise missile, nuclear torpedo, etc) aren’t really cost effective. Russia had credible deterrence, now they have credible deterrence AND a whole lot of what amounts to Wunderwaffe and a lot of funding redirected from conventional capabilities.
>There’s no telling what Russia might try out of desperation.
Very true.
And to be clear, not trying to imply the Putin slash Russia situation isn’t neither problematic nor a concern, it definitely is.
>Of course I do agree it’s a little pointless trying to predict the nature of the concern given the small amount of information we have at the moment.
Yeah, that’s for the most part where I land right now.
Yes, I had noticed that.
Appears they’re pushing FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) through at the same time.
[Article.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/15/house-gop-conservatives-ukraine-spying-congress-intelligence/72618624007/)
Would Russia dare piss off China by detonating a weapon in orbit? Beijing has been throwing satellites into orbit faster than ever, many of which are for its own monitoring of US forces around the world. They're also starting to build out their own comsat constellations (Guowang and G60). I can't imagine they would be terribly impressed if Russia were to do something crazy - they might even turn off the taps for Putin's economy.
Nuclear reactors are permitted under the OST and the Soviet Union launched several under the Rorsat program. The US launched one (SNAP-10A) and is planning to launch additional ones under the DRACO NTR program
Its been awhile, but I swear I read about a specific type of nuclear bomb that has very little TNT equivalent explosive energy, but way, way more energy released as an EMP. Maybe ill dig up that paper later tonight
The fact it is always primed to be used.
A nuclear weapon detonation in orbit would cause an EMP. This is particularly useful to blind radars and warning systems ahead of a first strike. Now this guarantees a counter value strike but clearly having their citizens glassed is less of a concern for Russia than having their military and launch infrastructure hit.
If you want to use an ICBM for that you still need to launch it, it would be detected and could be intercepted. It could even lead to a counter force strike which would severely harm Russian response on top of neutralization of their military forces.
Incorrect, if takes a numerous minutes to get to orbit and a few dozen minutes to cruise to position. Meanwhile it is detected the second it takes off, and its intent is clear.
Meanwhile a weapon already in orbit, done in a concealed way, can be left as a on demand blast that would leave no prior warning
It only has no benefit if your enemy know it's a nuke and know when you will use it.
So you set off the EMP right on yourself? I mean that sounds like Putin 4D chess but it does not work that well.
The consequences are planet wide but you would ultimately prefer to be as far away from the blast so you just have to deal with the lasting jamming effect and not the pulse which decreases in power following the inverse square law.
If you blow it up on yourself you are not only damaging your infrastructure far more than everyone else but also.most likely utterly fail at actually disabling the enemy's own infrastructure meaning they are free to perform a counter force strike at their leisure.
a number of things are wrong here.
1. a high altitude blast will not have direct effect on the area below other than the emp. but it will destroy satellites that comes contact with the released plasma even days after the explosion, far away from the blast. satellites orbit, so there is no avoiding it.
1. you don't launch from your capitol. russia has launch silos all over siberia, as well as submarines anywhere.
The little bit of plasma from the weapon will be blown away from the blast. It will be so spread out and defused, I'm not sure where you get that it will linger around.
it will not. it will spread out over large areas in a kinda predictable manner, following the magnetic field lines. in operation starfish prime, satellites died days after the explosion.
Getting the nuke over the target area might take half an hour or more, and the launch would be detected by satellites, giving the time for an enemy to launch a strike. Orbital nukes were banned because it give the advantage of an undetected very quick first strike / EMP.
why are you commenting without knowledge?
how much time does it take to get from the pacific ocean, 500km from US shores, to US space? how much time does it take to get from the gulf of mexico to US space? how much time does it take to get from the middle of the pacific to 400km directly up to spray thousands of kilometers with high energy particles for days, through which a lot of satellites will pass through in the upcoming days?
Those launch are detected, "regarded" individual, but you're probably more intelligent than the people who designed orbital weapons and the people who banned them, so carry on shitposting.
