Can more be done to respond to Russian space nuclear weapons?

Four months after issuing a public warning that Russia was developing a nuclear anti-satellite program, Rep. Mike Turner still believes the White House needs to do more to reveal details of the threat and then dissuade Moscow from deploying it. .

Still, at least one expert says such actions should be approached with caution.

Turner, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, renewed his warnings about Russia's space nuclear weapon at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event on June 20, saying that President Joe's administration Biden was “sleepwalking” into “Day Zero,” a tenure as head of the administration. Space Operations General B. Chance Saltzman used to describe the launch date of such an anti-satellite nuclear weapon.

“In order to avoid Day Zero, the Biden administration must immediately declassify all known information regarding the status of Russia's anti-satellite nuclear weapons program,” Turner argued.

Turner's warning in February led to media reports and ultimately a National Security Council declaration that the danger involved an anti-satellite weapon that the Russians were developing and that would violate an international treaty banning the deployment of nuclear weapons in space.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John F. Plumb confirmed last month that Russia was developing an “indiscriminate” nuclear weapon designed for deployment in space, highlighting its potentially devastating impacts on communications, trade and national security. He added that although the threat is not “imminent,” the Pentagon is concerned about it.

However, releasing all information about the threat to the public, as Turner suggests, could carry risks, said Charles Galbreath, a senior fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

“It’s about what we disclose, to whom and for what reasons,” Galbreath told Air & Space Forces Magazine, highlighting the different needs and understandings of political leaders, the military and the public. “What do we gain by making something public? Because once we reveal how we know, it could potentially burn the source, and any additional information we might have received from that source would then be lost.

Beyond more disclosure, Turner also called on the White House and Pentagon to step up their actions and suggested that all options — including economic sanctions and military measures — be on the table.

“You don't hear the administration saying, 'This red line is so big that we're going to implement an additional regime of financial restrictions and sanctions,' or even looking at what we're going to do with our allies and NATO to establish a strong agreement. statement to Russia, to understand that this is not something that is going to be accepted,” Turner said.

Galbreath stressed that economic sanctions have so far failed to deter Russia from aggressive actions, such as in Ukraine.

“One option would be to persuade Russia that the international community, including countries like China, would be affected by the detonation of a nuclear weapon in orbit,” Galbreath said. “We would consider any nation that committed such an act to be a terrorist state rather than a legitimate government. The entire world would take steps to prevent them from regaining this ability in the future. »

Space Development Agency Director Derek M. Tournear also suggested that a global response would be needed to respond to a nuclear weapon in space, calling its potential use an “attack on the world.”

If Russia were to detonate such a weapons system in space, the consequences could quickly ripple into everyday life. During the Cold War “Starfish Prime” test in 1962, the United States detonated a nuclear weapon in low Earth orbit, disabling eight of 24 satellites and causing a power outage in Hawaii.

To prepare for Russian arming, Galbreath said the United States should build the resilience of its satellite systems by proliferating them and making them less vulnerable to nuclear events.

“Today, a few of our satellites have radiation protection and multiple redundancies, ensuring that if one subsystem fails, another can back it up,” Galbreath said. “With cheaper satellites, they don't have the levels of redundancy or shielding, but cheaper satellites can be replenished by launching new ones, because their lifespan is usually only a few years. Thus, by combining the protection of certain assets and the rapid reconstitution of lost assets, any effect of a nuclear detonation gap could be minimized.

After Turner's criticism, White House national security spokesman John Kirby said the administration was “working hard” to persuade other countries to join the United States and clearly emphasize the dangers posed by an anti-satellite weapon designed to carry a nuclear warhead.

“We have approached this particular issue from every possible angle, including through intense diplomacy with countries around the world and, of course, through direct conversations with Russia.” Kirby told reporters on June 20.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has so far denied any intention to deploy nuclear weapons in space. Washington said such developments would violate international treaties banning nuclear weapons in space.