Sabotaged satellites and secret weapons: the new battlefield is space

Space is therefore now an extension of the earth's surface at our service, the many satellites orbiting us literally every minute to find out where we are, or where the restaurant is that we want to go to with friends, to monitor oil tankers spilling waste into the sea, to guide planes, but also taxis and buses in many cities, to make phone calls, watch all kinds of television, advise farmers on the state of their crops; and the list would be endless.

In short, what had been peeping out since the launch of the little Sputnik could not be missing: the military side. From space today, but also tomorrow from the Moon, we observe the fields of action and that already tells us everything. The United States from 2019 has the Space Force, a division of its armed forces for defence from and in space. Many other countries have a specific military organisation, including ours. Also in this field in Europe we do not, unfortunately, have a single entity but, at least potentially, as many as there are EU countries.

If space is something that is fundamental for security today, along with the cyber part, one does not have to think of science fiction scenarios, like those in the famous Star Wars movie. Much less is needed. An enemy satellite can certainly be put out of action by hitting it, but this risks being like shooting oneself in the foot, as the fragments of the destroyed satellite, thousands of them, would become as many projectiles flying at a speed of 30,000 kilometres per hour, creating a nightmare situation for everyone in the area. Moreover, the fragments of satellites that have already collided, or exploded or whatever, are already, in that low orbit, thousands and thousands from the size of a bolt to that of a few metres. A constant danger that forces, for example, the astronauts of the International Space Station, to suddenly retreat into the safety capsule when a stray fragment is spotted. At that speed, a cubic centimetre of metal pierces any satellite or space station.

To render an enemy satellite harmless, it is therefore better to use a laser of good power, aseptic and definitive, or a satellite capable of locking onto its prey and rendering it harmless without destroying it. In short, there is plenty to do without thinking of destructive weapons that are counterproductive in space.

The case of the war in Ukraine teaches us that it takes little to bring an unprepared country to its knees. In 2022, the Russians hacked into the Viasat satellite communication system used by that country's army, immediately creating chaos and serious problems for the Ukrainians.

When Starlink took over, in low orbit and with better performance, things improved, but there were obvious Russian threats to Elon Musk, Starlink's patron. The system, however, proved to be a very valuable weapon that effectively changed the face of warfare, allowing the Ukrainians a continuous link between the front line and the general staff, both voice and video.

This very war has shown, in case there was any need, how cyber security, cyber, and the space aspect are now fundamental moments of any offensive or defensive action. The very fragility of the GPS system, which cannot be dispensed with, is a major problem today, after it was demonstrated by Russian hacker attacks that repeatedly altered the positioning signal, even sending airliners off course in northern Europe.

The recent demonstration by Russian hackers, who sabotaged the Ukrainian TV satellite by showing the great Victory Parade, which took place in Moscow's Red Square on 9 May, speaks volumes about the coupling of space and hacking as a new weapon of war, psychological or otherwise.

Over the past few months, rumours of Russian atomic weapons in low orbit have been circulating with increasing insistence. Carrying an atomic bomb a few hundred kilometres above the ground is no problem for the great space powers.

Between 1958 and 1962, two relatively powerful atomic bombs were detonated at low altitude by the US and the Soviet Union, now Russia, to study their effects. The experiments had a good effect, as the result was so significant, almost devastating, that the two great powers were persuaded to sign, in 1963 and then 1967, the treaty banning nuclear experiments in space or under the sea. In a vacuum, in fact, the effects of the explosion spread with greater speed and reach much further, especially the radiation that follows.

The explosion, therefore, may devastate most of the nearest satellites, but then the radiation created by the blast can easily render the remaining ones, thousands of them, unusable, and this would lead to the paralysis of virtually all technological systems on Earth, from the power grid to communications, from GPS to warning systems.

The NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, also said publicly in an interview with the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag for a different reason: 'Russia is now lagging far behind, perhaps unbridgeable, in space progress and could thus relatively easily become a major player again'.

Today, however, it seems strange that there are any thoughts of going down that honest road again, and even recent communiqués and interviews by prominent American figures about a Russian atomic weapon for space take us back a bit to the Cold War war of nerves in the last century, a period filled with mutual falsehoods spread by the media. However, even if it were as the US now fears, for real or as an anti-Russian policy, the use of nukes would be for the Russians like shooting themselves in the foot, even Putin's would be destroyed in plain words.

More realistic threats may come from the contention between the US and China for possession of the southern part of the Moon, coveted by both. It is not for tomorrow, but in the next decade we can expect to have a couple of great powers capable of extending their military presence also to our beautiful and only natural satellite. And from the Moon any missiles destined for Earth would take off at least six times more easily.