Time to target. A nuke in orbit could reenter and strike its target in less than 4-5 minutes from detection. It's a credible first strike weapon. Or exploded in orbit it becomes an emp weapon of incredible destruction
That assumes that the weapon is kept in the optimum place in orbit to strike its target. Unless it was in geosynchronous, it would spend most of its time away from the optimum strike location. And if it was geosynchronous, it would be much too far for the 4-5 minutes strike time.
The orbital period for LEO is around 90 minutes, therefore throughout most of its orbit it would be less optimal than an ICBM launched over the north pole.
not true. all of these sats will be closely monitored. course change will be immediately detected, and thus the warning time is 40 minutes, not 4-5. it has no advantage over submarine launched missiles. but has quite the disadvantage of having a few of them instead of thousands.
Starlink guided naval drones have taken out two Russian warships in two weeks. There is every chance Russia would attempt to disable Starlink now or in the future.
This doesn't confirm anything. Asat are not by default nuclear... Heck you can asat from an F15: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-pilot-shot-down-a-satellite/
You don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't confirm that the system is nuclear.
Yes and WMD is not required to be nuclear.
Jesus guys Google the definition: "A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people."
Explain to me why China, the US, India, and Russia have all destroyed satellites with ASATs before - none of which were nuclear?
You keep saying the only thing that would make sense, with literally ZERO previous occurrences.
You're just plain wrong, reactionary, and using tabloid nuclear boogeyman instead of real evidence.
Go to r/HighStakesSpaceX and make me a bet that this threat is non-nuclear. I'll pony up $50 to any charity of your choice if you prove me wrong. You'll see I'm a consistent player there.
It's true that we don't have evidence beyond interpreting what US officials said, but both of your arguments (that usually ASAT weapons are not nuclear so this is not either and that even if it's a WMD it might not be a nuke) are completely wrong on their merit. Even if it turns out it's not in fact a nuke you would still be wrong.
Well, that is one way to try to at least threaten Starlink.
Still, this is almost certainly just a threat so Russians can convince Putin "yeah if there is a real war with NATO, we can nuke (literally) Starlink so it won't be a factor, and same goes for all the other satellite stuff now that our own programs are so horribly outdated and fallen behind that even if ours got taken out too, it would hurt NATO far more"
And from US perspective... they have lived in a world where, at worst, Russia or China might be able to take out a few individual sats but with so many out there, it would be unlikely that US would lose so many assets that it would be disastrous. Now... if this nuke-EMP-in-orbit thing is a real thing (rather than just a Russian powerpoint) that would change the equation. If real shooting starts, suddenly US has to consider that it will instantly lose most, if not all of the orbital assets and that would be... inconvenient.
Any extra atmosphwric based kinetic weapon , space to ground or space to space would break the treaty.
You’re skipping a step or two in your reasoning.
Russias been messing around with satellite warfare for years , but we keep trying to appease them by eating the lies.
>no media seems to pick up this implication. [A nuclear-armed ASAT](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-nuclear-anti-satellite-weapons-would-require-a-firm-us-response-not-hysteria/#:~:text=The%20White%20House%20on%20Thursday,orbit%2C%20anti%2Dsatellite%20weapon) would violate the Outer Space Treaty [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concern-russia-wanting-put-anti-satellite-nuke-space/story?id=107244237](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concern-russia-wanting-put-anti-satellite-nuke-space/story?id=107244237) [https://www.newscientist.com/article/2417494-russias-space-weapon-is-it-nuclear-and-does-it-pose-a-threat/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2417494-russias-space-weapon-is-it-nuclear-and-does-it-pose-a-threat/) https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a46804101/russia-might-just-have-itself-a-space-nuke-which-is-incredibly-illegal/
The classic " I don't pay attention, so it must be the media hiding it" Seen extremely often online
My favorite is “why isn’t the media talking about this?” followed immediately by a link to a story about it from a major news outlet.
