{"id":65974,"date":"2026-09-17T05:49:53","date_gmt":"2026-09-17T05:49:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/?p=65974"},"modified":"2026-09-17T05:49:53","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T05:49:53","slug":"weaponizing-space-endangers-the-world-and-america-itself","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/2026\/09\/17\/weaponizing-space-endangers-the-world-and-america-itself\/","title":{"rendered":"Weaponizing Space Endangers the World\u2014and America Itself"},"content":{"rendered":"

Qamar Bashir<\/b><\/strong>
\n<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n

The United States\u2019 acknowledgment that it has deployed weapons in orbit should provoke international alarm and renewed diplomatic action. Space is indispensable to modern life, supporting navigation, communications, weather forecasting, scientific research, and essential infrastructure. Extending military confrontation into this environment exposes humanity to consequences beyond the control of any single government. The immediate challenge is to prevent this disclosure from becoming an invitation to further deployments and instead make it the starting point for a comprehensive international agreement against space weaponization.<\/p>\n

Air Force Secretary Troy Meink confirmed on September 14 that America possesses \u201con-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary action.\u201d Washington describes these capabilities as protective. Yet an assurance of defensive intent cannot determine how rival governments respond. Weapons presented as safeguards by one country may become the justification for countermeasures elsewhere. The danger lies in this accelerating cycle: each deployment encourages another, while every participant insists that responsibility rests with someone else.<\/p>\n

China warned against turning outer space into a battlefield, while Russia called for its demilitarization. Their objections deserve consideration alongside scrutiny of their own military activities. No government can credibly demand restraint while exempting itself. Equally, Washington cannot resolve the dangers created by rival capabilities simply by expanding its own. The relevant question is whether these choices produce lasting security or establish an increasingly unstable environment in which suspicion, secrecy, and preparations for conflict reinforce one another.<\/p>\n

The capacity to destroy satellites is already established. The United States, Russia, China, and India have demonstrated destructive anti-satellite capabilities. China destroyed its Fengyun-1C weather satellite in 2007; the United States intercepted USA-193 in 2008; India conducted Mission Shakti in 2019; and Russia destroyed Cosmos-1408 in 2021. These demonstrations make clear that threats to orbital infrastructure are neither imaginary nor confined to one country. They also show why allowing such competition to expand carries serious consequences.<\/p>\n

The potential for proliferation extends further. Missile development, satellite launches, tracking systems, and spacecraft operations provide foundations that countries can draw upon in developing military space capabilities. Iran\u2019s ability to launch satellites illustrates why the discussion cannot stop with the four countries that have demonstrated destructive interceptions. Launch capability does not automatically establish an operational anti-satellite weapon: targeting and interception require additional capabilities. Nevertheless, the spread of relevant expertise increases the importance of restraint before further governments commit to weapon development.<\/p>\n

Nor does every attack require physically destroying a satellite. Jamming, cyber operations, directed-energy systems, and spacecraft operating near other satellites can threaten communications and other orbital functions.<\/p>\n

The Secure World Foundation\u2019s 2026 assessment examines counterspace developments in thirteen countries: the United States, Russia, China, India, Australia, France, Germany, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and the United Kingdom<\/b><\/strong>. Their capabilities and stages of development vary, but the breadth of these programmes demonstrates that the danger extends well beyond the four countries that have demonstrated destructive satellite interceptions. Disruption need not produce an explosion to cause serious harm: interference with navigation, communications, or timing signals can expose civilian infrastructure to the consequences of military confrontation.<\/p>\n

Destructive attacks add the enduring danger of debris. Fragments can threaten other spacecraft, including those belonging to countries uninvolved in the original confrontation. Russia\u2019s 2021 test endangered International Space Station crews, according to NASA. Such consequences undermine the idea that an orbital engagement can always remain limited to its intended target. Depending on altitude and other conditions, debris can persist, spread risks, and complicate future operations long after the political dispute that caused it has changed.<\/p>\n

The civilian implications are substantial. Navigation, emergency response, transport, telecommunications, and financial networks use satellite services or satellite-derived timing. Not every internet connection passes through orbit, but disruptions to these supporting functions can affect people far beyond the immediate theatre of conflict. A damaged military asset and a disrupted civilian service may be linked through shared infrastructure. The public therefore has a direct interest in decisions too often discussed exclusively through the language of deterrence, military advantage, and national prestige.<\/p>\n

America has compelling reasons to prevent this escalation. Its substantial investment in space systems creates advantages, but also assets requiring protection. Countries with fewer satellites may calculate that threatening an opponent\u2019s infrastructure offers disproportionate leverage. That does not guarantee their success; it does expose the weakness of assuming that technological leadership ensures immunity. An arms race could force Washington into increasingly expensive efforts to protect systems against threats encouraged by the competition itself.<\/p>\n

Existing law provides important but incomplete restraints. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit and reserves celestial bodies for peaceful purposes; it does not ban all conventional orbital weapons.<\/p>\n

The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibits nuclear explosions in space for its parties. The Moon Agreement reinforces peaceful-use restrictions but lacks participation by the United States, Russia, and China. Registration, liability, and rescue treaties provide additional governance, not a comprehensive weapons prohibition.<\/p>\n

Bilateral and UN initiatives likewise leave gaps. The U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty restricted space-based missile-defence systems, but American withdrawal took effect in 2002. Russian-Chinese proposals for broader restrictions have not become binding treaties.<\/p>\n

General Assembly Resolution 77\/41 urges commitments against destructive direct-ascent anti-satellite testing, rather than banning every space weapon. Rival Security Council proposals failed in 2024. This history demonstrates unfinished diplomacy, not the impossibility of agreement.<\/p>\n

The present disclosure should trigger a renewed international initiative. A UN resolution could establish broad political support for a comprehensive prohibition and begin negotiations addressing deployment, testing, threats, and attacks against space systems.<\/p>\n

Definitions, verification, and legitimate civilian technologies would require careful treatment. A General Assembly resolution would not itself impose a universally binding ban, but it could establish expectations and a negotiating mandate. Enforceable commitments would then require an appropriate legal instrument and effective implementation.<\/p>\n

The United States should lead that effort alongside other space powers. Preserving space serves American interests and the interests of countries whose citizens depend on services they do not control. Leadership should be measured by the ability to prevent catastrophe, not merely prepare for confrontation. A comprehensive, verifiable agreement would protect humanity while reducing dangers to American infrastructure and people. The opportunity now is to turn an alarming announcement into diplomatic momentum before competition creates consequences that no government can readily reverse.<\/p>\n

The writer is (Rtd.) Press Secretary to the President,Former Press Minister at the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former Press Attach\u00e9 to Malaysia, and Former MD, SRBC. He resides in Michigan,USA.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Qamar Bashir The United States\u2019 acknowledgment that it has deployed weapons in orbit should provoke international alarm and renewed diplomatic action. Space is indispensable to modern life, supporting navigation, communications, weather forecasting, scientific research, and essential infrastructure. Extending military confrontation into this environment exposes humanity to consequences beyond the control of any single government. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":33798,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[39,1670],"class_list":["post-65974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-editorial-articles","tag-qamar-bashir","tag-weaponizing-space-endangers-the-world-and-america-itself"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65974","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65974"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65974\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":65976,"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65974\/revisions\/65976"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33798"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyspokesman.net\/live\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}