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
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.”
The Nuclear-NASA Era?
Karl Grossman, October 13, 2026, https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/10/13/the-nuclear-nasa-era/
“We are entering the ‘Nuclear NASA-era’ which represents a major transformation for space exploration,” said the administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, Jared Isaacman, last week as he and U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright signed an agreement titled “Accelerating American Leadership in Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion.”
Announcing the signing on October 8th in Washington, D.C., NASA issued a news release headed “NASA, Energy Department Advance New Era of Nuclear-Powered Exploration.” It further quoted Issacman as saying: “Nuclear power will allow us to go farther, operate longer, and field more capable spacecraft and instruments than ever before. The work we’re doing today is laying the foundation for the fission-powered spacecraft of tomorrow and opening an entirely new frontier for exploration and discovery.”
Ahead, however, would be accidents involving the expanded use of space nuclear power—notably in launches and fallbacks to Earth. The U.S. and also Russia have both had accidents in their use of nuclear power in space, detailed in my book “The Wrong Stuff.”
An early serious U.S. accident occurred on April 21, 1964 when a satellite powered by plutonium failed to achieve orbit and disintegrated as it fell back to Earth, spreading plutonium worldwide. Dr. John Gofman, an M.D. and Ph.D. and professor at the University of California at Berkeley who was involved in early work with plutonium for the Manhattan Project, linked the fall-out to a spike in lung cancer on Earth. It was a spur for NASA developing solar power for space and all satellites launched now utilize solar energy as does the International Space Station.
The signing followed news earlier in the week of the U.S., China and Russia “Racing to Put Nuclear Reactors on Moon,” as the New York Times headlined its lead front page story, with a subhead: “Experts Warn of Radioactive Risks From a Rocket Mishap or Lunar Meltdown.”
The NASA release said the pact “establishes a framework for end-to-end collaboration. The agreement unites both agencies across the full spectrum of space nuclear development, spanning advanced research and fuel production to rigorous testing, launch integration, and operations.”
The signing happened at what was named, said the release, “Science: A Golden Age Summit, hosted by the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace in Washington.”
The release quoted Wright as saying: “Thanks to President Trump, America’s nuclear renaissance is reaching a new frontier. The Energy Department is proud to partner with NASA as we help American space missions reach uncharted territory.”
The release continued: “President Trump’s December 25 Executive Order on Ensuring American Space Superiority directs NASA to develop a launch-ready lunar surface reactor by 2030, a goal toward which NASA, partnering with DOE, is making steady progress. This pivotal agreement fortifies existing collaborations on fission and radioisotope power systems propelling NASA’s vision for a sustained human presence on the Moon and accelerating the breakthrough technologies to enable our mission.”
It went on: “When NASA’s Space Reactor-1 Freedom launches in 2028, nuclear propulsion will advance from laboratory research to operational deep-space application This milestone paves the way for Lunar Reactor-1….Nuclear power will energize habitats, communications, instruments, rovers, resource usage, and critical lunar infrastructure, and it will be essential for the demanding energy needs for future Mars missions.”
The Space Reactor-1 Freedom and the Lunar Reactor-1 “form the foundation of a robust domestic nuclear-space industrial base. These programs are poised to power permanent lunar outposts, enable exploration of distant worlds, and cement American leadership in space for generations,” it said.
Further, it said, “NASA continues to expand its use of radioisotope power systems. The Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan, scheduled for launch in 2028, will rely on a Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator and 24 Light Weight Heater Units [using atomic energy] to power and warm the car-sized rotorcraft.”
World Nuclear News, in its coverage of the NASA-DOE memorandum, began its article with: “Deep-space exploration is trading chemical rockets for nuclear fission.”
Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet, and the Beyond Nuclear handbook, The U.S. Space Force and the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear war in space. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.
Reactors on the Moon?
“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.”
Karl Grossman, CounterPunh October 9, 2026
The lead front page story in the New York Times this 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 direconsequences. 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……………………………………………
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 article on it, last month on CounterPunch, 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.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/10/09/reactors-on-the-moon/
US, China And Russia Race To Build Nuclear Reactors On The Moon: Report
New Delhi:
The United States, China and Russia are racing to develop nuclear reactors for the Moon as they prepare for future space exploration. The countries believe nuclear power will be important for building permanent lunar bases, exploring resources and supporting missions deeper into space
The US aims to launch a lunar nuclear reactor by 2030, while Russia and China are working towards a joint project by 2036. The plans could power future Moon bases but have also raised safety concerns.
NDTV, Edited by: Siddhi Singh, Oct 04, 2026
New Delhi:
The United States, China and Russia are racing to develop nuclear reactors for the Moon as they prepare for future space exploration. The countries believe nuclear power will be important for building permanent lunar bases, exploring resources and supporting missions deeper into space.
According to The New York Times, NASA in August asked contractors to prepare a nuclear reactor that can survive a space journey and operate without maintenance near the Moon’s south pole. The agency aims to have the reactor ready for launch by December 2030.
Russia, meanwhile, plans to develop a lunar reactor called Selena by 2036 as part of its secretive partnership with China. The project is intended to provide power to lunar stations led by China…………………………………………………….
