nuclear-news

Trump’s weapons in space violate international law

The weaponisation of space is a violation of the intent of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967

The weaponisation of space is a violation of the intent of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Independent Australia, By Karl Grossman | 17 October 2026,

Last month, the Trump Administration confirmed that, for the first time, the U.S. has weapons in space in violation of international law, writes Professor Karl Grossman.

‘U.S. says for 1st time it now has weapons in space’ was the headline last month in USA Today.

The subhead: ‘Air Force Secretary Troy Meink became the first U.S. official to publicly announce that the military has deployed weapons to space.’

The article began:

‘The U.S. has confirmed in a landmark revelation that the nation has deployed operational weapons in space.’

The news swept the world.

he headline in the British newspaper, The Guardian:

‘U.S. confirms for first time it has deployed weapons in space.’

The subhead:

‘Analysts warn of an acceleration in high-risk arms race with Russia and China in Earth’s orbit.’

It should not have come as a surprise.

As the Associated Press subsequently reported:

‘The revelation comes as the Trump administration puts a growing focus on space. In 2019, during his first term, Trump created the Space Force as a separate military branch. In his second term, he has announced the ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system, which includes plans to put U.S. weapons in space.’

An earlier AP story published just after Donald Trump took office as U.S. president a second time also reported on ‘plans to put U.S. weapons in space’ as part of its planned ‘Golden Dome’ program.

This article by Tara Copp, an AP Pentagon and national security correspondent, said:

‘The system was ordered by Trump during his first week in office, and if successful, would mark the first time the U.S. would place weapons in space that are meant to destroy ground-based missiles within seconds of launch.’

Trump is seeking U.S. “superiority” in space, as he stated in an executive order titled ‘Ensuring American Space Superiority.’

Issued in December 2025, Trump asserted:

“Superiority in space is a measure of national vision and willpower.”

In his role as Secretary of War, Peter Hegseth is a highly aggressive partner in Trump’s aim.

As Hegseth said in a tour of U.S. aerospace companies in February 2026:

“We have to dominate the ultimate high ground.”

He also declared on that speaking tour:

“The fight for space is the fight for the future of the world as we know it” and “We cannot afford to have a fair fight in space — I’m not interested in orbital parity. We demand orbital dominance plain and simple. Whoever controls space controls the fight.”

Adding to the acknowledgement of the U.S. deploying weapons in space, the AP also reported this month:

‘American troops need to prepare for combat not only in Earth’s orbit but around the moon, President Donald Trump’s top military adviser said Wednesday, looking ahead to a new frontier in warfare after the U.S. revealed for the first time that it has deployed weapons in space. Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told service members and industry figures at the Air, Space and Cyber Conference outside Washington that the U.S. military should adapt now so it  “is prepared to fight, endure and win … from the seabed to cislunar space”.’

Cislunar space, AP added, “is a term that describes the region between the Earth’s surface and the moon.”

Not only is none of this new, or going back just a few days or years. It goes back many years.

As Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, noted in an interview, plans by the U.S. for dominating space go back decades. The Trump Administration is conducting a major replay of these plans……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The weaponisation of space is a violation of the intent of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Created by the U.S., the United Kingdom and the former Soviet Union — it, as The Planetary Society, based in Pasadena, California, explains:

‘Is an international agreement that governs how nations act in space. Formally known as the ‘Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,’ it is one of international space law’s foundational documents. The overall purpose of the Outer Space Treaty is to keep space peaceful.’

There have been repeated attempts since then at the United Nations to pass a resolution titled ‘Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space‘ (PAROS) to ensure that space is used for peaceful purposes.

As noted by the Federation of American Scientists, based in Washington, PAROS ‘reaffirms the fundamental principles of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and advocates for a ban on the weaponisation of space.’

It was first passed at the U.N. General Assembly in 1981 by a vote of 129 in favour, zero against and 13 abstentions.

But the PAROS agreement to be enacted requires a unanimous vote in favour by the UN’s Conference on Disarmament, which consists of 65 nations based on global regions.

The U.S. has continually baulked at supporting PAROS, and without unanimity it cannot be approved. I have been in Geneva and watched as, at a meeting of the Conference, the U.S. representative announced that the U.S. would not support PAROS.

Meanwhile, the argument by the U.S. – including now with the acknowledgement by the U.S. of it deploying weapons in space – is that there is a threat of Russia and China doing this.

“This is a flagrant in-your-face lie,” says Alice Slater, a member of the board of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space and an attorney.

She faults media generally for “parroting” the U.S. claim and “disregarding the constant effort” by Russia and China to get the PAROS agreement enacted.

She also cites the “joint statement” by Russia and China last year upon, as its heading notes, the “80th anniversary of the victory in the Second World War,” in which the U.S., Soviet Union and China were allies.

