Thread by @ToddHarrisonDC

I see Twitter (or whatever this place is called now) is still buzzing about the intel on a Russian space threat, and people seem to be conflating or glossing over the differences and forgetting what is new versus old. Let's think through this for a minute...

Some are speculating that it could be a nuclear weapon in space--a clear violation of the Outer Space Treaty. But there is a reason why the US and USSR agreed to that restriction back in 1967--there's no need to place nukes in orbit.

Keeping nukes on Earth atop ICBMs is less expensive, more flexible to operate, easier to upgrade and maintain, etc. But what if your intent is to use the nuke in space (e.g., an EMP blast)? Still better to base it on the ground.

In-space nuclear detonations have also been banned by treaty since 1963, not that it would stop Russia from doing it. But why did the US and USSR agree to this ban so long ago and stick to it for all these years?

Because popping off a nuke in space creates a real mess that affects satellites indiscriminately. We know this because the US detonated a 1.4 megaton nuke at 400km altitude in 1962. It charged up the Van Allen radiation belts and destroyed ~1/3 of the satellites in LEO.

An that included the UK's first satellite, Ariel 1. Whoops! But again, you don't need to place a nuke in orbit to do this--it's easier to just launch it when you are actually ready to use it, like we did in 1962.

Another thing I see a lot of speculation about is that perhaps it is some sort of nuclear reactor in space. That is not without precedent either--NASA has used nuclear power for deep space probes in the past.

The advantage is that a nuclear power source gives you power all the time, instead of being dependent on solar arrays pointing at the sun and charging batteries.

A nuclear power source could be used for a lot of things, like powering a radio frequency jamming payload to block signals or a high-powered microwave payload that could potentially fry the circuits on a satellite.

Both of these applications would make a lot of sense from space. A high-powered microwave attack works better the closer you are to the satellite you are attacking, and in space you can attack the side of a satellite that is not facing Earth where it could be more vulnerable.

Jamming signals from space could make sense in two ways. If you are jamming down toward Earth you can cover a larger area and if you are next to a satellite that is broadcasting, all of those antennas on the ground will be pointed at you as well.

You could also jam the uplink to satellites in higher orbits or the crosslinks between satellites. Being in space gives you better positioning and makes your jamming signal stronger against targets in space.

Of course, all of the speculation could be completely wrong and it could be some other type of counterspace weapon. Russia has tested crazy things, like firing a machine gun in space. And the intel itself could be wrong or based on erroneous assumptions. We've seen that before.

But until we know more, and knowing Russia's history of ASAT weapon development and testing, it is certainly something to be concerned about. Our economy and military are heavily dependent on space, and Russia knows that.