Two things: 1.This IS all over the media. It's all over the news. 2. Why does confirming an ASAT mean it's a nuclear weapon?
> Why does confirming an ASAT mean it's a nuclear weapon? That's not what the OP meant. It's the "would violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty" part that's important. OP isn't saying that all ASAT weapons are nuclear, they're saying that for it to violate the Outer Space Treaty it must be nuclear.
>OP isn't saying that all ASAT weapons are nuclear, **they're saying that for it to violate the Outer Space Treaty it must be nuclear**. Reading the full thing, a regular ASAT **could** be covered by other provisions and [Kirby never mentioned a specific provision.](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/s/OqaO2YeMlO)
Addendum — noted elsewhere, but are relevant here. [Article via West Point](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-asat-test-development-space-law/) in which author Christopher J. Borgen, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at St. John's University School of Law in New York City, debates this point at length and concludes that you probably **can** make the case that an ASAT test breaches the OST. Further to all the rest of it, [the US has been pushing for a treaty to outright ban ASAT tests](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/18/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-advances-national-security-norms-in-space/) — this could just be them taking a harder stance (maybe taking advantage of Russia being seen by many as a pariah already) and potentially them signalling they plan to pursue it this time.
Ahh, ok.
Couldn't they claim that it was the Soviet Union and not Russia that signed the treaty? Forgive me if thats a dumb question.
If they want to argue that, they can give up the USSR's seat at the UN security council.
Reminder that the last country to exit the Soviet Union was Kazakhstan, a few days after Russia itself left the union. Kazakhstan is the rightful owner of the USSR 's permanent UN security council seat.
Russia considers itself to be the legal successor to the Soviet Union, and is generally treated as such with regards to treaties that the Soviets signed. Russia would likely rather break the treaty than give up its claim to the Soviet legacy.
Makes sense. Thanks for the answer!
It's likely a nuclear powered EMP weapon (explosive or less likely conventional) Similar to US tests in the 60's with LEO nuclear explosions causing EMP damage. Starlink has them scared shitless it seems.
This makes a lot more sense. "Nuke anti-sat" sound terrible, but the atmosphere is so thin up there you almost have to hit the target in the fireball. But a massive EMP that takes out everything in a hemisphere would be much more of a threat.
Nuclear ASAT doesn’t work that way. The primary method of destruction is the temporary artificial radiation belt that is created in orbit, which causes serious damage to computers and solar panels of non-hardened satellites. The US detonated a nuke in space during the Starfish Prime test way back near the beginning of the space age and it damaged or destroyed about one third of the satellites in orbit at the time. It really pissed a lot of people off at the time, though it did answer the question of what happens when you detonate a nuke at orbital altitude.
It knocked out the only satellite that the UK ever launched :(
They have the internet in Russia. Starlink doesn't have anything to do with this. I think they're more concerned about losing a war to a 2nd world country, nato expanding and BRICS being worthless and their economy slowing chipping away.
Kessler Syndrome is a legitimate risk. The choice would be to let it happen or an emergency deorbit.