Safety Concerns Over Nuclear Power In Space
Despite the plans, scientists have warned that rushing to build lunar reactors could create serious risks. Rocket launch failures could cause accidents involving nuclear reactors and potentially spread radioactive material. Experts have also pointed out that installing and maintaining a reactor on the Moon would be challenging.
Unlike reactors on Earth, lunar reactors would be difficult to protect with containment structures, and experts say areas around them may need to be restricted to reduce radiation risks to astronauts and equipment.
As per The New York Times report, both the US and Russia plan to send their reactors to the Moon in an inactive state, reducing some risks during transport. However, experts say accidents cannot be ruled out, even with safety reviews.
Who Owns The Moon?
The race has also raised questions about access to the Moon and its resources. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty states that no country can claim the Moon as its territory. However, questions remain over whether countries can restrict access to areas around their lunar bases and whether they can own the resources they extract from the Moon.
NASA accelerated its plans amid fears that a nuclear reactor built by China and Russia could establish a restricted zone on the Moon, limiting where American astronauts and rovers could travel. Space law experts have questioned whether such zones, even if created for safety reasons, would conflict with the principle of free access to space under the Outer Space Treaty.
The US, China and Russia have yet to prove that their proposed reactors can be installed and operated on the Moon. Their timelines could also change as technical and safety challenges are addressed. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-china-and-russia-race-to-build-nuclear-reactors-on-the-moon-report-12137354
The Final Frontier Goes to War: The Militarisation of Space
Aleena Im , September 30, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/09/30/the-final-frontier-goes-to-war-the-militarisation-of-space/
Space is becoming an increasingly contested domain as major powers expand military capabilities, satellite infrastructure, and counterspace systems, while the U.S. Golden Dome initiative reshapes strategic stability and raises new questions about the future of space governance.
On 14th September 2026, US Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink confirmed that the US has “on-orbit” weapons capable of safeguarding the US against hostile actions. It is most likely a part of the implementation of the 2025 US National Security Strategy (NSS), which says,
“the United States must at the same time invest in research to preserve and advance our advantage in cutting-edge military and dual-use technology, with emphasis on the domains where U.S. advantages are strongest. These include undersea, space, and nuclear, as well as others that will decide the future of military power, such as AI, quantum computing, and autonomous systems, plus the energy necessary to fuel these domains.”
In December 2025, the White House issued an executive order on “Ensuring American Space Superiority” to ensure U.S. space superiority, security, lunar development, and the ability to detect, characterise and counter threats to U.S. space interests – especially threats from Very Low Earth Orbit (VLEO).
In recent years, outer space has undergone a remarkable transformation from being a domain of scientific discoveries to an arena of geopolitical competition. According to NATO, space is important for both the military and civilians. In 2019, NATO officially recognised space as an operational domain and adopted an Overarching Space Policy. NATO has taken various initiatives under this policy, such as the NATO Space Operations Centre (NSpOC), NATO Commercial Space Strategy, and SPACENET.
NATO has declared that space is critical to deterrence and defence. Major powers are very keen on the development of space technologies in defence and deterrence. The US established the United States Space Force in 2019 to protect the US and its allies’ interests in space and ensure their freedom to conduct operations there. However, when Russia in 2021 tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile, which destroyed its old Cosmos 1408 satellite, the US and allies criticised this test by saying it was ‘reckless’, as the debris could remain in space for years. This is extremely hypocritical of the US considering their own activities and aims for space – but shows how in the near future, strategic competition will not be bound only to the Earth, but it will extend to space, and space will also be exploited.
Golden Dome: Missile Defence or a New Strategic Equation
Golden Dome is a multi-layered defence shield project for safeguarding America from aerial threats. According to the National Defence Magazine, the project will be completed by the mid-2028. It includes space-based interceptors designed to detect and destroy missiles during flight. As per the CSIS report, space-based interceptors would effectively constitute a form of space-control weapon. If interceptors are placed in orbit, space itself becomes part of the missile-defence battlefield, potentially changing the balance between offensive missiles and defensive systems. China and Russia have therefore argued that the system could affect strategic stability, while the United States presents it primarily as a means of protecting the homeland from increasingly advanced missile threats.
Importance of Space in the Military
“Space has become the ultimate high ground for warfare” — (Elon Musk)
Military satellites are often known as “silent sentinels” used for defence and security purposes. Below are the types of military satellites with their specifications:
GPS & Navigation
Navigation satellites provide positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) signals for precise targeting. In this regard, the US has the Navstar GPS constellation operated by USSF, Russia have GLONASS, China have Beidou, and the EU have Galileo. The powerful Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) are GPS-aided precision-guided weapons that use satellite-provided positioning data for accurate hits.
Communication Satellites
Communication satellites prove beneficial for command and control, especially in remote areas. They support unmanned drones, which depend on satellite links for remote operation. The US have Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) and Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) systems, which provide encrypted links that connect commanders with other troops.
Reconnaissance Satellites
Reconnaissance satellites are also known as spy satellites because they can gather high-resolution images of the battlefield. For example, SAR can see through clouds and even in darkness using infrared sensing. The US has the KH-11 series, and China has the Yaogan constellation, which has a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) sensor.
