7 ms·

There is the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which forbids placing "nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station t

There is the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which forbids placing "nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner", but you can get around that by saying that it's just a conventional weapon, not nuclear or WMD. If it's for space to space combat, you could say that any weapon is potentially a WMD due to the Kessler potential, but if its space to ground, like an orbital missile platform or something, you are technically in the clear. I'm guessing it doesn't ban weapons in space completely because of things like the survival guns on Soyuz (if they still fly them), used for defending yourself against wild animals in the event that you land in a forest or similar. "No weapons in space" would ban that as well, but I think it's reasonable to have a survival kit, just in case

pwdisswordfishq 11d ago
Not that the US ever gave a shit about international treaties.
- _djo_ 11d ago
  To be fair, this move is coming after fairly strong evidence that Russia and China have been breaking the treaty by deploying weapons into space for years. Which the US has highlighted many times in the past. At some point you have to acknowledge that the treaty is no longer being respected, and match capabilities to avoid being left at a disadvantage. That said, I'm sure there were tons of people in the US military establishment who had been pushing for this for decades and were ecstatic at being allowed to do it at a broad scale.
  - aa-jv 11d ago
    >fairly strong evidence Got some?
    - _djo_ 11d ago
      Sure. https://www.ifri.org/en/studies/current-and-future-trends-chinese-counterspace-capabilities https://www.ifri.org/en/studies/current-and-future-trends-ch... https://www.swfound.org/publications-and-reports/2026-global-counterspace-capabilities-report https://www.swfound.org/publications-and-reports/2026-global... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2024.2388658#d1e1232 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2024.2... https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4431/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4431/1 https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Annual_Report/Chapters/Chapter%202%2C%20Section%202%20-%20China%27s%20Space%20and%20Counterspace%20Programs.pdf https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Annual_Report/Chapt...
      - aa-jv 11d ago
        I see a lot of fear-mongering reports from sources claiming authority. I don't see any evidence.
        _djo_ 11d ago
        What kind of evidence are you expecting? Detailed photographs of the satellites on orbit? These are credible institutions, with their statements regarding unusual orbital movements backed up by observations made by several independent groups.
        aa-jv 11d ago
        I'd like to see evidence which supports the claims and not have to rely on a call to authority fallacy[1] in order to agree with this collective-derived reality. I have no doubt that there are weapons in space - Russian, Chinese, American - why wouldn't there be? - but I still want to see actual evidence. None of the sources you give are impartial - all of them serve to profit from perpetuating fear of Chinese space activities. Too often, xenophobic movements rely on authority figures to perpetuate their myths. Don't you agree? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
        11d ago
  - voidUpdate 11d ago
    Russia was at least planning to launch a space-to-space laser back in 1987, but the prototype (essentially just a mass simulator, no lasers inside) failed on launch quite spectacularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft)
    - _djo_ 11d ago
      Russia also seems to have tested the release of a sub-satellite from another satellite, perhaps a precursor to a kinetic space-launched weapon. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secretive-russian-military-satellites-release-mystery-object-into-orbit/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secretive-russian...
  - Gregkion 11d ago
    [flagged]
    - _djo_ 11d ago
      If they did, then all three are equally guilty of breaching the treaty and making weapons in space a new norm. That's plausible, sure. If they didn't, it makes sense why they'd choose to compete on the same playing field now, as the norm is already broken. None of what I'm posting is about saying the US are the 'good guys' here. Neither the US, Russia, nor China are 'good' for creating a new space arms race that puts everyone at more risk. It might be something we can understand from a purely rational perspective while disliking that it's happening.