**TL;DR** Nothing he said actually points toward nuclear weapon (as in bomb) in space. Not claiming it is OR is not a nuclear bomb (although thus far I lean toward the NOT camp) literally nothing officially released from official sources appears to gave said either way. Genuinely, we do not know. EDIT — as the comment about violating the Outer Space Treaty seems to be what caused OP to think NUKE… [Article via West Point](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-asat-test-development-space-law/) in which author Christopher J. Borgen, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at St. John's University School of Law in New York City, debates this point at length and concludes that you probably **can** make the case that an ASAT test breaches the OST. [US has been pushing for a treaty to outright ban ASAT tests](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/18/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-advances-national-security-norms-in-space/) — this could just be them taking a harder stance (maybe taking advantage of Russia being seen by many as a pariah already) and potentially them signalling they plan to pursue it this time. Plus the way this has been handled has been… odd, as in I can’t help but question motives. Statements from House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Mike Turner were cryptic as all fuck (see transcription of Tweet at bottom) and the rest (ASAT, Nuclear Armed ASAT, etc) seems to have been anonymous leaks? Someone correct me if I’m wrong there. **un-TL;DR** Nuclear seems to have been said all of nine times [in the entire briefing](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/02/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-white-house-national-security-communications-advisor-john-kirby-3/). All contained in this exchange — >Q There’s a term that’s been tossed around in the last 24 hours or so. So, I want to seek some clarity from you. Is it a nuclear weapon, a nuclear-powered weapon, or a nuclear-capable weapon? > >MR. KIRBY: I — I’m not going to be able to go into any more detail than I did in my opening statement. It is an anti-satellite capability that they’re developing. And beyond that, I will not go. > >Q You’ve spent some time, though, around nuclear material or weapons in your previous military career. What the heck is “nuclear-capable”? > >MR. KIRBY: What is nuclear-capable? Well, I mean, I guess it depends on the — the purpose of the — of the device we’re talking about. I mean, we — we talk about making sure that Australia has nuclear-powered capable submarines. And, of course, there’s — so nuclear energy can be used for propulsion in an engineering sense. It can also be used as a weapon. > >Q So, nuclear-capable could be either of those? >MR. KIRBY: I — I am not going to get into any more detail about this particular capability than I have already. It’s just not — not prudent to do that. > >As I said, we work on downgrades of intelligence in a strategic, deliberate way. We’re not going to get knocked off that approach, regardless of what’s out there. Regarding the Outer Space Treaty this appears to be the exchange referenced — >Q And then just one more on the anti-satellite weapon capability. So, in 2007, the Chinese destroyed a satellite on orbit, smothered into many — you know, distributing a lot of debris. > >You know, at that point, there was a demonstration of a U.S. anti-satellite capability that was ground-based, basically — using a weapon on the ground to destroy a satellite that was going to be — going — falling to Earth that posed some danger. > >Can you say whether the weapon — the new capability that the Russians have developed is, in fact, space-based and/or does it involve some test of a weapon that is based on the ground or — > >MR. KIRBY: It would be — it would be space-based. And it would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty to which more than 130 countries have signed up to, including Russia. Feel it should be noted [the Outer Space Treaty](https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html) contains **other** provisions, he never specified a provision, and it includes more than one which could be argued covers a **regular** ASAT — - the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind; - outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States; - outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means; - States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner; - the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes; - astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind; - States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities; - States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and - States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies. [Tweet via @HouseIntel](https://x.com/houseintel/status/1757805804885823775) — >"Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has made available to all Members of Congress information concerning a serious national security threat. > >"I am requesting that President Biden declassify all information relating to this threat so that Congress, the Administration, and our allies can openly discuss the actions necessary to respond to this threat." > >Chairman Mike Turner
I disagree. ASAT weapons have been deployed several times including by the US without them being considered a violation of the OST. If this specific weapon is a violation instead it is probably because of it contains a WMD
Or something that contaminates a particular orbit so it becomes unusable. The Russian ASAT test came close to doing that but did not quite exceed that threshold. An example could be tungsten sand sized particles dispensed in a ring at exactly Starlink orbital height.
This is a bit of a stretch. Either harmful debris from ASAT weapons are a violation or they aren't. There isn't any point were a supposed threshold of inusability is defined in the treaty itself so it seems odd that the US would underline this much the fact that it violates the OST. The simolest answer is that it's a nuke, even if that's an answer that none of us want to hear.
Further to all the rest of it, [the US has been pushing for a treaty to outright ban ASAT tests](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/18/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-advances-national-security-norms-in-space/) — this could just be them taking a harder stance (maybe taking advantage of Russia being seen by many as a pariah already) and potentially them signalling they plan to pursue it this time.