Signals Intelligence Satellites
SIGINT and ELINT satellites intercept electronic emissions, which include radar signals and military communications across vast areas. Orion and Trumpet series are allegedly US SIGINT and ELINT satellites, respectively, while Russia have Liana systems, which are SIGINT satellites but can carry functions similar to an ELINT satellite.
To date, the US have not elaborated on the weapon types, their capabilities, and when they were put into orbit.
Key Players in Space Militarisation
United States
The US has been the architect of space infrastructure. In 2019, the US created USSF, which formalised space as a military domain. The US have several military satellites which help in defence and deterrence. It’s spending on counterspace defence and attack capabilities is to deter competitors as well as maintain freedom of action in space.
China
China has the Beidou navigation system, through which China has conducted satellite tests and developed ASAT systems. China is developing both soft and hard kill technologies to counter the US on each level. For this, it has developed TPG1000C, a 5-ton high-power microwave system which is capable of disrupting satellite electronics.
Russia
Russia in 2019 tested an ASAT, officially declaring its interests in outer space. Russia is not focusing as much on its space capabilities as the US and China, but the country is working towards cost-efficient counterspace capabilities instead of massive satellite constellations.
India, UAE, and Israel
India, the UAE, and Israel are also enhancing their outer space capabilities. India has conducted an anti-satellite test known as Mission Shakti, and the UAE’s Mars mission, despite being a civilian scientific program, opened up the possibilities for much more.
Future Trajectories
Space is evolving into a multipolar strategic arena. There are some frameworks like the Outer Space Treaty which emphasise peaceful use of space, but still, major powers’ competition is pushing space towards militarisation. The growing influence of private companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin is also a defining feature of space militarisation. International law lacks clear rules regarding space warfare. Rather than a hub of scientific discoveries, in the near future, space could become increasingly contested and militarised. Now, states are shifting from protecting satellites to installing large constellations for deterrence.
To reduce the risk of miscalculations and space exploitation, the US and China are working on Constructive Strategic Stability, which allows both states to compete within a framework which will define limits of escalation. The Xi-Trump meeting on September 24, 2026 produced several areas of agreement, including continued economic dialogue and new mechanisms for cooperation on artificial intelligence and crisis communication. However, space security was not among the publicly announced outcomes, leaving it as an area where further strategic dialogue may be needed as competition in orbit intensifies.
Conclusion
Space is the next critical frontier which will shape world order and global security. Space is no longer reserved for space exploration; now, major powers are competing in outer space. Cooperative measures such as confidence-building measures (CBMs) and debris mitigation agreements can reduce the risk of escalation and space exploitation, but uncertainty and mistrust among major powers persist.
Aleena Im is an independent researcher and writer and is interested in international relations and current affairs
Nuclear weapons in space would break law, says Britain
By Tom Dunlop, 29 sept 26 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/nuclear-weapons-in-space-would-break-law-says-britain/
Orbital weapons of both kinds pose a growing threat to the space-based services Britain and its allies depend on, and any attempt to put nuclear weapons in orbit would be highly destabilising and contrary to international law, the Ministry of Defence stated in a written answer.
Lord Coaker, Minister of State at the department, was answering Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, the Green Party peer, who asked what assessment the government had made of the danger of orbital weapons, kinetic and otherwise, following what she described as the disclosure by the United States of its aggressive space capacity, and what steps ministers plan to take to prevent a new arms race in space.
The minister replied: “The Government recognises that orbital weapons, both kinetic and non-kinetic, pose a growing threat to critical space-based services vital to the UK and its allies. We are concerned by reports of efforts to deploy nuclear weapons in space, which would be highly destabilising and contrary to international law. The Government supports a behaviour-based, risk-reduction approach to maintain a safe, secure and sustainable space environment. We work closely with international partners to promote responsible conduct, uphold existing legal frameworks and prevent escalation.”
He continued: “Through the UK Space Strategy and Defence Investment Plan, the Government is investing in the resilience and protection of UK and allied space assets to ensure freedom of action in space and safeguard long-term sustainability. We remain committed to international cooperation and the development of norms that reduce risk and preserve stability in this increasingly contested domain.”
The same minister had declined a week earlier to say whether Britain itself has anything in orbit. Lord Lee of Trafford, the Liberal Democrat peer, asked on 22 September whether the United Kingdom has any weapons in space, and if not whether there are plans to deploy any.
Coaker replied: “We do not comment on specific Defence capabilities, including whether such capabilities are deployed in space, nor on future operational plans where doing so would risk undermining national security. We do however recognise that space is important to military operations and is becoming more congested, contested, and competitive. The Government is committed to collaborating with allies and partners to promote internationally agreed norms, avoid unintentional escalation and conflict, and ensure that space remains open, safe, and sustainable.”
He added: “In addition, the UK’s national security depends on freedom of action in space, including the ability to protect UK and allied space assets. As set out in the UK Space Strategy and Defence Investment Plan, the Government is investing in capabilities to strengthen resilience and support the protection of UK interests in space, while continuing to operate responsibly and in accordance with international law.“September 29, 2026
Exploding satellite: age, accident, or act of war – large debris field in space highway of LEO.
