As wars wage around the world our attention is rightfully directed to these theatres, but perhaps our attention should really be towards the stars. Professor Albert Chapman argues that the Outer Space Treaty and the lofty ideas it was founded upon are dead, and space is better thought of as a battlefield. The nature of space conflict blurs the line between overt and covert activity, and therefore the US needs strong alliances and a strong military presence in order to dominate the area between Earth and Mars, even if that comes to the cost of day-to-day spending and short term priorities. If the West loses space, it may well lose the world.

We think of space as a place of wonder—Neil Armstrong’s inspirational Moon landing, or the serene blue marble of Earth suspended in the sky—rather than warfare. But, whether we pay attention or not, the geopolitics of space threatens to become a key part of our everyday lives. The following scenario may occur now or in the near future.  A large solar flare or an attack on the satellite infrastructures of democratic countries by hostile actors such as China and Russia could hobble our modern technologies. It could ground planes; stall ambulances, police and courts; freeze financial transactions; stop food getting into stores, with ensuing panic-buying; and take out our ability to communicate by phone and social media. Life as we know it could be devastated overnight.

___

Beyond solar flares, space is a potential target of warfare.

___

The TV series COBRA dramatically illustrated the potential disruption a solar flare incident could cause in the UK, affecting everyone from ordinary citizens to the highest circles of government policymaking. COBRA might have been fictional, but situations like it are entirely plausible. Beyond solar flares, space is a potential target of warfare—one that we should be more worried about, and that we should be seeking to defend. The strategy underpinning this new frontier of war may, however, turn out to be very familiar.

SUGGESTED VIEWING Adventures in space With Matt O'Dowd, Avi Loeb, Alison Flood, Carol Cleland

There are a number of ways in which counterspace weapons could be deployed. Kinetic physical weapons, such as missiles, attempting to strike directly or detonate a warhead near a satellite or ground station, could cause irrevocable damage to affected systems and potentially kill people. Non-kinetic physical weapons, such as lasers, may physically impact satellite or ground systems without making contact, and can temporarily dazzle or permanently blind satellite sensors, potentially damaging components by making them overheat, too. A nuclear device detonated in space could create a high-radiation environment and electromagnetic pulse that could damage or destroy the electrical components inside orbital satellites.

___

Such attacks may be difficult to distinguish from accidental interference, making attribution and awareness harder.

___

Electronic counterspace weapons can target the electromagnetic systems that allow satellite networks to transmit and receive data.  This can involve jamming devices interfering with communications to and from satellites by generating noise in the same radio frequency.  Such attacks may be difficult to distinguish from accidental interference, making attribution and awareness harder. Cyber counterspace weapons target specific data and the systems using, transmitting, and controlling data flow, while also targeting ground stations, end-user equipment, or the satellite.

 The space age started as a utopian project of exploration and international scientific cooperation. But, nearly seven decades on, space is an arena of acute commercial activity and global strategic competition between multiple powers. It is no longer a place of sanctuary beyond the fought-over terrain of Earth, but its own arena of war.