Russia is building a space nuclear weapon, US warns

U.S. security officials say that Russia is developing a space nuclear weapon, intended to destroy almost all satellites in low Earth orbit at once. For the United States, an event of this magnitude "would be the end of the space era."

U.S. authorities released information about a potential space nuclear weapon after Congressman Mike Turner issued a public warning about the technology.

As reported by Forbes, the Ohio Republican pressured the Department of Defense to provide lawmakers with a confidential briefing on the weapon.

If deployed, the weapon would violate an international treaty prohibiting weapons of mass destruction in space and could make low Earth orbit unusable for satellites for up to a year.

Beyond the impact on the U.S. and its allies, leaving them vulnerable to economic disruptions and exposed to a nuclear attack, such a weapon would also affect Russia itself, as well as China, although both powers are believed to be less dependent on satellites.

Comparing the nuclear weapon, which is not yet ready for use, to Sputnik, the Russian satellite that began the space era in 1957, Mike Turner was clear: "If this anti-satellite nuclear weapon would be put in space, it would be the end of the space age. It should never be permitted to go into outer space. This is the Cuban Missile Crisis in space."

Meanwhile, nations are rushing to develop their own space and rocket programs, aiming to explore commercial opportunities and ensure they are not reliant on foreign satellites.

https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/russia-nuke-space-cuban-missile-crisis-in-space-satellite-nuclear/

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

And this is why the above statement is foolish...

Limitations of Nuclear Weapons in Space

Nuclear weapons are built to release vast energy through nuclear reactions, but their effectiveness can diminish in the vacuum of space. Here are some factors to consider:

Lack of Atmosphere

In space, there's no atmosphere to carry shockwaves or heat. On Earth, nuclear explosions produce fireballs and shockwaves that can inflict widespread damage. In the vacuum of space, the lack of air means there’s no blast wave, which significantly reduces the area of immediate destructive impact.

Radiation Effects

While nuclear explosions emit significant radiation—including gamma rays and thermal energy—this radiation can still affect objects in space over considerable distances. However, the intensity of its impact may vary due to the vastness of space and the presence of cosmic radiation. Still, any object or spacecraft exposed to this radiation can experience damage without needing an atmospheric medium.

Targeting Challenges

In space, accurately targeting a nuclear weapon is more complex because of the vast distances and the need for precise calculations. Objects move rapidly, which increases the difficulty of ensuring a successful strike on the intended target.

Space Debris and Collateral Damage

The use of nuclear weapons in space could result in a significant amount of debris, which poses long-term hazards to satellites and spacecraft. This debris can lead to collisions, creating additional risks for ongoing space operations and safety.

International Treaties and Ethical Considerations

International treaties, such as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, prohibit the placement of nuclear weapons in space and restrict their general use. The ethical implications of deploying such weapons raise concerns about potential escalation and long-lasting effects on humanity and the space environment.

In summary, although nuclear weapons can theoretically be detonated in space, factors such as the lack of a blast wave, complexities in targeting, and the risk of creating hazardous debris can significantly influence their overall effectiveness. The radiation effects can still reach targets over vast distances, but the implications extend far beyond immediate destruction.

They would be far better off gathering space rocks and other orbital debris. There's a lifetime supply already out there in orbit.

GPT-4o mini
Utilizing Space Rocks and Orbital Debris

Gathering space rocks and orbital debris presents a fascinating alternative to nuclear weapons for various purposes, including resource utilization and scientific research. Here are some key points to consider regarding this approach:

Abundance of Resources

There is indeed a significant amount of space debris and asteroids in orbit around Earth and throughout the solar system.

This includes:

Asteroids: Many asteroids contain valuable metals and minerals, such as nickel, iron, and precious metals like gold and platinum.

Orbital Debris: This includes defunct satellites, spent rocket stages, and fragments from previous collisions. While not as valuable as asteroids, some components can be repurposed or recycled.