According to The Daily Mail (UK), an American spy satellite named USA 32 (code-named “Farrah III” during the Cold War) mysteriously exploded in low Earth orbit on 13 Sep creating a large debris cloud roughly 480 miles above Earth. Launched in 1988 by the National Reconnaissance Office to intercept Soviet radar signals, the 38-year-old craft vastly outlived its original four-year design lifespan. While the U.S. Space Force has not yet determined an official cause, initial intelligence reports indicate no signs of a deliberate weapon strike, suggesting the breakup was likely triggered by an internal tank rupture or a collision with micrometeorites. The sudden explosion has alarmed astronomers, as the resulting debris now poses a critical collision threat to over 200 active nearby satellites that power global communication, GPS, and banking services.
3 – 10 October -Keep Space for Peace Week
Every October the GN calls for global actions to support “Keep Space for Peace Week” https://space4peace.org/keep-space-for-peace-week/
In 1999 the United Nations General Assembly declared that October 4-10 every year would be designated as ‘World Space Week’ to “celebrate the contributions of space science and technology to the betterment of the human condition” – we ask people to recognise this as a time to Keep Space for Peace
Each year the GN provides a poster for use to highlight the Week of Actions and posts a list of the actions organised by our members.
The Global Network’s annual Keep Space for Peace Week comes at a time when the Trump administration is moving to spend trillions of ‘unavailable dollars’ on his new pet project – Golden Dome. We are now facing the latest twist in the big-tech agenda for war in and from space.
Pistol Pete Hegseth has declared that the US must dominate space and has no ‘interest in orbital equity or orbital parity’. These words signal a dangerous declaration of coming space wars against nations like China, Russia, India and more.
Of course this will cost us the Earth in more ways than one.
The development, construction and implementation of the proposed systems would generate thousands of tons of CO2 and accelerate climate change. The rocket launches involved would also degrade the ozone layer and pollute the ground and upper atmosphere.
In addition, the American Physical Society has estimated that the cost of Golden Dome would be trillions. Trump has said he wants to add Canada to the coverage area and even hinted adding Europe. Each addition adds massive costs to the proposed project which only makes the aerospace industry happy.
Trump recently stated that the Congress must vote to turn over Medicare and Medicaid coverage to the states because the feds can’t afford these vital programs due to our current wars. States don’t have the funds either!
This brutal austerity agenda includes privatising the Veterans Administration, Post Office, Social Security and selling off national parks and forests.
We urge you to help the Global Network during Space Week to illuminate these serious dangers and contradictions of the Golden Dome and the broader militarization and nuclearization of space.
One good resource is our library of videos on nearly every aspect of the space issue. It would help to share some of these between now and October 3-10.
Please spread the news, you can also download and use this years poster:
A New Arms Race is Threatening to Take-off—this time in Outer Space
By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 24 2026 (IPS) – The world’s ongoing arms race is threatening to extend beyond planet earth—and spillover into outer space.
The US has deployed weapons in space and will use them to defend American forces, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said last week, according to Cable News Network (CNN). His comments marked the first public acknowledgment of such capabilities, though he offered no details about the weapons or when they were put into orbit.
“Today we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist,” Meink told the Air, Space and Cyber Conference, an annual gathering hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association in National Harbor, Maryland.
The disclosure comes as the US faces an advancing space arms race with China and Russia, which are testing sophisticated offensive capabilities.
Specifically, American officials have said they are monitoring China’s development of a nuclear-capable partial-orbit hypersonic missile. US intelligence has also suggested Russia is developing a space-based nuclear weapon that could knock out satellites critical to weather forecasting, navigation, banking, shipping and emergency services — a claim Moscow denies, according to CNN.
The New York Times quoted Guo Jiakun, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry as saying: ‘We urge the US side to stop expanding its military force and preparing for war in outer space”.
There have also been reports that “Russia could be planning to put a nuclear weapon in space, a threat that could disrupt satellite networks that are vital to everything – from communications to military operations.”
The multiple UN Conferences on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE), have served as landmark global summits to shape international cooperation and policy for space exploration.
Convened at the Hofburg Palace in Vienna from 14 to 27 August 1968, UNISPACE 1 focused on the practical benefits of space technology and scientific exchange
Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy, at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told Inter Press Service (IPS) , while appreciating the transparency shown by the US, this disclosure is the most consequential open acknowledgement by any spacefaring State of weaponised on-orbit capability since the erosion of the informal post-Cold War taboo on space weapons.
The testing began with the 2007 Chinese ASAT test and the 2008 and 2021 Russian ASAT tests., the 2008 US and 2021 Russian ASAT tests, and India’s 2019 Mission Shakti ASAT test — building on earlier direct-ascent ASAT programs pursued by the United States and the Soviet Union from the 1960s through the 1980s.
The US deployment converts a long-suspected capability gap into a declared fact, and it will be read by other delegations as confirmation that at least one major power has moved decisively from space “control” doctrine to operational deployment, he said.
For the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and the Ad Hoc Committee of the Conference on Disarmament on Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), the announcement raises four immediate questions:
(1) whether the deployment is compatible with the existing Outer Space Treaty regime; (2) what it means for the stalled draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT) and the EU Code of Conduct (EU International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities); (3) how the expert and policy community is interpreting the move; and (4) what practical steps the Committees can recommend to prevent a cascading arms race in space.