      - maxglute 11d ago
        >equally guilty Not really, LBH, if RU and PRC ask US to kneecap US launch tempo or set some Washington naval treaty tonnage to space limits, US would lol. Rationally US (hegemonic stability) is incentivized to be uniquely bad, i.e. significantly MORE guilty of introducing new/more escalatory arms race conditions by virtue of having most space capability/tech stack, and incentivized to maintain capability gap. US typical the one pushing boundaries to seek absolute security because it cannot (and currently does not have to) accept parity. Followed by RU simply because they're broke and have to do desperate shit like Cosmos 2542. Meanwhile PRC counterspace rollout has been within norm, i.e. match capability of others, land->space direct ascent ASAT, coorbital rendezvous / proximity ops, EW/dazzlers (land+space). PRC cooking from the regular menu, partly because catchup, but PRC also way past RU in space now, but hasn't introduced any destabilizing novel counter space tech that would escalate space arms race except doing normal stuff at scale that triggers US anxiety over size of gap. But ultimately, no one is forcing US to break meta continuously because it rationally won't accept vulnerability. DoD/W didn't have to weaponize SpaceX... but they did, so we should not be surprised in future if general international space admin/order breaks down in future. i.e. US/SpaceX got first come first serve dibs on favourable civilian LEO orbital shells assignment from UN/ITU, but now SpaceX now civil military fusion platform, so probably expect PRC counter space mega constellations to simply ignore US space entitlements in future.
  - notahacker 11d ago
    Neither Russia nor China's known weapons deployment is likely to breach the very narrow restrictions of the Outer Space Treaty, and the latest capability the US has vaguely claimed probably doesn't either. In practice, the US has had practical counter space and electronic warfare capabilities in space for decades (even a regular satellite with enough delta V is a viable weapon, but superpowers have more targeted capabilities than that), and the observable difference is that the current administration's approach leans more towards bragging.
    - sesteel 10d ago
      Your comment on Russia and China is false.
      - hunterpayne 10d ago
        The Chinese have been bragging about taking out one of their own satellites in a test of their capabilities for 8 years now. Russia would but they don't have the money to even try. This place is no better than X...seriously...it is just too small for the propaganda operations to target and yet it is still just as bad. I don't even think it is HN's fault, just the skew of the population HN attracts.
        notahacker 10d ago
        yawns Not even sure who I'm supposed to be propagandising for here, but as the person that actually works on European dual use satellite tech I can assure you it's well established fact that all superpowers have taken out their own satellites with ASAT weaponry (Russia more recently than China fwiw, though China's in-space capabilities are likely a lot better). None of those are a violation of the very narrow anti-WMD proscriptions in the Outer Space Treaty, and whatever counterspace capability the US is vaguely announcing here (or indeed the capability they and their adversaries have had for years) is unlikely to be either.
  - PorciiVorbesc 11d ago
    >after fairly strong evidence that Russia and China have been breaking the treaty by deploying weapons into space for years. The US invasion of Iraq was also based on "strong evidence" of WMDs.
rjsw 11d ago
Almaz had a 23mm cannon [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz_program#Defense_measures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz_program#Defense_measures
- voidUpdate 11d ago
  Yes, but again that was a conventional weapon, and would have been fine under the treaty. I don't exactly condone it but it was also crap and never flew again. This video https://youtu.be/e-n_V5iEwAs https://youtu.be/e-n_V5iEwAs goes into some of the reasons it was a particularly crap idea
notahacker 11d ago
Realistically pretty much anything in orbit is a viable space to space weapon (for related reasons all space propulsion is ITAR controlled) so it was never practical to ban them. Space to earth, maybe, but that isn't unless it hits vague 'WMD' categories, and I'm not sure space to ground is necessarily what the US is declaring here. I suspect whatever capability the US is referring to is far more "counter space" than WMD in scope and an incremental improvement on kinetic and electronic warfare capabilities it's long had. You can do a lot of irresponsible damage in to space assets with ground launched anti-satellite capability, as multiple tests have already demonstrated...
