First design
Site Theme
Russia has made some of its most provocative comments to date about Western advertising satellites, which have valuable images and communications expertise for Ukraine this year, suggesting they are suitable wartime targets.
In comments Wednesday, a deputy head of Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Konstantin Vorontsov, said Ukraine’s use of Western advertising satellites is “an incredibly harmful trend. “, which it used through Ukrainian infantry for communications, and artificial aperture radar satellites that tracked the movements of Russian troops and tanks. Vorontsov said:
In particular, we would like to highlight an incredibly damaging trend that goes beyond the innocent use of space technologies and that has emerged during the most recent developments in Ukraine. Namely, the use through the United States and its allies of civilians, adding infrastructure in the outer area for military purposes. Apparently, these States do not realize that such movements do in fact constitute oblique involvement in military conflicts. Near-civilian infrastructure can become a valid target for retaliation. Western movements unnecessarily jeopardize the sustainability of the area’s nonviolent activities, as well as many social and economic processes on Earth that the well-being of people, mainly in emerging countries. At a minimum, this provocative use of civilian satellites is questionable under the Outer Space Treaty, which provides only for nonviolent use of the outer zone, and will have to be strongly condemned by the foreign community.
This is not the first time Vorontsov has made such comments, as he made similar comments last month to the functioning organization of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. However, it is unclear to what extent Russia might stick to its risk of destination ad satellites.
Russia has the ability to shoot down Starlink satellites or other cars in low-Earth orbit. It demonstrated this capability last November when it fired a Nudol missile from the ground, hitting an aging Russian satellite at an altitude of 480 km and throwing it at more than 1,000 traceable pieces of debris. Control took position only 3 months before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“Some commentators said it was a warning for the U. S. to do so. UU. no interfered in Ukraine,” Brian Weeden, director of program planning at the Safe World Foundation, told Ars. “I don’t agree with that assessment, but even if it were true, that risk absolutely failed. “
Indeed, such a tactic, of a direct ascent missile opposed to a single target, would not be effective against a distributed network of payloads or thousands of low-Earth orbit satellites like Starlink. “They are only effective against a small, large, expensive and difficult to replace satellite,” Weeden said.
Derek Tournear, director of the U. S. Space Force Space Development Agency. The U. S. government made similar comments this week when it spoke of the emergence of a “proliferation constellation” of satellites to deter attacks. Tournear said SpaceX’s constellation of 3500 satellites validated the concept of the crash in Ukraine.
“There is remarkable operational resilience through proliferation,” Tournear once said at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. Even if the Space Development Agency’s network were attacked, he said, “we expect to absorb a certain amount of attrition. “. “
Earlier in the war against Ukraine, Russia targeted the capabilities of the announcement area and added the launch of a cyberattack against Viasat that crippled thousands of the company’s satellite communications terminals across Europe. In addition, SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk said there have been “repeated” jamming attacks. These appear to have had a limited effect on Starlink’s Internet service.
But a physical attack on an advertising satellite, probably via a direct-climb missile, would constitute escalation. Last year, NATO officials said attacks on area assets could lead to Article 5 invocation, meaning NATO alliance members would consider an armed attack and assistance to the ally.
However, it is now transparent that the belief of the assets of the “advertising area” in the area is changing. Russia’s comments and similar comments across China show that countries see Western advertising satellites as military assets and not as separate entities. For decades, of course, advertising satellites carried U. S. Army communications. The U. S. military, however, was noted as independent entities whose functions can only depend on the Department of Defense.
Now, America’s adversaries see little or no difference. “It’s almost like they’re seeing corporations like SpaceX as a branch of the U. S. military. “The U. S. , a mercenary in space, so to speak, which adjusts the way you understand the legality of attacking them. “Victoria Samson, director of the Washington office of the Safe World Foundation, says Ars.
Join the Ars Orbital Transmission email to get weekly updates to your inbox.