Rauf proposed five recommendations:
1. Convene an urgent joint briefing between COPUOS’s Scientific and Technical and Legal Subcommittees and the CD’s PAROS Ad Hoc Committee to develop a shared factual record of the announcement and its technical implications, avoiding duplicated or contradictory assessments across the two bodies.
2. Both PAROS Ad Hoc Committee and COPUOS should issue an urgent call for a moratorium on placing weapons in Space, urge the US to take down space weapons it has deployed and urge all spacefaring States to preserve Space as the common heritage of humankind and weapons-free.
3. Request, through the Conference on Disarmament Secretariat, that all spacefaring States with counterspace capability — not only the United States — provide voluntary technical briefings on the general character (though not classified specifics) of any on-orbit weapons systems, to reduce the information asymmetry currently driving worst-case assumptions.
4. Task the Legal Subcommittee with producing a technical working paper clarifying the scope of Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty as applied to conventional (non-WMD) on-orbit weapons, and the interaction of Articles III and IX with counterspace operations, to give delegations a common legal baseline rather than competing unilateral interpretations.
5. Encourage major space powers to reaffirm, at head-of-delegation level, existing voluntary moratoria on destructive kinetic ASAT testing, and invite additional States to associate themselves with such moratoria pending progress on a binding instrument.”
Jonathan Granoff, President Global Security Institute, told IPS placing offensive weapons in space is a very risky proposition.
The Outer Space Treaty has been instrumental in ensuring numerous benefits of outer space, including satellites and exploration. All major nations are parties including United States, Russia, China, India, Japan, and all member states of the European Space Agency. The Treaty in its first article establishes that space exploration and use shall only be for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind, ensuring free and non-discriminatory access for all states.
The deployment of weapons in space by the United States could easily be interpreted as violating that peaceful uses principle, he pointed out.
“However, there is an argument that putting weapons in space for defensive purposes only helps protect against abuses of the peace which is in the interest of all nations. This is not frivolous. The problem with that argument is that weapons used for defensive purposes can also be used offensively and the deployment of such weapons would indeed violate the the Treaty. Moreover, such a deployment by one nation will surely stimulate an arms race.”
There are several important questions, he said.
Should the entire world trust that the weapons the US places in space would only be used defensively to preserve the peace? If the US places weapons in space would this new interpretation of the Treaty stimulate other nations to do the same? Would it be wise to trust they would only use their weapons defensively?
Recall that President Reagan, addressing such questions, offered to share his Star Wars deployments of space based missile defenses with the Soviet Union. Would it be a good idea for the US to share space weapons technologies with other nations?
“The entire world benefits very much from the current military uses of outer space which allows the observation of the military activities of all nations thus helping stability. Such uses should affirmatively be protected and encouraged. Other uses that will lead to a new arms race should be prohibited. A protocol to the OST to prohibit offensive weapons in space as well as any anti-satellite weapons should be obtained”, declared Granoff..
A new report from Europe raises serious alarms about orbital collisions
“I think we are going to lose the ability to use certain orbits.”
Eric Berger ars TECHNICA, – Sep 23, 2026
The 2013 sci-fi blockbuster film Gravity, starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, popularized the notion of the Kessler syndrome. In the movie, Russia shoots down a defunct satellite and creates a cloud of debris, leading to serious tension in orbit.
The movie is fantastic, a true thriller, and while some liberties were taken with the depiction of outer space, the basic premise of a cascading series of collisions rendering orbits too cluttered with debris to be usable is valid. The idea was first proposed by NASA scientists Donald Kessler and Burton Cour-Palais nearly half a century ago.
Still, the movie was science fiction, right?
Well, a lot has changed since Gravity‘s release. At the time that theatergoers were sitting on the edges of their seats and watching Bullock dodge debris, there were only about 1,000 active satellites in orbit. Today, that number is closer to 17,000, according to CelesTrak.
The preponderance of this growth has been driven by SpaceX’s Starlink constellation, which now has approximately 11,000 satellites in orbit, with many thousands more on the way. And SpaceX is not alone in the race to provide Internet from space. Amazon has launched hundreds of satellites, with thousands more to follow. Multiple Chinese Internet constellations are likewise in progress.
Then there are the orbital data centers, which may produce hundreds of thousands of satellites.
We’ve written a lot about these constellations, and they have generated a bunch of questions. Most prominent among them: Just how sustainable is all of this? Will we see the Kessler syndrome play out in real time? Here are some answers.
How bad is the situation?
It depends on who you ask, so let’s start with the glass-half-empty and glass-half-full outlooks.
Starting with the pessimists: A few years ago, one of the world’s experts in orbital debris, University of Texas at Austin professor Moriba Jah, told Ars that he worries a lot about the consequences of satellites and debris in low-Earth orbit.
“I think we are going to lose the ability to use certain orbits because the carrying capacity is going to get saturated by objects and junk,” Jah said. ” I also predict that we will see a loss of human life by (1) school bus-sized objects reentering and surviving reentry and hitting a populated area, or (2) people riding on this wave of civil and commercial astronauts basically having their vehicle getting scwhacked by an unpredicted piece of junk. I predict that both those things are going to happen in the next decade.”