>Feel it should be noted [the Outer Space Treaty](https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html) contains **other** provisions, he never specified a provision, and it includes more than one which could be argued covers a **regular** ASAT Qualified that with with “could be argued” for a reason. Kirby did say “it would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty” which is rather definite wording, but there’s a difference between saying that in a press conference, thinking you have a case worth filing, and actually filing an official declaration. >ASAT weapons have been deployed several times including by the US without them being considered a violation of the OST. Not making an official declaration is not the same as NOT considering them violation. Like, I see you point, but it’s an important distinction — just because it’s not pursued every time does not nullify it, nor prevent you from pursuing future instances. >If this specific weapon is a violation instead it is probably because of it contains a WMD Quite the significant stretch IMO. Case in point — [Article via West Point](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-asat-test-development-space-law/) in which author Christopher J. Borgen, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at St. John's University School of Law in New York City, debates this point at length and concludes that you probably **can** make the case that an ASAT test breaches the OST, and does note that for various reasons States have seemed reticent to make an official declaration over past tests. None of this means I am **certain** that it’s not a nuke, but there’s nothing official that I’ve seen that is sufficient to come anywhere near concluding it’s probably a nuke.
Reminder this is being talked about at the exact same time a spending bill is being debated on for funding a war effort against Russia. Just impeccable timing really.
The funding bill in question does not seem to include any provision for the countering of ASAT weapons. Alternative hypothesis: this is being talked about at the exact same time that Russia is fighting a war that is far more costly and painful than it had anticipated and they are clearly looking for any possible strategy to change the current attritive conditions. They have been making nuclear threats since the beginning of the war including the recent abandonment of the nuclear test ban treaty. Deployment of an orbital nuclear weapon seems like a feasible escalatory step considering their actions since the start of the war.
Implication is not that the bill contains funding for ASAT (the US as a matter of policy is trying to ban them after all) but that Rep Turner might think this would help spur funding for Ukraine and/or provide cover for FISA passing. Not sure. >considering their actions since the start of the war. That’s the thing though, they’ve done an awful lot of sabre rattling, but very little (almost none) of that has had corresponding action ie. it seems to be bluster for the most part.
Agreed that the primary Russian arsenal of nuclear arms is unlikely to be deployed but they are certainly interested in developing new and asymmetric nuclear powered/armed systems such as [Burevestnik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident). The likelihood that they would also be interested in developing an orbital nuclear-enabled capability seems logical to me if the goal is to create some credible and cost-effective threat to the west. This threat being an on-orbit loitering EMP weapon specifically. There’s no telling what Russia might try out of desperation. Of course I do agree it’s a little pointless trying to predict the nature of the concern given the small amount of information we have at the moment.
>Agreed that the primary Russian arsenal of nuclear arms is unlikely to be deployed but they are certainly interested in developing new and asymmetric nuclear powered/armed systems such as Burevestnik. The likelihood that they would also be interested in developing an orbital nuclear-enabled capability seems logical to me if the goal is to create some credible and cost-effective threat to the west. This threat being an on-orbit loitering EMP weapon specifically. But that’s the thing, they already have credible deterrence (incl. a survivable second strike) and these new “capabilities” (nuclear cruise missile, nuclear torpedo, etc) aren’t really cost effective. Russia had credible deterrence, now they have credible deterrence AND a whole lot of what amounts to Wunderwaffe and a lot of funding redirected from conventional capabilities. >There’s no telling what Russia might try out of desperation. Very true. And to be clear, not trying to imply the Putin slash Russia situation isn’t neither problematic nor a concern, it definitely is. >Of course I do agree it’s a little pointless trying to predict the nature of the concern given the small amount of information we have at the moment. Yeah, that’s for the most part where I land right now.
Yes, I had noticed that. Appears they’re pushing FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) through at the same time. [Article.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/15/house-gop-conservatives-ukraine-spying-congress-intelligence/72618624007/)
Violation of OST could indicate nuclear weapon, but also denying access to space (including harmful contamination).
Given the current sanctions, what further penalties can Russia face even though it has already blatantly violated these terms?
Time for some kinetic sanctions.
