In a strategic move that could escalate tensions in the international arena, two intelligence agencies from NATO countries are speculating that Russia might be in the process of developing a novel anti-satellite weapon. This potential weapon aims to disable Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite constellation by creating destructive clouds of orbiting shrapnel. The motive appears to be a desire to curb Western space dominance, which has notably benefited Ukraine’s military efforts on the ground.

These intelligence reports, obtained by The Associated Press, describe the proposed weapon as a “zone-effect” system. The concept involves inundating the orbits utilized by Starlink with an enormous quantity of high-density pellets. This tactic could incapacitate numerous satellites simultaneously, albeit with the grave risk of causing extensive collateral damage to other orbiting systems.

However, some analysts who have not reviewed the intelligence findings express skepticism about the feasibility of such a weapon. They argue that deploying this kind of technology could lead to an uncontrollable disruption in space, affecting the satellite operations of various nations, including Russia and its ally China, who depend heavily on satellites for communication and defense.

The potential for self-inflicted damage might deter Moscow from pursuing or employing this weapon, according to these experts. The implications for global satellite infrastructure could be catastrophic, making the execution of such a plan fraught with risk.

Victoria Samson, a space-security expert with the Secure World Foundation, voices her doubts about the viability of Russia utilizing this strategy. “I don’t buy it. Like, I really don’t,” she remarked, expressing her surprise if Russia were to take such a drastic step. Samson leads the Colorado-based organization’s annual study of anti-satellite systems and remains skeptical about the likelihood of this scenario unfolding.

But the commander of the Canadian military’s Space Division, Brig. Gen. Christopher Horner, said such Russian work cannot be ruled out in light of previous U.S. allegations that Russia also has been pursuing an indiscriminate nuclear, space-based weapon.

“I can’t say I’ve been briefed on that type of system. But it’s not implausible,” he said. “If the reporting on the nuclear weapons system is accurate and that they’re willing to develop that and willing to go to that end, well it wouldn’t strike me as shocking that something just short of that, but equally damaging, is within their wheelhouse of development.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov didn’t respond to messages from the AP seeking comment. Russia has previously called for United Nations efforts to stop the orbital deployment of weapons and President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow has no intention of deploying nuclear space weapons.

Weapon would have multiple targets

The intelligence findings were shown to the AP on condition that the services involved were not identified and the news organization was not able to independently verify the findings’ conclusions.

The U.S. Space Force didn’t respond to e-mailed questions. The French military’s Space Command said in a statement to the AP that it could not comment on the findings but said, “We can inform you that Russia has, in recent years, been multiplying irresponsible, dangerous, and even hostile actions in space.”

Russia views Starlink in particular as a grave threat, the findings indicate. The thousands of low-orbiting satellites have been pivotal for Ukraine’s survival against Russia’s full-scale invasion, now in its fourth year.

Starlink’s high-speed internet service is used by Ukrainian forces for battlefield communications, weapons targeting and other roles and by civilians and government officials where Russian strikes have affected communications.

Russian officials repeatedly have warned that commercial satellites serving Ukraine’s military could be legitimate targets. This month, Russia said it has fielded a new ground-based missile system, the S-500, which is capable of hitting low-orbit targets.

Unlike a missile that Russia tested in 2021 to destroy a defunct Cold War-era satellite, the new weapon in development would target multiple Starlinks at once, with pellets possibly released by yet-to-be launched formations of small satellites, the intelligence findings say.

Canada’s Horner said it is hard to see how clouds of pellets could be corralled to only strike Starlink and that debris from such an attack could get “out of control in a hurry.”

“You blow up a box full of BBs,” he said. Doing that would “blanket an entire orbital regime and take out every Starlink satellite and every other satellite that’s in a similar regime. And I think that’s the part that is incredibly troubling.”

System is possibly just experimental

The findings seen by the AP didn’t say when Russia might be capable of deploying such a system nor detail whether it has been tested or how far along research is believed to be.

The system is in active development and information about the timing of an expected deployment is too sensitive to share, according to an official familiar with the findings and other related intelligence that the AP did not see. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the nonpublic findings.

Such Russian research could be simply experimental, Samson said.

“I wouldn’t put it past some scientists … to build out something like this because it’s an interesting thought-experiment and they think, you know, ‘Maybe at some point we can get our government to pay for it,’” she said.

Samson suggested the specter of a supposed new Russian threat may also be an effort to elicit an international response.

“Often times people pushing these ideas are doing it because they want the U.S. side to build something like that or … to justify increased spending on counterspace capabilities or using it for a more hawkish approach on Russia,” she said.

“I’m not saying that this is what’s happening with this,” Samson added. “But it has been known to happen that people take these crazy arguments and use them.”

Tiny pellets could remain undetected

The intelligence findings say the pellets would be so small — just millimeters across — that they would evade detection by ground- and space-based systems that scan for space objects, which could make it hard to pin blame for any attack on Moscow.

Clayton Swope, who specializes in space security and weaponry at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based security and policy think tank, said if “the pellets are not trackable, that complicates things” but “people would figure it out.”

“If satellites start winking out with damage, I guess you could put two and two together,” he said.

Exactly how much destruction tiny pellets could do isn’t clear. In November, a suspected impact by a small piece of debris was sufficient to damage a Chinese spacecraft that was meant to bring three astronauts back to the Earth.

“Most damage would probably be done to the solar panels because they’re probably the most fragile part” of satellites, Swope said. “That’d be enough, though, to damage a satellite and probably bring it offline.”

‘Weapon of fear’ could threaten chaos

After such an attack, pellets and debris would over time fall back toward Earth, possibly damaging other orbiting systems on their way down, analysts say.

Starlink’s orbits are about 550 kilometers (340 miles) above the planet. China’s Tiangong space station and the International Space Station operate at lower orbits, “so both would face risks,” according to Swope.

The space chaos that such a weapon could cause might enable Moscow to threaten its adversaries without actually having to use it, Swope said.

“It definitely feels like a weapon of fear, looking for some kind of deterrence or something,” he said.

Samson said the drawbacks of an indiscriminate pellet-weapon could steer Russia off such a path.

“They’ve invested a huge amount of time and money and human power into being, you know, a space power,” she said.

Using such a weapon “would effectively cut off space for them as well,” Samson said. ”I don’t know that they would be willing to give up that much.”

___

Emma Burrows in London contributed to this report.