Space really should be a neutral ground like Antarctica. Especially since the consequences of space debris might trigger the Kessler effect [1], denying humanity future access to low-earth orbit for the considerable future.<p>1. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome</a>
There is the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which forbids placing "nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner", but you can get around that by saying that it's just a conventional weapon, not nuclear or WMD. If it's for space to space combat, you could say that any weapon is potentially a WMD due to the Kessler potential, but if its space to ground, like an orbital missile platform or something, you are technically in the clear.<p>I'm guessing it doesn't ban weapons in space completely because of things like the survival guns on Soyuz (if they still fly them), used for defending yourself against wild animals in the event that you land in a forest or similar. "No weapons in space" would ban that as well, but I think it's reasonable to have a survival kit, just in case
Realistically pretty much anything in orbit is a viable space to space weapon (for related reasons all space propulsion is ITAR controlled) so it was never practical to ban them. Space to earth, maybe, but that isn't unless it hits vague 'WMD' categories, and I'm not sure space to ground is necessarily what the US is declaring here.<p>I suspect whatever capability the US is referring to is far more "counter space" than WMD in scope and an incremental improvement on kinetic and electronic warfare capabilities it's long had. You can do a lot of irresponsible damage in to space assets with ground launched anti-satellite capability, as multiple tests have already demonstrated...
Almaz had a 23mm cannon [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz_program#Defense_measures" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz_program#Defense_measures</a>
Yes, but again that was a conventional weapon, and would have been fine under the treaty. I don't exactly condone it but it was also crap and never flew again. This video <a href="https://youtu.be/e-n_V5iEwAs" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/e-n_V5iEwAs</a> goes into some of the reasons it was a particularly crap idea
Not that the US ever gave a shit about international treaties.
To be fair, this move is coming after fairly strong evidence that Russia and China have been breaking the treaty by deploying weapons into space for years. Which the US has highlighted many times in the past.<p>At some point you have to acknowledge that the treaty is no longer being respected, and match capabilities to avoid being left at a disadvantage.<p>That said, I'm sure there were tons of people in the US military establishment who had been pushing for this for decades and were ecstatic at being allowed to do it at a broad scale.
Russia was at least planning to launch a space-to-space laser back in 1987, but the prototype (essentially just a mass simulator, no lasers inside) failed on launch quite spectacularly <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft)</a>
Russia also seems to have tested the release of a sub-satellite from another satellite, perhaps a precursor to a kinetic space-launched weapon.<p><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secretive-russian-military-satellites-release-mystery-object-into-orbit/" rel="nofollow">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secretive-russian...</a>
>fairly strong evidence<p>Got some?
> "a kinetic kill vehicle of some sort - so a vehicle that would release a projectile of some sort that would ram into a satellite and destroy it"<p>Semi related "Rods from God": <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment</a>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_system)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s...</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield</a>
Only relevant part is this:<p>> Cost estimates for the Golden Dome program range from $175 billion (White House), to $1.2 trillion (Congressional Budget Office), to $3.6 trillion (American Enterprise Institute) depending on the architectural details. The wide range largely hinges on the number of space-based missiles and the cost of replacing satellites whose low orbits decay quickly due to atmospheric drag. Some $24.4 billion in federal funding was directed to the Golden Dome in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025, with another $13 billion allocated for the fiscal year 2026, totaling 2.2% of the federal discretionary budget during that year.<p>It's just a ploy to transfer more public money to government contractors and friends, like Musk.
See also: the mass of starlink satellites over time.
I feel safer already. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure no-one will put an AI anywhere near it.
Who do they want to shoot in space?
Well, that's one way to kick off a new arms race. Guess the orbital junk problem is about to get worse.
Technically the US has had 'space weapons' for many decades, due to how an intercontinental ballistic missile works.<p>Incidentally, the Shuttle raised concerns in the USSR because they saw those large cargo bay doors and rocket thrusters out back, to think that this was a 'delivery system'.<p>In the modern battlefield, 'hypersonic' missiles are the new shiny. However, any ICBM is 'hypersonic', at least during the space phase. The new meaning of hypersonic means going at 'hypersonic' speeds through the atmosphere and in the final approach. Force equals mass times acceleration, more speed means more deceleration, which means packing a bigger kinetic punch.
As long as they're OK with China and other countries having space weapons then all is fine.<p>Everyone is equal with - they all have nukes in space sitting over each other's countries waiting to drop.<p>This is fine.
There have been detailed and credible claims of Chinese space weapons for some time now. <a href="https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF" rel="nofollow">https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/202...</a><p>Sure.<p><a href="https://www.ifri.org/en/studies/current-and-future-trends-chinese-counterspace-capabilities" rel="nofollow">https://www.ifri.org/en/studies/current-and-future-trends-ch...</a><p><a href="https://www.swfound.org/publications-and-reports/2026-global-counterspace-capabilities-report" rel="nofollow">https://www.swfound.org/publications-and-reports/2026-global...</a><p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2024.2388658#d1e1232" rel="nofollow">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2024.2...</a><p><a href="https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4431/1" rel="nofollow">https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4431/1</a><p><a href="https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Annual_Report/Chapters/Chapter%202%2C%20Section%202%20-%20China%27s%20Space%20and%20Counterspace%20Programs.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Annual_Report/Chapt...</a>
You actually think they don't already?
What would be the point? MAD relies on everyone knowing you can take them out if they attack you. What does a space weapon offer additionally that makes the huge expense worthwhile?
No, of course they don't.
Starlink is a space weapon.
> China responded on Tuesday by warning against an "arms race" in space.<p>> "We urge the US side to stop expanding its military capabilities and preparing for war in outer space," AFP quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying.<p>Next up; America cries rivers of victimhood when Russia and China put their far more advanced space based weapons systems into orbit and 100x as many in response because the narcissistic maniacs in the “American” educated idiot class ripped the lid off Pandora’s box because Hollywood taught them that the good guy Americans always win.
The biggest assets space weapon wise has Musk? Anything that can become a particlecloud taking out a orbit counts- so two constellation sattelites, that aim for one another should count?
What's a space weapon?<p>I imagine launching anything from space to earth would be highly inefficient and inaccurate. So it must be space to space.<p>Space to space weapons are what? Small drones with an explosive charge? I guess that could work. These "combats" are going to be weird, because the objects are trapped in their orbits. Things are going to move very slowly with a lot of intertia.
U.S. paranoia knows no bounds.
When the sole focus is profit and to crush enemies and not to care for the people, the world will start to look like it's full of enemies and profit. It's a self perpetuating, self inflicted situation.
> Golden Dome<p>Trump seemingly cannot resist the classic opportunity for a "1up", can he?
Isn't it ironic? Spending billions on threats from space while ignoring the person on Earth who acts like Putin's favorite unsecured login.