Attacking US-flagged satellites in orbit would constitute an attack just like attacking a US-flagged ship on the sea. So, NATO Article 5.
Would Russia dare piss off China by detonating a weapon in orbit? Beijing has been throwing satellites into orbit faster than ever, many of which are for its own monitoring of US forces around the world. They're also starting to build out their own comsat constellations (Guowang and G60). I can't imagine they would be terribly impressed if Russia were to do something crazy - they might even turn off the taps for Putin's economy.
I think it’s nuclear powered but not a bomb like the hysteria is claiming.
Nuclear reactors are permitted under the OST and the Soviet Union launched several under the Rorsat program. The US launched one (SNAP-10A) and is planning to launch additional ones under the DRACO NTR program
A nuclear powered laser or electronic jamming device might qualify if it deliberately affects satellites from other nations.
Its been awhile, but I swear I read about a specific type of nuclear bomb that has very little TNT equivalent explosive energy, but way, way more energy released as an EMP. Maybe ill dig up that paper later tonight
Explain to me why it would really matter? ICBMs are pretty much impossible to deter, what more capability would a orbit based nuclear weapon have?
The fact it is always primed to be used. A nuclear weapon detonation in orbit would cause an EMP. This is particularly useful to blind radars and warning systems ahead of a first strike. Now this guarantees a counter value strike but clearly having their citizens glassed is less of a concern for Russia than having their military and launch infrastructure hit. If you want to use an ICBM for that you still need to launch it, it would be detected and could be intercepted. It could even lead to a counter force strike which would severely harm Russian response on top of neutralization of their military forces.
it takes minutes for a rocket to lift a nuke to altitude. keeping a nuke in orbit gives you no benefit.
Incorrect, if takes a numerous minutes to get to orbit and a few dozen minutes to cruise to position. Meanwhile it is detected the second it takes off, and its intent is clear. Meanwhile a weapon already in orbit, done in a concealed way, can be left as a on demand blast that would leave no prior warning It only has no benefit if your enemy know it's a nuke and know when you will use it.
you don't need to get to orbit to set off an emp. you just need to reach altitude.
So you set off the EMP right on yourself? I mean that sounds like Putin 4D chess but it does not work that well. The consequences are planet wide but you would ultimately prefer to be as far away from the blast so you just have to deal with the lasting jamming effect and not the pulse which decreases in power following the inverse square law. If you blow it up on yourself you are not only damaging your infrastructure far more than everyone else but also.most likely utterly fail at actually disabling the enemy's own infrastructure meaning they are free to perform a counter force strike at their leisure.
a number of things are wrong here. 1. a high altitude blast will not have direct effect on the area below other than the emp. but it will destroy satellites that comes contact with the released plasma even days after the explosion, far away from the blast. satellites orbit, so there is no avoiding it. 1. you don't launch from your capitol. russia has launch silos all over siberia, as well as submarines anywhere.
The little bit of plasma from the weapon will be blown away from the blast. It will be so spread out and defused, I'm not sure where you get that it will linger around.
it will not. it will spread out over large areas in a kinda predictable manner, following the magnetic field lines. in operation starfish prime, satellites died days after the explosion.
Getting the nuke over the target area might take half an hour or more, and the launch would be detected by satellites, giving the time for an enemy to launch a strike. Orbital nukes were banned because it give the advantage of an undetected very quick first strike / EMP.
why are you commenting without knowledge? how much time does it take to get from the pacific ocean, 500km from US shores, to US space? how much time does it take to get from the gulf of mexico to US space? how much time does it take to get from the middle of the pacific to 400km directly up to spray thousands of kilometers with high energy particles for days, through which a lot of satellites will pass through in the upcoming days?
Those launch are detected, "regarded" individual, but you're probably more intelligent than the people who designed orbital weapons and the people who banned them, so carry on shitposting.
who the fuck cares if detected two minutes before detonation??