At the other end of the spectrum is the person almost solely responsible for the remarkable growth in satellites over the last decade, SpaceX founder Elon Musk. His attitude has largely been that space is big, and things will probably be just fine. For example, during a SpaceX-produced interview this summer at the company’s Starlink terminal factory in Bastrop, Texas, Musk said, “Space is really big. It’s not like space is gonna get crowded. Space is enormous. If you actually look at it relative to the Earth, the satellites are so tiny you can’t even see them.”
So in one way of thinking, very, very bad things are coming. In another, everything’s fine. Where does the truth actually lie?
What’s really happening?
One of the most credible sources for this kind of information is the European Space Agency, which has long studied space debris and its impacts on various orbits.
Fortunately, it just released its annual Space Environment Report a week ago. The European agency has produced such a report over the last decade to provide a transparent overview of global space activities and assess the quality of efforts to preserve the sustainability of spaceflight.
There are some striking—and concerning—changes this year. For example, the European report has dramatically increased its projections of future satellites in this year’s report after reassessing the current trajectory of large constellations.
“The notable increase in the index this year is primarily driven by the substantially larger future population resulting from the current extrapolation scenario,” the report states. “In particular, the growing influence of large constellations highlights the limitations of traditional mitigation approaches when applied to future traffic at unprecedented scales. At the same time, the results are affected by the limited availability of detailed and verifiable information on future deployment plans, operational practices, and end-of-life strategies of these systems.”
More satellites mean an increasing probability of collisions, which helps to push us toward a Kessler-like scenario…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/09/there-are-now-17000-satellites-in-orbit-and-growing-should-we-be-concerned/
US keeps boasting about militarizing space 60 years after Outer Space Treaty
The intention remains the same as decades prior – militarize space under the guise of “defense”.
Saturday, September 19, 2026, Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst, https://infobrics.org/en/post/103080
In recent days and weeks, the United States has openly started boasting about having orbital weapons, in direct violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which effectively forbids the militarization of space. The mainstream propaganda machine has been trying to whitewash the Pentagon, claiming that this supposedly “ends decades of official ambiguity” about American military capabilities in space. However, many of my esteemed colleagues and I have been writing for years about US violations in space. According to US Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, Washington DC already has “on-orbit space control weapons” and that these are supposedly “intended to defend American forces against hostile action”. The US Space Force claims that these systems are “able to deliver disruption, degradation and even destruction of an adversary”.
The Pentagon is yet to reveal details about the types of weapons it operates in space, meaning we have no information on how long the US has had this capability or how many systems have been deployed. American officials have only talked about what they call “space control”, which is too broad a term to allow a better understanding of what kind of weapons we’re dealing with.
The US claims that “it’s important from a deterrence perspective”. In simpler terms, it’s virtually guaranteed that the system in question is offensive-oriented, as the vast majority of American weapons already are. The announcement also demonstrates Washington DC’s endless hypocrisy, as it spent years accusing others of militarizing space, particularly Russia and China. It’s now unequivocally clear these “warnings” were nothing but crocodile tears.
The Pentagon is now saying that the use of its space weapons “could extend to disabling or destroying an adversary satellite if it were being used to target American troops or a US spacecraft”. Obviously, this is yet another example of the aforementioned endless hypocrisy, as Washington DC has been using its own space capabilities to wage war against Russia during the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. This includes the employment of systems such as SpaceX’s “Starlink”, which the Neo-Nazi junta forces use to guide drones against the Russian military and civilians. Unsurprisingly, the US still lives in the illusion that killing soldiers and civilians in other countries is “perfectly fine”, but won’t tolerate similar actions against its own occupation forces all across the planet (literally dozens of countries in the last several decades).
It should also be noted that Washington DC has been the main driving force behind the militarization of space for around half a century at this point. During the (First) Cold War, this culminated with the Reagan administration’s much-touted SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) program, now better known under its more popular name – “Star Wars”. On paper, it was one of the most ambitious military and space programs ever undertaken by any country. However, many of the projects formally launched by the US at the time never really left the drawing board. It later even turned out that the SDI was largely a PR stunt aimed at pushing Russia into yet another expensive arms and space race. It could be argued that it worked to some extent, as Moscow actually built space-based weapons, including orbital lasers.
Namely, back in 1987, Russia launched a laser-armed spacecraft called the “Polyus/Skif-DM”. Although the program was scrapped due to the unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union, the Kremlin kept its know-how. The US was quite lucky that the USSR didn’t get to implement its unprecedented space projects during the 1990s, as many of these were more ambitious and far exceeded the best space tech available even today. However, Washington DC has long been determined to militarize space, confident that its massive private space sector gives it an edge over the rest of the world. This notion is not entirely without merit, as neither Russia nor China have comparable private ventures with investment on such a scale (although both superpowers still have colossal state-run space programs and aren’t too keen on privatizing them).
On the other hand, while private space ventures aren’t always the best to rely on when it comes to strategic projects, the US is uniquely positioned to do so. Namely, its massive Military Industrial Complex (MIC) would be more than happy to lead the charge in the militarization of space, as this means countless billions more in funding for decades to come. Elon Musk’s erstwhile political alliance with Donald Trump could easily be resurrected, giving the former a major head start in virtually all American space projects. This would also further integrate SpaceX with the Pentagon at a time when its budget keeps growing. Not to mention that just a week after his inauguration, Trump pompously announced that “the construction of a state-of-the-art ‘Iron Dome’ missile defense shield will begin immediately and will be made right here in the USA 100%”.