Potential Uses

Resource Extraction: Mining asteroids for metals and other materials could support space exploration and even provide resources for Earth. This could reduce the need for launching materials from Earth, making space missions more sustainable.

Construction Materials: Space debris could be used to build structures in orbit or on other celestial bodies. For example, materials could be repurposed for constructing habitats, satellites, or even space stations.

Scientific Research: Studying asteroids and space debris can provide valuable insights into the history of the solar system, planetary formation, and the potential for life beyond Earth.

Challenges

While the idea of utilizing space rocks and debris is promising, there are several challenges to consider:

Collection Technology: Developing effective methods for capturing and processing space debris or asteroids is complex and requires advanced technology.

Cost: The financial investment needed for mining operations and debris collection can be substantial, and the economic viability is still being explored.

Legal and Ethical Issues: There are legal frameworks governing the use of space resources, and international cooperation will be essential to address ownership and environmental concerns.

Conclusion

Gathering space rocks and orbital debris offers a sustainable and innovative approach to resource utilization in space. While there are challenges to overcome, the potential benefits for space exploration, scientific research, and even Earth’s economy make it a compelling area of interest for future endeavors.

The only reason to put nuclear weapons out in space is to target the earth itself.

The article is clearly bunk on the reasons.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@DeWayfarer I am not certain about the rest but this sentence contains a mistake:

Lack of Atmosphere

In space, there is no atmosphere to carry shockwaves or heat

Heat is electromagnetic radiation, of infra-red wavelengths. So while it is true that there would be no pressure-wave, the heat would still propagate. That is how we receive it from the Sun. The range may not very great though because it would spread spherically from the explosion, losing power and temperature rapidly by the normal inverse-square law.

Other forms of radiation, radio-frequency and X-rays, may be much more dangerous to a satellite.

Although most of the weapons' own materials would likely be evaporated, eventually to condense to very fine, dissipated dust, any larger particles ejected by the explosion would be moving at very high speed with indefinite range, potentially damaging artificial satellites by simple collision.

In fact a conventional machine-gun might be more "useful" against satellites if mounted on a space-craft capable of being steered towards its targets, and the recoil effect minimised! It would work in a vacuum because the propellant is fuel mixed with an oxygen-donor and burnt in a sealed vessel. With no atmosphere to slow the bullets their range could be enormous, although in Space terms their speed is extremely low, giving potentially very long flight times. (If they did not hit anything they would eventually fall into, and burn up in, the atmosphere.)

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@ArishMell think of what happens in old style vacuum tubes. Yeah they get hot. Yet only on the tube part.

Space is the ultimate vacuum tube.

Your radio frequency only affect what the frequencies hit.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@DeWayfarer Not sure what you mean. Heat is transmitted across a vacuum as IF radiation, not itself "hot" but resulting in anything that absorbs it becoming hot.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@ArishMell it's not heat until it touches something solid.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@DeWayfarer Basically yes, but the effect is that of transmitting "heat".

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@ArishMell no. Think of a microwave. The frequencies cause the molecular solids to vibrate. The vibration causes the heat.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@DeWayfarer Yes - I understand that, but the radiation itself can be transmitted through a vacuum. The sentence in the quoted report implied it would not be.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@ArishMell it's intent is to indicate a nuclear blast would have heat. If only by it's own solids.

The solids heat can not be transferred in a vacuum.

Think of these frequencies more like waves instead of particles. Waves can not have heat. Particles can have heat.

Photons of energy are not particles.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@DeWayfarer I was considering more the effect than the mechanism.

We know a nuclear explosion in a vacuum would not create a blast-wave because there is nothing to compress (don't tell the StarTrek writers!); but it could still disable by radiation that would cause the target to over-heat.

I think photons are mass-less, aren't they?

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@ArishMell yes. Photons of energy have no mass. Yet radiation can have mass. Uranium has mass. Since the mass radiation would be in a vacuum it has nothing to excite (vibrate).

On earth there is air to excite (vibrate).