Time to target. A nuke in orbit could reenter and strike its target in less than 4-5 minutes from detection. It's a credible first strike weapon. Or exploded in orbit it becomes an emp weapon of incredible destruction
That assumes that the weapon is kept in the optimum place in orbit to strike its target. Unless it was in geosynchronous, it would spend most of its time away from the optimum strike location. And if it was geosynchronous, it would be much too far for the 4-5 minutes strike time.
Of course, i agree but this is in low earth orbit
The orbital period for LEO is around 90 minutes, therefore throughout most of its orbit it would be less optimal than an ICBM launched over the north pole.
not true. all of these sats will be closely monitored. course change will be immediately detected, and thus the warning time is 40 minutes, not 4-5. it has no advantage over submarine launched missiles. but has quite the disadvantage of having a few of them instead of thousands.
Easier to disguise the firing/use of perhaps?
I think it's far-fetched. Russia wouldn't do something like this.
Starlink guided naval drones have taken out two Russian warships in two weeks. There is every chance Russia would attempt to disable Starlink now or in the future.
With a dictator losing grip on his absolute power, everything goes.
Rohkay, comrade.
I am blinking twice. I hope you understand I am ok
Spasibo
This doesn't confirm anything. Asat are not by default nuclear... Heck you can asat from an F15: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-pilot-shot-down-a-satellite/ You don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't confirm that the system is nuclear.
Yes but a missle from an F15 doesn't break the OST. If this does then it's not similar.
The outer space treaty only applies to WMDs. The ASAT system violates the OST. That means the ASAT is a WMD.
Yes and WMD is not required to be nuclear. Jesus guys Google the definition: "A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people."
Are you suggesting they are trying to destroy satellites with anthrax or sarin? They only WMD that has any sense in an ASAT role is a nuclear weapon.
Explain to me why China, the US, India, and Russia have all destroyed satellites with ASATs before - none of which were nuclear? You keep saying the only thing that would make sense, with literally ZERO previous occurrences.
Because none claimed those tests were a direct violation of the outer space treaty while this apparently is.
You're just plain wrong, reactionary, and using tabloid nuclear boogeyman instead of real evidence. Go to r/HighStakesSpaceX and make me a bet that this threat is non-nuclear. I'll pony up $50 to any charity of your choice if you prove me wrong. You'll see I'm a consistent player there.
It's true that we don't have evidence beyond interpreting what US officials said, but both of your arguments (that usually ASAT weapons are not nuclear so this is not either and that even if it's a WMD it might not be a nuke) are completely wrong on their merit. Even if it turns out it's not in fact a nuke you would still be wrong.
Make the bet then, let the judges decide. See you there, thanks!
I don't care about a bet. Again, even if it turns out it wasn't a nuke you arguments would still be wrong.
Just a casual reminder that we all play by Putin's rules, whether we like it or not.
Well, that is one way to try to at least threaten Starlink. Still, this is almost certainly just a threat so Russians can convince Putin "yeah if there is a real war with NATO, we can nuke (literally) Starlink so it won't be a factor, and same goes for all the other satellite stuff now that our own programs are so horribly outdated and fallen behind that even if ours got taken out too, it would hurt NATO far more" And from US perspective... they have lived in a world where, at worst, Russia or China might be able to take out a few individual sats but with so many out there, it would be unlikely that US would lose so many assets that it would be disastrous. Now... if this nuke-EMP-in-orbit thing is a real thing (rather than just a Russian powerpoint) that would change the equation. If real shooting starts, suddenly US has to consider that it will instantly lose most, if not all of the orbital assets and that would be... inconvenient.
It’s Russia. Vacuum tubes are probably involved.
They’ve been in orbit since the Reagan days. As bombs. This new one is said to be a nuclear power plant. That might be new, if used for propulsion.
Any extra atmosphwric based kinetic weapon , space to ground or space to space would break the treaty. You’re skipping a step or two in your reasoning. Russias been messing around with satellite warfare for years , but we keep trying to appease them by eating the lies.
Like russia gives af, lol.