By: Francesco Milner
October 4th, 1957 – the launch of the Russian satellite Sputnik I marked the beginning of humanity’s entry into space and ultimately gave birth to the space age. It was a pivotal endeavour that paved the way for countless scientific triumphs, significant milestones, and international cooperation in space exploration. On top of that, it also set the stage for ongoing competition in space. While the intensity of this competition has fluctuated over the decades, it has remained a driving force in the evolution of space policy and technological development. Today, the growing reliance on space and the advantages it offers has made space increasingly essential to modern military operations. So, how does the integration of space and military domains impact security? The answer lies in counterspace capabilities, resource competition, and the lack of adequate governance in international space law.
Counterspace Capabilities: Blurring the Civilian-Military Divide
Traditionally, space was seen as a global commons, free for peaceful use by all nations, but, recently, it has become more of a contested domain where technological superiority determines geopolitical influence and dominance. With the years this fuelled the need to develop counterspace capabilities. The various types of counterspace capabilities can be organised into four categories, namely kinetic weapons (to destroy or damage), non-kinetic weapons, electronic weapons (to jam or spoof) and cyber operations (to disrupt or degrade). Not only do such weapons improve a nation’s precision, disruption, and defensive capabilities, but they also amplify the risks that can reshape the security landscape and introduce new vulnerabilities. The potential to disable or destroy satellites could have devastating consequences, presenting significant security risks that impact military operations and spillover to civilian infrastructure like healthcare, transportation, communications, and energy, all depending on space systems.
The blurred civilian-military divide underscores that such counterspace capabilities can drastically raise the stakes in modern warfare. One hour before their attack on Ukraine, Russia launched a cyberattack on the US satellite company Viasat, causing an immediate and significant loss of communication for the Ukrainian military. This severely impacted their ability to manage and direct their armed forces. Viasat was not only a military but also a civilian asset, as its services were used by countless homes and businesses throughout Ukraine. As a result, civilians experienced internet outages, disruptions to energy systems, and were unable to access reliable information from their own government during the early days of the war. This incident highlights not only how modern warfare is almost entirely dependent on space-based capabilities but also how space militarisation blurs the lines of civil and military infrastructure, raising important broader security implications.
Geopolitical Implications of Space Resource Competition and Militarization
As numerous countries and private entities have entered the so-called Space Race, what was once a bi-polar competition between the United States and the Soviet Union is now multipolar. With ambitious new members, specific strategic alliances have come to fruition. The Artemis Accords— a set of non-binding principles guiding civil space use in the 21st century, with a focus on the Moon—were developed through a prominent alliance co-led by the US Department of State in coordination with NASA. Since November 2024, there have been 48 signatories, including countries like Japan, Italy, UAE, and the UK. Despite this coalition being committed to the peaceful exploration and utilisation of space resources, there is a strong focus on ensuring strategic advantages in space, notably regarding lunar resources. China and Russia have countered the US-led Artemis Accords by intensifying and formalising their space collaboration. Their partnership aims to co-develop a lunar research station as a means of counterbalancing Western dominance in space. There have been other strategic alliances forming with countries all around the world, even without the global hegemons. Despite such alliances appearing as another means of state cooperation, they also raise critical geopolitical questions as further space militarisation would contribute to reshaping global security dynamics. The building and strengthening of such alliances have led to a shift in the focus of the space race from being a competition to reach space to a pursuit of controlling and exploiting strategic space resources.
Asteroids and the Moon harbour a wide variety of minerals, gasses, and water that could aid in sustaining human life and enable greater space exploration. There are two examples of the various exploitable space resources that have fuelled competition between strategic alliances, aiming to establish dominance in key areas such as the Moon and resource-abundant asteroids. The first is lunar regolith, a key resource showing much promise in the quest to make space exploration more sustainable and feasible. It is a mix of broken rock, dust, minerals, and other components that cover the solid rock on celestial bodies like the Moon and Mars. Lunar regolith is considered a key resource because it contains extractable oxygen that can be used for astronauts, plant life, and as an oxidizer for rocket propellant. Another example could be lunar ice deposits, which facilitate the extraction of water, air, and hydrogen fuel for astronauts, thus helping make space exploration more endurable as it could heavily contribute to lowering the energy costs associated with escaping Earth’s gravitational pull. The high value and advantages these resources are expected to offer in the future incentivize nations to adopt strategies of force to secure and maintain potential access to resource-rich areas. While space resource competition offers the potential for collaboration, it is progressively characterized by militarisation and strategic alliances. This dynamic creates a volatile security environment, effectively undermining global security.
Discussion: Need for Stronger Governance
There is an urgent need for stronger governance concerning international space law as its current limitations, outlined by the ambiguity of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (OST), have left space militarisation operations unregulated. This has continuously escalated the risk of bringing military conflict into space. The OST is considered the foundation of international space law, but the absences of clear rules makes it outdated and inadequate to tackle the complexities of space exploration and militarisation. As discussed before, satellite infrastructure offers significant scientific value and is designed for peaceful use, even though they are increasingly serving a dual-purpose. Satellites that are now used for military purposes also make it harder to differentiate between which state activities are peaceful or offensive. The dual-use nature of space technologies makes it challenging to establish clear rules and norms for state space activities, contributing to the unchecked proliferation of counterspace capabilities such as Anti-Satellite Missiles (ASAT) and ground-based laser weapons by countries like Russia and China. This has prompted the US to expand its resources by developing similar counterspace capabilities and adopting a more aggressive stance. This is an example of a reactive cycle driven by the absence of inadequate regulation frameworks fuelling grounds for conflict. Without stronger governance, the likelihood of conflict will only continue to grow.
Conclusion
The militarisation of space has fundamentally changed how nations use and perceive outer space. Over the years, satellites have increasingly acquired a dual purpose, both helping improve civilian life on Earth and being critical for military operations. Nevertheless, their twofold use has introduced considerable security vulnerabilities, especially in the face of counter space capabilities. This is quite alarming since the limitations of existing frameworks and rules have resulted in years of unregulated development of such capabilities. The risk of conflict has increased, and given today’s ubiquitous reliance on satellite technology, the consequences could be catastrophic. Additionally, increased geopolitical competition over strategic space resources, like lunar regolith and ice deposits, intensifies the potential for conflict as nations form alliances and employ strategies of force in hopes of securing undisturbed access. Collaborative governance and a strengthened international regulatory framework are paramount to mitigate these risks. This would make space militarisation a controlled and regulated endeavour, ultimately allowing space to revert to a domain of cooperation rather than contention.