It later turned out it was actually the “Golden Dome” and that he simply mixed up the name with the better-known Israeli system. However, the intention was the same as decades prior – militarize space under the guise of “defense”. Trump actually said that the system would “protect Americans” and noted that “President Ronald Reagan was interested in such a system during the Cold War, but America didn’t have the technology at the time”. Mentioning the SDI is quite peculiar, as it raises several important questions, the first of which is how viable this new “space defense” would be. Although the technologies required to implement some SDI elements exist nowadays, this is still extremely expensive, while its efficiency is just as questionable as it was 40 years ago. On the other hand, war is “good for business”, as Trump himself said several times.
Weapons in Space
The cost for the Golden Dome system would runs 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.”
“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.”
Karl Grossman, CounterPuchSeptember 21, 2026
“U.S. says for 1st time it now has weapons in space” was the headline last week 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 Tuesday began: “The U.S. has confirmed in a landmark revelation that the nation has deployed operational weapons in space.”
It was news that swept the world.
The 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 reported Wednesday: “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 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, in it Trump asserted: “Superiority in space is a measure of national vision and willpower.”
In his Secretary of War Peter Hegseth, Trump has a highly aggressive partner in this 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 last week: “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 described 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.
Gagnon cited, as an example, the “Vision for 2020” plan released in 1998 by the U.S. Space Command, the predecessor of the U.S. Space Force. It’s best to be seen to be believed. It can be viewed here.
“Vision for 2020” opens with a photo of four-star General Howell M. Estes, commander in chief of the Space Command, saying the publication “serves as a bridge in the evolution of military space into the 2lst Century.”
Below those words of Estes and presented like the crawl in the “Star Wars” movies is: “U.S. Space Command—dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict.”
Yes, “to protect U.S. interests and investment.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The weaponization of space is a violation of the intent of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Created by the U.S., United Kingdom and 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 at the United Nations to pass a resolution titled “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space” (PAROS) to assure that space be used for peaceful purposes. As notes 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 weaponization of space.” It was first passed at the U.N. General Assembly in1981 by a vote of 129 in favor, zero against and 13 abstentions.
But the PAROS agreement to be enacted requires a unanimous vote in favor by the UN’s Conference on Disarmament which consists of 65 nations based on global regions. The U.S. has continually balked on 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 announcing the U.S. would not support PAROS.
Meanwhile, the argument by the U.S.—including in recent days 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, weaponization 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 runs 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 organized 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 4% 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 to 10, with events. The 2026 theme is “Space Is a Global Commons—Not To Be Dominated.” The Global Network’s website is at space4peace.org.
A book I authored, published in 2001, Weapons in Space, quotes Gagnon as saying: “If the U.S. is allowed to move the arms race into space, there will be no return. We have this one chance, this one moment in history, to stop the weaponization of space from happening.”
Similar warnings are made by Gagnon and others in TV documentaries I wrote and presented: Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens, first out in 1995 and viewable now, and Star Wars Returns, out in 2012, which can be seen here.
I concluded another book I wrote, The Wrong Stuff, published in 1997, with: “As for space weaponry, we are living at an historic junction. We have the opportunity now to halt the expansion of a new round of the arms race into space. The Star Wars of the Reagan administration is clearly not over, as the U.S. military seeks to attain the ‘ultimate high ground’ and with nuclear-powered weaponry to dominate space and the Earth below. We have a chance to stop something wrong and dangerous before it happens, before it is too late.”
Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet, and the Beyond Nuclear handbook, The U.S. Space Force and the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear war in space. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.
The United States claims to now have space weapons and to prepare to fight around the Moon
Voltaire International Newsletter
Fri, 18 Sep 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/508501-The-United-States-claims-to-now-have-space-weapons-and-to-prepare-to-fight-around-the-Moon
US Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink said on September 14, 2026, at the National Harbor Air, Space & Cyber Conference that:
“The United States now has space control weapons in orbit capable of defending joint forces against hostile action.
“For more than a decade, we have expressed our concern about the development of space weapons by the Chinese, Russians and other countries. We are working to ensure our protection and our ability to operate in this environment, as we have done for decades.”
Contrary to Troy Meink’s statements, Russia and China have always claimed that they do not deploy weapons in space. By signing the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the United States committed itself not to place weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine said at the end of the conference:
“Our task, my friends, is to adapt right now, so the Joint Force is prepared to fight, endure, and win in global contested environments, from the seabed to cislunar space.
“Our United States Space Force must provide unrivaled space superiority and sustain the associated networks, domain awareness, data advantage that the joint force needs to win in space both now and in the future.
“We must now assume that our forces will be tracked by autonomous systems, scrambled across the entire spectrum and tracked in real time.
“AI is already a reality and it is transforming the way the armed forces perceive, analyze, decide and act.”
Comment: USA has deployed first space-based weapon:
The United States now has an “on orbit” space weapon and will use it to protect American forces, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink announced Monday, in a not-so-subtle warning to China and Russia.
It marked the first time the United States has acknowledged it has its own offensive capability in space after years of warning that China and Russia have been practicing offensive maneuvers in orbit, such as using lasers or jamming that put U.S. satellites at risk.