- spwa4 11d ago
  But people want laws to not have to face this, and yet systematically refuse to actually do anything when those laws get violated. A law is fundamentally what's enforced, not what's on the paper. Which means if countries vote against any kind of enforcement, like happened here, those laws (whether rights or something else) don't exist. And they don't exist because regular people may shout about them (most don't), but they won't actually do anything, which, for most people, means pay for it. What's worrying is that human rights are definitely on the same train. When you critique this you get an angry retort that for example China commits large scale human rights violations against it's own population, and how unreasonable it is to expect anyone to do anything about it. Okay, but then we don't have human rights, please don't claim otherwise.
  - zenbane 11d ago
    This is why culture is important to. You can't legislate morals and ethics.
    - Forgeties79 11d ago
      You absolutely can legislate morals and ethics. That’s why you can’t murder people.
      - brookst 11d ago
exe34 11d ago
> used for defending yourself against wild animals > in the event that you land in a forest or similar. I was very confused and wondered where this was going!
nojvek 11d ago
Do US and Russia even give a shit about treaties. Like Pompey “ Will you stop reciting laws to us? We are men girded with swords” Might also mean, our civilization gets wiped out due to our stupidity m. In 1000 years, other galaxies also wonder, why are there no aliens? Are we the most advanced civilization? Then get get “high IQ” president and wipe themselves out.
ak39 11d ago
What is the point of any treaty with the current US administration which does not play by international laws? Rules and laws that the USA itself spearheaded after WW2.
- nickff 11d ago
  The Soviets attached cannons to space stations, and the Chinese are believed to have deployed space-based weapons. The USA is actually a laggard in this field.
  - zobzu 11d ago
    Exactly. Most of these things are just big world politics. Same for AI, btw. "OMG dont do this this is horrible" as the other country does it and hasn't talked about it or haven't been caught doing it. It's all information wars at the end of the day, and HN is not impervious to any of it. Its like OAI and Anthropic saying we should all slow down AI model work. Like, lol, right. As if others would do that. The only way to be safe, so far, has to be that everyone is second guessing everyone's capabilities - not "ahah they dont do it anyway lets go crush em". Same as nuclear weapons basically, we all have them.
- deleted 11d ago
  [deleted]
SG- 11d ago
The US doesn't care about treaties anymore.
varjag 11d ago
I think they don't fly survival guns on Soyuz anymore. But cosmonauts on ISS do keep a shank or two onboard for sure.
tastyfreeze 10d ago
I have little doubt that the OST was circumvented by definitional tricks. That is how the game of treaties and power is played. Something like rods from God or a conventional bomb orbiting platform wouldn't be considered a WMD but most certainly are the types of weapons common folk would think the OST forbids. I suspect since the OST didn't ban orbital weapons capable of attacking the surface outright that some of the signing parties already had them and didn't want to give them up.
pseudohadamard 10d ago
>the survival guns on Soyuz (if they still fly them), used for defending yourself against wild animals in the event that you land in a forest or similar Not to mention the 23mm cannon on Salyut 3, in case you needed to take out the wild animals from orbit.

pwdisswordfishq 11d ago

Not that the US ever gave a shit about international treaties.

_djo_ 11d ago
To be fair, this move is coming after fairly strong evidence that Russia and China have been breaking the treaty by deploying weapons into space for years. Which the US has highlighted many times in the past. At some point you have to acknowledge that the treaty is no longer being respected, and match capabilities to avoid being left at a disadvantage. That said, I'm sure there were tons of people in the US military establishment who had been pushing for this for decades and were ecstatic at being allowed to do it at a broad scale.
- aa-jv 11d ago
  >fairly strong evidence Got some?
  - _djo_ 11d ago
    Sure. https://www.ifri.org/en/studies/current-and-future-trends-chinese-counterspace-capabilities https://www.ifri.org/en/studies/current-and-future-trends-ch... https://www.swfound.org/publications-and-reports/2026-global-counterspace-capabilities-report https://www.swfound.org/publications-and-reports/2026-global... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2024.2388658#d1e1232 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2024.2... https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4431/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4431/1 https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Annual_Report/Chapters/Chapter%202%2C%20Section%202%20-%20China%27s%20Space%20and%20Counterspace%20Programs.pdf https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Annual_Report/Chapt...