The two sides [Russia and China] oppose the attempts of individual countries to use outer space for armed confrontation,’ says their statement. It cites the need for the PAROS agreement ‘that would provide fundamental and reliable guarantees of preventing an arms race in outer space, weaponisation of outer space.’

Immediately following the acknowledgement by the U.S. of having weapons in space, The New York Times reported a Russian government spokesperson saying, “We believe that space must be free of any weapons,” and a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry saying:

“We urge the U.S. side to stop…preparing for war in outer space,” and that China opposed an “outer space arms race.”

Gagnon, the coordinator of the Maine-based Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, said he believes the U.S. has acknowledged its deployment of weapons in space in a move to:

“make Golden Dome sound inevitable, thus forcing Congress to appropriate the massive funds to secure the controversial project in the Pentagon pipeline.”

The cost for the Golden Dome system would run as high as $3.6 trillion, as estimated by the American Enterprise Institute.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, also based in Washington, in its report this year titled ‘Missing the Mark: Why Golden Dome is Bad for American Taxpayers’ says:

“Pursuing Golden Dome also poses serious strategic risks, including the potential to accelerate nuclear arms and space arms races and to undermine opportunities to secure verifiable arms control agreements that reduce the nuclear threat. The program has also raised troubling conflict-of-interest concerns involving individuals within the Trump Administration and companies vying for Golden Dome contracts.”

Said Gagnon:

“Taxpayers should be wondering who will pay for the trillions of dollars” for this and other “offensive space programs—especially when the U.S. is $40 trillion in debt.” He said “the aerospace industry long ago identified the ‘entitlement programs’ as their preferred source of funds” and “taking from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the now tattered social safety net.”

As to consequences of war in space, he told of Apollo Astronaut Edgar Mitchell – “the sixth person to walk on the moon” – speaking at a “peace in space rally” I organised in the now re-named Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

Mitchell told the assembled that a war in space would be the:

“One and only because so much space junk would be created – on top of the existing huge debris field – that we would not be able to get a rocket through the deadly trash orbiting the Earth. He said it would be like trying to ‘get through a piranha-laced river’ in the Amazon.”

Gagnon spoke of:

“A spiritual disconnection in the minds and hearts of those ‘leaders’ in Washington who believe that four per cent of the global population in the U.S. should be the ‘Masters of Space’ [the motto of the Space Delta 8 unit of the U.S. Space Force]. It is a deep sickness. The time has come for the American people to take the toys away from the boys.”

The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space was formed at a meeting in Washington, D.C. in 1992. Each year it holds a “Keep Space for Peace Week,” this year between October 3-10, with events. The 2026 theme is “Space Is a Global Commons—Not To Be Dominated.” The Global Network’s website can be found here…………………………………………………………………. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/trumps-weapons-in-space-violate-international-law,21684

October 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Push for Nuclear Power Plants on the Moon

NASA’s use of nuclear power in space was being done in parallel with the plan for nuclear-powered weaponry in space.

”The nuclear industry views space as a new market. They don’t give a damn about the dangers involved. These greedy aerospace corporations are salivating as they look at the profits to be made.”

“Nuclear fuel would need to be transported to the moon on a regular basis and there is never a mention of how lunar nuclear waste will be dealt with. Lunar bases are, however, a way of establishing the ultimate military high ground.”

Karl Grossman, October 13, 2026, https://freepress.org/article/push-nuclear-power-plants-moon

The lead front page story in the New York Times last week was headlined: “Superpowers Racing to Put Nuclear Reactors on Moon.” The nations involved: the U.S., China and Russia. And there was a subhead: “Experts Warn of Radioactive Risks From a Rocket Mishap or Lunar Meltdown.”

The reporter, Selam Gebrekidan, wrote: “Failures could cause a chain reaction with dire consequences. Falling reactor debris could scatter radioactive material….An explosion or a meltdown on the moon’s surface could risk turning entire regions into no-go zones.”

The extensive story quoted Edward Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, saying: “There will always be a space race going on, and if you enter nuclear power into that mix, then it could take a potentially more dangerous turn.”

Nuclear power and weapons in space have been an unexpectedly extensive part of my journalistic journey. Because of having been deeply involved in reporting about the plans of the Long Island Lighting Company to construct seven to 11 nuclear power plants on Long Island, where I live, I became knowledgeable about atomic energy.

I wrote a book titled “Power Crazy” about this scheme to turn the island into what nuclear promoters termed then a “nuclear park.” I wrote many columns and did television reporting on it.

So, back in 1985, with that experience, I was struck by a piece in the U.S. Department of Energy’s publication, “Energy Insider,” saying that DOE and NASA were partners in the sending up in 1986 two space shuttles—one being the Challenger—with space probes onboard fueled by plutonium, considered the most toxic of all radioactive substances.