Meink would not specify what type of weapon is now in space but hinted that it will be used for “space control.” A U.S. official said it could include the military taking out an enemy’s satellite if it’s being used to target American troops or a U.S. satellite.
The United States also is developing a web of space-based missiles that are envisioned as part of the future Golden Dome missile defense system.
Meink would not elaborate on why the disclosure of the new U.S. capability was being made now, saying only that “there’s a lot of factors that go into how we talk about these things. It’s important from a deterrence perspective.”
We oppose the U.S. call to ‘control and dominate space’.
In the end, the taxpayers should be wondering who will pay for the trillions of dollars for these collective offensive space programs – especially when the US is already over $40 trillion in debt!
By the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space Boards of Directors and Advisors.
| Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Sep 22, 2026 |
The disclosure by US Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink that the US has deployed space weapons in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) confirmed what many had always thought and is a consequence of the competition between the USA and Russia-China over access to LEO. Whoever controls the increasingly limited parking spaces in LEO will be at a considerable advantage and will be able to see and direct weapons not only to targets in space but also on the Earth.
Elon Musk is being paid to fill up LEO with military satellites as fast as possible for the US.
The US Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (DARC) with huge radars in Texas, Australia and possibly Wales — where grassroots opposition is massive — would be part of a system to guide anti-satellite weapons (ASATS) to hit targeted satellites in space.
In 1989 Apollo Astronaut Edgar Mitchell (the 6th person to walk on the moon) spoke at a peace in space rally organized by Bruce Gagnon at 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 thru the deadly space trash orbiting the Earth. He said it would be like trying to “get thru a piranha laced river” in the Amazon.
There is a name today for this phenomenon – the Kessler Syndrome. Much of life on Earth would grind to a halt as the satellites that make our high-tech world function would be smashed to bits.
Other options for the US appear to be space-based lasers and electro-magnetic guns to blind or fry spacecraft electronics.
The Trump administration’s proposed “Golden Dome” system is bringing lots of lucrative contracts to aerospace companies but is nowhere near likely to be completed by Trump’s end of term. The American Physical Society and the Congressional Budget Office also report it would cost trillions of dollars and would not likely be effective against Russian or Chinese hypersonic missiles.
However, Meink’s announcement could really be about attempting to make Golden Dome sound inevitable, thereby forcing Congress to appropriate the massive funds needed to secure the controversial project in the Pentagon’s space strategy.
One other long-term issue is the “mining the sky program.” The US and its fellow NATO allies want to move their 500-year western colonial domination to the Moon, Mars, and other celestial bodies for resource extraction. During a keynote speech at the Air, Space, and Cyber Conference, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine said, “the Joint Force is prepared to fight, endure, and win in global contested environments from the seabed to cislunar space”. Cislunar space is the space between the Earth and the Moon.
The plan is to establish nuclear powered mining colonies. Nuclear powered rocket engines are being developed to cut-in-half the amount of time it would take to get to Mars. The Department of Energy labs that fabricate these space nuclear devices have a long history of worker, air, and water contamination.
The 1989 Congressional study entitled “Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years” called for the US to control the pathway off Earth to space (also called the Earth-Moon Gravity Well).
As the Space Command’s ‘Vision for 2020’ stated, the US must “control and dominate space” and “deny” others the use of space. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has recently stated, “I’m not interested in orbital equity or parity. We demand orbital dominance plain and simple.” Those are fighting words.
In the end, the taxpayers should be wondering who will pay for the trillions of dollars for these collective offensive space programs – especially when the US is already over $40 trillion in debt! Long ago the aerospace industry identified the “entitlement programs” as their preferred source of funds to pay these enormous costs. By this they mean Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the now tattered social safety net. Trump has announced that the already fiscally strapped states should take over Medicare and Medicaid due to recent war spending.
In 1989 Apollo Astronaut Edgar Mitchell (the 6th person to walk on the moon) spoke at a peace in space rally organized by Bruce Gagnon at 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 thru the deadly space trash orbiting the Earth. He said it would be like trying to “get thru a piranha laced river” in the Amazon.
There is a name today for this phenomenon – the Kessler Syndrome. Much of life on Earth would grind to a halt as the satellites that make our high-tech world function would be smashed to bits.
The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, signed and ratified by 118 states, including the US, calls for the peaceful use of outer space, prohibiting the deployment of any weapon of mass destruction and preventing anyone from claiming sovereign control. However, it does not prevent the stationing of other types of weapons in space. The US has repeatedly voted against a resolution, supported by China and Russia, for “no first placement of weapons in outer space”. Now we know why.
For many years the US and Israel have also voted against the annual call by China, Russia and others to negotiate a new treaty on PAROS – the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. The official position of the US has been, “There are no weapons in space, we don’t need a new treaty.
We see this as a spiritual disconnection in the minds and hearts of those “leaders” in Washington who believe that 4% of the global population living in the US should be the Masters of Space. It is a deep sickness.
Space should be a realm for exploration and inspiration, a place for humans to grow further in knowledge and wisdom. A few morally impoverished souls are ruining space even as they poison the earth. This will not end well.
The time has come for people in the US to rise up and demand their government halt the fascist march of the human race to annihilation.
1 This Month
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conferenc
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (247)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
