Empty Space

If it’s up to the Kremlin, that’s what we could be left with

Photo by Alexandros Giannakakis on Unsplash

I’m lucky to have been born with a good sense of direction. From the age of six or seven on family road trips it was me who sat with the thick spiralled bound road atlas and provided directions. This was long before GPS¹ was widely used by the public. When I learned to fly, I enjoyed learning how to navigate using an E6B navigation computer, drawing lines on a chart with a grease pencil and using the one in sixty rule. These are all techniques which haven’t changed in decades and would be familiar to the early pioneers of aviation. In fact, I didn’t fly an aircraft with a GPS until well after I had my private pilot’s license and was working on my commercial. Even then there was no moving map, it was a simple monochrome display.

An E6B navigation computer

If you stopped and asked someone in the street what space based technology we rely on in our modern lives, they would probably say GPS, and this would be a good answer. There are of course many more, starting with communications. Along with the legacy providers, right now there is a burgeoning industry of direct-to-device satellite communication, such as Space X’s Starlink. Then there is weather forecasting, meteorologists rely heavily on satellite data to input into their forecasting models. Earth observation for many different purposes, we could go on. Going back to GPS for a moment, global financial markets have become heavily dependent on the accurate time signals coming from GPS satellites to synchronise transactions. This is one example of a not so obvious application of space based technology.

We are becoming more and more dependent on space-based technology. For example, in aviation many of the older terrestrial based navigation aids such as VOR’s² are being decommissioned, as the air traffic system moves towards GPS as a primary means of navigation. This is all great but what happens when something goes wrong? In aviation there has been fierce debate as to whether enough ground based navigation aids are being retained, enabling the system to cope with a major GPS outage.

I was therefore alarmed to read in the New York Times that Russia has conducted a series of secret military satellite launches, which could indicate they are working on a new space-based weapon. Intelligence agencies are divided on whether Vladimir Putin is planning on placing a nuclear weapon in space, but it seems plausible. I’m sure he will deny it, but then he denied he was going to invade Ukraine whilst he massed troops on the border.

I am actually broadly in favour of the major powers possessing nuclear weapons. I believe mutually assured destruction (MAD) is what prevented the Cold War from turning hot. A legitimate second strike capability is an important part of a liberal democracy’s defence strategy. Let’s not kid ourselves, we are not putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle.

Putin has of course threatened the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and because of the threat of mutually assured destruction I don’t believe he would use them. Caveat here, I wouldn’t be surprised if he went as far as using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield, but a first strike on western nations is likely out of the question.

Using a nuclear weapon in space would wreak havoc, it would knock out or severely degrade communications, navigation etc, all the good stuff we mentioned at the beginning. The key thing here though is there would be no direct human casualties, and this could be what tips the balance if Moscow feels threatened. What is the west going to do in response? They are not going to launch a retaliatory strike against Russian cities and what good would setting off another nuclear weapon in space do?

There is an argument that detonating a nuclear weapon in space would also cause problems for Russia, so they would be shooting themselves in the proverbial foot. Yes, but I would argue Russian society (especially outside of the major centres) is not as technologically advanced as western society, so would be less impacted. There might also be some benefits. Oppressive regimes feel threatened by technology such as Starlink, it makes it easier to bypass censorship if you can access the internet directly, without being imprisoned behind a state run firewall. There is a reason Starlink is not available in Russia, China, Iran or North Korea.

If Russia was to use such a weapon, it wouldn’t be the end of the world, as in nuclear winter, but it would cause untold disruption. It might be time to dust off that old road atlas and brush up on your navigation skills, but then I’m sure Mr Putin will say Russia is not going to put nuclear weapons in space. Just as they weren’t going to invade Ukraine, and just as he had nothing to do with the death of the incredibly brave Alexei Navalny. Rest in Peace - a true hero.

---

If you enjoy reading “From a Certain Point of View” please consider sharing this blog with anyone else you think would find it interesting. Thanks!

1. The correct term to use here is GNSS (global navigation satellite system), this term describes any global satellite navigation system. The GPS network operated by the US military is currently one of four of these networks. The others being GLONASS (Russia), BeiDou (China) and Galileo (European Space Agency). As the term GPS is often used in place of GNSS I have chosen to do the same in this post.

2. VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) is a radio navigation system developed in the 1930s. It became the standard navigation system for aircraft, until satellite systems began to take over from the turn of the century.