‘We’re doomed,’ exclaimed C-3PO, the quirky golden robot from George Lucas’s iconic Star Wars movies. Space has captured the imagination of generations. For the most part, when people think of space, it is as the final frontier, a heavenly plain that represents the boundless potential of human ingenuity. Conquering space means fulfilling humanity’s destiny. Yet space could soon become the next warfighting domain. If war were to break out in space, it would unleash Pandora’s box, causing a catastrophe the likes of which would cause civilisation as we know it to cease functioning.
The security challenges in space reflect a broader malaise within the arms control regime. Existing nuclear treaties are either unratified, outdated or ill-suited to contemporary realities. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is a case in point. The Outer Space Treaty was intended to prevent the nuclearisation of space, but it does not go far enough to address other forms of weaponisation. For example, issues related to the deployment of conventional weapons or the use of ground-based weapons against targets in space are not addressed by the treaty and persist as a result.
‘The treaty was negotiated in the shadow of the Cold War,’ wrote MIT professor Michelle Hanlon, ‘when only two nations—the Soviet Union and the US—had spacefaring capabilities.’ The context of space has evolved considerably in the intervening decades. Simply put, the Outer Space Treaty was negotiated for a very different era. The three great nuclear powers, China, Russia, and the United States, should convene to develop a new strategy to address the growing security challenges emanating from the celestial domain.
When the Outer Space Treaty was negotiated in the late sixties, there were only two dozen satellites in orbit. Today, tens of thousands of satellites are operated by dozens of states. Indeed, space has become indispensable to modern military power and nuclear deterrence. From intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) to positioning, navigation and timing (PNT), and early warning of incoming missile threats, including nuclear missiles, to nuclear command, control and communication, all require space to operate.
The risks are profound. A nuclear detonation in space—whether deliberate or accidental—could disable satellites on which global financial systems, communications, transport and national critical infrastructure depend. Modern societies are so deeply integrated with space systems that a conflict in orbit would have immediate, devastating consequences on Earth. As space security expert Aaron Bateman warned, war in space would be ‘far-reaching and catastrophic’ in ways few policymakers fully appreciate.
Space is also becoming increasingly weaponised. Twenty-six countries operate military satellites in space, with the United States, Russia and China leading the field. The United States alone operates 137 military satellites, with Russia and China each operating 124 and 106. The fog of war in space would be uniquely dangerous. In a crisis scenario, interference with early-warning or communications satellites could generate confusion, compress decision-making timelines and heighten the risk of inadvertent escalation.
Reports reveal that Russia and China are deploying dual-use and potentially nuclear-capable offensive systems in space, including satellites and delivery systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads. These developments have intensified strategic instability. Preventing space from becoming an active warfighting domain must therefore be a strategic priority for the great powers. This requires more than reaffirming the existing Outer Space Treaty. It requires erecting new frameworks that reflect the current threat landscape.
To assuage the tensions arising from the reported weaponisation of space, the great powers should introduce new treaty articles that robustly prohibit the weaponisation and nuclearisation of the celestial domain and curb the role of space assets in coercive targeting.
Holding adversarial assets at risk is an important part of deterrence credibility. But one bad call, a miscalculation or technical malfunction in space, and the great powers could teeter on the edge of Armageddon. Unlike other domains, a kinetic war in space would imperil entire sectors almost instantaneously. A UK government report estimates that the loss of access to space would cost the economy £1 billion per day. A report by the Georgetown University Review is even more alarming, predicting the cost of conflict in space at a devastating $3 trillion to the global economy.
On January 27, the Doomsday Clock was set at 85 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to a humanity-ending disaster. A week later, the last remaining nuclear treaty between Russia and the United States, New START, expired. This marked a decisive break with the post–Cold War trajectory of arms control. Arms control, as traditionally understood, is no longer merely eroding. It is in freefall.
A revised space regime would not eliminate geopolitical rivalry in space overnight. Nor is it a silver bullet for the flailing arms control order. However, it could significantly reduce security threats in the most vital area of modern conflict. As the Doomsday Clock ticks closer to mutual destruction, halting the risk of nuclear escalation in space requires a coordinated effort to create a treaty suitable for the 21st century. Policymakers in Beijing, Moscow and Washington must focus on ensuring that a space war remains fiction, lest C-3PO’s quip becomes reality, and the stars turn into flames.
Written by Alex Alfirraz Scheers
Alex Alfirraz Scheers is a defence analyst based in London who specialises in great power competition.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Centre for International Security and Economic Strategy (CISES) or of any other organisation, institution, or third party with which the author may be affiliated.
Space, security, geopolitics, cises, security and economics, international security, think tank,