Once the shuttles achieved orbit, the probes would be released, the one Challenger carried to survey Jupiter. The plutonium would be in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), not for propulsion but to provide electric power for instruments.

In “Energy Insider” there was notice that the government had looked into various sorts of accidents that might happen on the missions. So, I sent Freedom of Information Act requests to DOE, NASA, and the DOE national laboratories involved in these studies asking to learn what was determined.

As the months passed, I began to realize I had hit upon a hot potato. I was denied the information on the grounds it was “technical” which is not a legitimate FOIA exemption. I appealed and won. Finally, to my post office came a box of documents, including a government projection that the likelihood of a “catastrophic” shuttle accident was 1-in-100,00. Those were very high odds, so I didn’t do anything.

That was until January 28, 1986, when on my way to teach my Investigative Reporting class at the State University of New York at Old Westbury, I heard on the car radio that the Challenger had exploded on launch.

I stopped at an appliance store and saw that terrible image on TV and telephoned The Nation magazine to tell them that the next mission of the Challenger, in May, was to involve a nuclear system—and if the accident occurred then and plutonium released as dust, the disaster could have been a massive catastrophe.

The Nation asked me to write a piece, which I did. Other media picked up on it and I was pretty widely interviewed. A publisher called resulting in a book I wrote that he titled “The Wrong Stuff.” Meanwhile, NASA and DOE changed the odds of a catastrophic shuttle accident from 1-in-100,000 to 1-in 7 6.

And I began to “follow the money” as Bob Woodward’s source “Deep Throat” instructed in the film about the Watergate investigation.

I did, and found the then “Star Wars” program of President Reagan was predicated on orbiting battle platforms with onboard hypervelocity guns, particle beams and laser weapons and, also onboard, nuclear reactors and “super plutonium” systems providing the high energy they needed. The latter would be built by General Electric, manufacturer of the RTGs on the space probe that Challenger was to loft.

NASA’s use of nuclear power in space was being done in parallel with the plan for nuclear-powered weaponry in space.

This resulted in another book I authored, “Weapons in Space,” its foreword by Dr. Michio Kaku, and an hour-long TV documentary I wrote and presented, “Nukes in Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens.” And there have been many articles on this and more TV programs during the ensuing four decades including “Star Wars Returns” (viewable at www.envirovideo.com).

I gave two presentations on this before members of the British Parliament in London, presentations at the United Nations in New York and Geneva, and elsewhere around the U.S. and world.

My most recent articles on it, last month, involved the announcement by the Air Force secretary acknowledging that the U.S. has deployed weapons in space.

In 1992, the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space was formed in Washington, D.C. and is active worldwide. Bruce Gagnon is coordinator of the Maine-based organization.

He said from India, where he is speaking at a conference during a “Keep Space for Peace Week” that the Global Network is sponsoring, this about the Times story: “Here in India they say that their government is all in on the U.S. Artemis-led coalition to establish a base on the moon with nuclear reactors. So, the new ‘nuclear space race’ is on—the U.S. team versus Russia and China. What are they after? Helium-3 for potential power back on Earth and using the moon as a military staging base to control the ‘Earth-Moon gravity well’ as a way to decide which nations and private corporations can move into space to mine the planetary bodies.”

“We should recall that Obama signed a law to give American companies and wealthy individuals the ‘right’ to mine planetary bodies essentially in violation of the Outer Space and Moon treaties that say that the planetary bodies are the province of all humankind.”

“This is the kick-off of the race to carry the ‘bad seed’ of greed, domination, and colonization that was long ago planted into the soil on Earth into the heavens,” continued Gagnon. “The taxpayers have paid the R & D for these programs and now that the space tech has advanced, the self-centered capitalists are intent on grabbing all they can for themselves.”

“This will move the Earth-bound global war system into the heavens. When they add nuclear power into the equation these people are asking for trouble.”

“In addition to reactors on the moon, they will next want nuclear reactors to power orbiting battle stations to ‘protect their assets’ on these planetary bodies. This is largely what Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ is all about. Not so much about protecting us from attack back on Earth. It’s more about controlling the pathway on and off our planet Earth. Deciding who can go out and mine the sky. Like the front gate of a military base.”

“In the end it’s a disaster in the making. From the Earth, where the Department of Energy has a horrible track record of worker air and water contamination while fabricating space nuclear devices, and into space, this entire nuclear system is a tragic mistake,” said Gagnon. ”The nuclear industry views space as a new market. They don’t give a damn about the dangers involved. These greedy aerospace corporations are salivating as they look at the profits to be made.”

Commenting from England, Dave Webb, convenor of the Global Network and Emeritus Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at Leeds Beckett University. said: “The Global Network has argued against nuclear power in space for over 35 years. Apart from the dangers of launching nuclear materials on top of a powerful rocket that could fail and spread nuclear materials over the planet, the setting up of nuclear power stations on the moon would be a catastrophe for the lunar environment.”

