Why Do States Develop and Test Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weapons?

• In Event: Credibility in Deterrence and Non-Proliferation

Abstract

Outer space is a global commons that is fast losing its sanctuary status and becoming a critical warfighting domain. The United States, Russia, China, and now India have all tested their anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) by deliberately destroying orbiting satellites. As dominant states increase their space-based assets and reliance on them, they are also caught in an arms race to protect these vulnerabilities. But there is an inherent paradox in states developing and building their space weaponry as they are also the ones with the most to lose if these weapons are used. My paper proposes and examines a mix of practical and aspirational motives to understand why states develop and test ASAT weapons whose use poses a great risk to all space-faring actors by creating space debris. I first propose and evaluate the claim that countries that face rivalry, hostility, and the threat of aggression from other countries are more likely to develop their military space capabilities. ASAT weapons, due to their potentially catastrophic outcome on the space environment, are seen as an effective deterrent to war. Second, by testing ASAT weapons, these states signal military preparedness and issue a potent warning to hostile and aggressive states. Third, by being the only ones to have the know-how to develop and test ASAT weapons, states signal their great power status as leaders in technological advancement who acquire prestige and status as members of an exclusive space club. Lastly, I examine these states’ desire to capitalize on what I term “first-mover” advantages. These states acquire strategic advantages and a competitive edge over others by being the first ones to develop and test these weapons. They expect the global community to establish an eventual moratorium or ban on such tests. They strategically use the time before an impending ban to establish themselves as space powers that other states cannot later challenge. They want to build and test weapons in a timely manner as these weapons are likely to be denied later to other states due to the restrictions of stronger global norms.

Author

• Ritu S. Lauer, Peninsula College