US addresses space to Earth threats, and highlights what Dmitri Stefanovich referenced this morning: the greatest threat was nuclear weapons in space, which is why the Soviets and US agreed to prohibit them in art IV #OST.
Therefore, US does not consider space-based weapons to be a serious threat today. Refers to the excellent work of @LauraEGrego and @bleddb to underscore why space based missile defence is not feasible, and reiterates US is not, never has, developed this non-starter
This is why we need to focus on behaviours and not capabilities. #SpaceThreatsOEWG. We should not be afraid of making incremental progress, especially if they can make practical and pragmatic difference to space security.
Commitment not to test #ASAT is not the only step but an important one. Another important one is to increase transparency, including of internal military strategies and policies, as this can help reduce tensions, miscalculations and mistrust.
Urges the #SpaceThreatsOEWG to focus on real and urgent threats, and not on hypothetical ones. Quotes Dmitri Stefanovich from this morning that any single soft norm may lead to fruitful binding ones in the future.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
UK asks what other "low hanging fruits" there might be. especially for TCBMs. #SpaceThreatsOEWG. Dmitri Stefanovich says: total clarity about intended purpose of activities and use of specific capabilities. This is the same in other domains. Can be de-escalating and preventive
Unilateral commitments not to test direct-ascent ASATs are good, says Dmitri, but what will happen if these get challenged? If a capability is being developed that looks like an ASAT but is justified as something else? Will the commitments work?
No easy answers, says @LauraEGrego especially because different activities are understood by different actors in different ways. RPOs are case in point. Need clarity on keep-out zones, communication about intent. Mil activities are fewer than commercial in space!
Dmitri Stefanovich agrees partially with @bleddb that arms race is a challenge as key concept. Nuclear arms race is about action- reaction, which we don't see in space in terms of exact replication of weapons. But still see counter space spending increasing
Expense of action reaction includes not only money, but also political capital. Arms race in space may not be the real issue, need to think about how and in what investments are made
PAROS may not be the best framework, and @LauraEGrego agrees. Crisis management would be better framework. Go for low hanging fruits to reduce perception of threat, eg transparent communications. Framework of protecting space for future generations may also be helpful
Is there a potential for non-weaponised mil space systems to be a source of tension or conflict? ASATs are worthless if there is no satellite that is useful to target. The ASAT is the source of tension, not the satellite
Space follows or dovetails terrestrial Military and strategic concerns, they are not at the source. On the other hand, non-weaponised satellite can be regarded as threat to terrestrial systems. This was the driver of the original space age
Space based weapons that target Earth directly are easy to identify, and right now only hypothetical. Therefore not the greatest threat, and shouldn't be the focus of the #spacethreatsOEWG
While space is a place, orbit is a condition. Speed in orbit is 30 times that of a jet plane, which takes enormous amount of energy. Rockets are mostly made up of fuel. It's expensive and energetically difficult to put something in space so it needs to be worthwhile
Good morning, #SpaceThreatsOEWG we are taking about space to Earth threats today. I can't promise a thread as comprehensive as @JessLuella_West but I'll try!
First up Dmitri Stefanovic, Russian International Affairs Council. The concept of "ultimate high ground" comes from the notion of space to Earth threats. It's the reason why nuclear weapons at prohibited in space under the OST.
Space based weapons can be part of terrestrial nuclear defense. Luckily these capabilities are limited