“Nuclear fuel would need to be transported to the moon on a regular basis and there is never a mention of how lunar nuclear waste will be dealt with. Lunar bases are, however, a way of establishing the ultimate military high ground.”

“We now know what we have suspected for many years, that the U.S. military has weapons stationed in space. There can be no doubt that the U.S. military wants to extend their presence to control the use of cislunar space [between Earth and the moon] and establish permanent military bases on the moon. U.S. nuclear-powered lunar bases will not be totally for scientific purposes or to extend the human presence beyond Earth, they will primarily be to control and dominate so that the U.S. alone can extract valuable resources from the moon and other celestial bodies.”

Webb continued: “The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Cain has declared that the Pentagon must prepare for war around or even on the moon. The U.S. military’s  lust for power and control is rapidly destroying life on Earth and must not be extended into space and the heavenly bodies. The U.S. is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty and should set an example to others by signing the Moon Treaty that declares the moon and its natural resources a ‘common heritage of mankind.’”

“We are in the middle of Keep Space for Peace Week with demonstrations by groups across the planet who want to see the rush to militarize everything, including the heavens, to be stopped and reversed,” said Webb.

And Alice Slater, a member of the board of the Global Network, an attorney, and also a

board member of the group World BEYOND War, noted that the New York Times article reported the U.S. is planning to build a nuclear reactor on the moon that could “survive a space voyage and run without maintenance near the moon’s south pole by 2030.” The Times, she added, acknowledged this may sound like “science fiction” but NASA and the U.S. National Space Academy are serious as it would enable the U.S. to compete with Russia and China which are making similar plans to place a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2036. And she cited the passage in the Times article beginning with: “Failures could cause a chain reaction with dire consequences.”

Said Slater of New York City: “We should remind ourselves and our corrupt government that beginning in the 1960s President Kennedy and Premier Kruschev started a process for the U.S. and Russia to end their space competition and move toward cooperation. In the 1970s, the two nations began discussion to develop a common system and during a Moscow summit meeting in 1972, President Nixon and Premier Kosygin signed an agreement on cooperation in space allowing for the development of a joint system to allow their spacecraft to dock with each other in orbit, which became known as the Apollo-Soyuz project.”

“Over the years,” she went on, “cooperation has waned or increased at different times, with the U.S. actually helping the Russians and relying on Russia’s advanced space technology after the end of the Cold War. However, with the Ukraine war, the U.S. cut off all cooperation with Russia except for maintenance of the International Space Station  which relies on a Russian module for control, and even the continuation of that effort is doubtful given Russia’s new cooperation with China.”

Said Slater: “It’s clear that we need international guardrails on this new global competition to dominate the moon with power provided by dangerous nuclear reactors. Insanity is being raised to new heights. The United Nations should take the lead making any exploration and exploitation of space an international effort based on global cooperation by nations for the welfare of life on earth. To go down this dark path of competition as to who can be first to put toxic nuclear reactors poisons on the moon, with all the dark consequences that would entail should there be the inevitable space accidents on the way to the moon, is the essence of folly.”

“The rush to install a lunar reactor has nothing to do with science or exploration,” says the sponsors of the petition. “It’s about geopolitics and ‘claiming’ space. Experts warn this move risks undermining international treaties that are supposed to keep space peaceful and shared. And while  NASA is promising only a small reactor, nuclear power is never simple or safe. Especially in such an untested and fragile environment….Instead of rushing nuclear power into space, NASA should focus on sustainable alternatives like solar energy and international cooperation. Pushing forward with this dangerous plan risks creating conflict, environmental hazards and a ‘gold rush’ mentality on the moon….Sign the petition to tell NASA and the Department of Transportation: stop the lunar nuclear reactor projects before it creates irreversible problems for the moon, for space law, and for all of us on Earth.” The petition is at https://www.thepetitionsite.com/223/416/093/say-no-to-nasas-reckless-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon/

There are websites online proposing solar power devices for the moon. Blue Origin, the company of Amazon owner Jeff Bezos, is advancing “Power Towers.”

Lockheed Martin has a similar system termed “Vertical Solar Arrays” and says: “The moon’s south pole presents unique opportunities and challenges for solar energy capture. Certain locations receive sunlight 80% to 90% of the time, making them ideal for solar power generation.”

There’s an online petition headed “Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon” with nearly 47,000 signatories.” It says NASA’s “accelerated plans to put a nuclear reactor on the moon, framing it as a race against China and Russia…is nothing more than a dangerous, costly, and shortsighted gamble—one that could leave behind radioactive waste, spark international conflicts and waste billions of taxpayer dollars.”

October 19, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment