Russia’s apparent test-firing of an anti-satellite weapon in outer space on July 15, as alleged by the US and the UK, could be dismissed as another of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s annoying provocations.
That would be a mistake. The alleged new space weapon should be seen in the broader context of a rapidly evolving, high-tech, high-risk international arms race involving all the major nuclear powers that, largely undiscussed, is spinning out of control.
This week sees the 75th anniversary of the US atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, that killed more than 200,000 people, but the absence of public debate or a sense of alarm about the grim advent of sophisticated new nuclear, hypersonic, cyber and space weapons is striking.
In the decades after Hiroshima, noisy anti-nuclear “ban the bomb” protests by Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and others spanned the globe. Today, by comparison, an eerie silence reigns.
The battle for outer space is only getting going — yet deserves immediate attention. Russia’s alleged development of anti-satellite weapons is almost certainly matched by the US and China, and undermines past undertakings about the peaceful use of space.
US Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Non-proliferation Christopher Ford on Monday last week said that Russia and China had already turned space into a “war-fighting domain.”
“What [the Russians] are doing is signaling to the world that they’re able to destroy satellites in orbit with other satellites,” Ford said. “This is the sort of thing that could get out of hand and go very badly rather quickly.”
The UK called the alleged test “a threat to space systems on which the world depends” — meaning use of such weapons could, in theory, produce an instant global security and communications blackout.
Yet in relaunching US space command last year, US President Donald Trump also pointed to space as the next great-power battlefield.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that the alliance would not deploy weapons in space, but is obliged to defend its interests, which include 2,000 orbiting satellites.
For NATO, too, space is now an “operational domain.”
New and “improved” nuclear weapons are proliferating in parallel with the race for space.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), nine states — the US, Russia, China, Israel, the UK, France, India, Pakistan and North Korea — together possess about 13,400 nuclear weapons.
While the overall total is falling, “retired” warheads and bombs are being replaced by more powerful, versatile devices, such as smaller, “useable” US battlefield nukes.
“All these states are either developing or deploying new weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so,” SIPRI’s annual report said.
The US and Russia each possessed about 1,550 deployed, long-range weapons, while China had about 300.
Both the US and Russia were spending more and placing greater reliance on nuclear weapons in future military planning, it said, while China was rushing to catch up.
“China is in the middle of a significant modernization of its nuclear arsenal. It is developing a so-called nuclear triad for the first time, made up of new land-and sea-based missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft. India and Pakistan are slowly increasing the size and diversity of their nuclear forces,” SIPRI reported.
Meanwhile, North Korea continued to prioritize its military nuclear program, while conducting “multiple” ballistic missile tests.
Trump looks set to scupper the New START on the spurious ground that it does not reduce China’s much smaller arsenal.
“Instead of planning for nuclear disarmament, the nuclear-armed states appear to plan to retain large arsenals for the indefinite future, are adding new nuclear weapons, and are increasing the role such weapons play in their national strategies,” a Federation of American Scientists survey said.
It estimated about 1,800 warheads were kept on high alert, ready for use at short notice.
Russia claims to lead the world in developing high-tech weaponry.
Speaking last month, Putin boasted that Russia’s navy was being equipped with nuclear-powered hypersonic cruise missiles, which supposedly have unlimited range, and submarine-launched underwater nuclear drones.
Despite celebrated speeches supporting a nuclear-free world, former US president Barack Obama authorized a US$1.2 trillion plan to upgrade the US’ nuclear triad while pursuing strategic arms reductions via the 2010 New START with Russia.
Trump has doubled down, at the same time abandoning arms control pacts. His 2018 nuclear posture review proposed an extra US$500 billion in spending, including US$17 billion for low-yield, battlefield weapons.
Trump looks set to scupper New START, which expires in February next year, on the spurious ground that it does not reduce China’s much smaller arsenal — which it was never intended to do.
He has previously reneged on the 2015 Iran nuclear treaty, the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty, and is said to favor resumed nuclear testing in Nevada in defiance of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban treaty.
Like the UK and other signatories, the US continues to fail to fulfil its obligation under the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty “to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of nuclear arsenals.”
Despite its acute financial situation, the UK remains committed to replacing its Trident missile system at an estimated cost of £205 billion (US$286.66 billion) over 30 years.
While nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945, great-power military flashpoints are increasing the risk that they might be.
These potential triggers include Taiwan, the South China Sea, the India-Pakistan and India-China borders, the US-Israel-Iran conflict, North Korea and Ukraine.
Heightened international tensions and collapsing arms-control regimes only partly explain the accelerating pace of nuclear rearmament.
Resurgent nationalism, authoritarian right-wing populism, revived or new territorial rivalries (as in space), the bypassing of the UN and multilateral institutions, and a shifting economic and geopolitical power balance are all aggravating factors.
However, so, too, is amnesia.
Seventy-five years after Armageddon was visited upon the people of Japan, the world seems to have forgotten the truly existential horror of that moment.
A history lesson, and a renewed debate, are urgently needed.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past