    - aa-jv 11d ago
      I see a lot of fear-mongering reports from sources claiming authority. I don't see any evidence.
      - _djo_ 11d ago
        What kind of evidence are you expecting? Detailed photographs of the satellites on orbit? These are credible institutions, with their statements regarding unusual orbital movements backed up by observations made by several independent groups.
        aa-jv 11d ago
        I'd like to see evidence which supports the claims and not have to rely on a call to authority fallacy[1] in order to agree with this collective-derived reality. I have no doubt that there are weapons in space - Russian, Chinese, American - why wouldn't there be? - but I still want to see actual evidence. None of the sources you give are impartial - all of them serve to profit from perpetuating fear of Chinese space activities. Too often, xenophobic movements rely on authority figures to perpetuate their myths. Don't you agree? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
        11d ago
- voidUpdate 11d ago
  Russia was at least planning to launch a space-to-space laser back in 1987, but the prototype (essentially just a mass simulator, no lasers inside) failed on launch quite spectacularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft)
  - _djo_ 11d ago
    Russia also seems to have tested the release of a sub-satellite from another satellite, perhaps a precursor to a kinetic space-launched weapon. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secretive-russian-military-satellites-release-mystery-object-into-orbit/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secretive-russian...
- Gregkion 11d ago
  [flagged]
  - _djo_ 11d ago
    If they did, then all three are equally guilty of breaching the treaty and making weapons in space a new norm. That's plausible, sure. If they didn't, it makes sense why they'd choose to compete on the same playing field now, as the norm is already broken. None of what I'm posting is about saying the US are the 'good guys' here. Neither the US, Russia, nor China are 'good' for creating a new space arms race that puts everyone at more risk. It might be something we can understand from a purely rational perspective while disliking that it's happening.
    - maxglute 11d ago
      >equally guilty Not really, LBH, if RU and PRC ask US to kneecap US launch tempo or set some Washington naval treaty tonnage to space limits, US would lol. Rationally US (hegemonic stability) is incentivized to be uniquely bad, i.e. significantly MORE guilty of introducing new/more escalatory arms race conditions by virtue of having most space capability/tech stack, and incentivized to maintain capability gap. US typical the one pushing boundaries to seek absolute security because it cannot (and currently does not have to) accept parity. Followed by RU simply because they're broke and have to do desperate shit like Cosmos 2542. Meanwhile PRC counterspace rollout has been within norm, i.e. match capability of others, land->space direct ascent ASAT, coorbital rendezvous / proximity ops, EW/dazzlers (land+space). PRC cooking from the regular menu, partly because catchup, but PRC also way past RU in space now, but hasn't introduced any destabilizing novel counter space tech that would escalate space arms race except doing normal stuff at scale that triggers US anxiety over size of gap. But ultimately, no one is forcing US to break meta continuously because it rationally won't accept vulnerability. DoD/W didn't have to weaponize SpaceX... but they did, so we should not be surprised in future if general international space admin/order breaks down in future. i.e. US/SpaceX got first come first serve dibs on favourable civilian LEO orbital shells assignment from UN/ITU, but now SpaceX now civil military fusion platform, so probably expect PRC counter space mega constellations to simply ignore US space entitlements in future.
- notahacker 11d ago
  Neither Russia nor China's known weapons deployment is likely to breach the very narrow restrictions of the Outer Space Treaty, and the latest capability the US has vaguely claimed probably doesn't either. In practice, the US has had practical counter space and electronic warfare capabilities in space for decades (even a regular satellite with enough delta V is a viable weapon, but superpowers have more targeted capabilities than that), and the observable difference is that the current administration's approach leans more towards bragging.
  - sesteel 10d ago
    Your comment on Russia and China is false.
    - hunterpayne 10d ago
      The Chinese have been bragging about taking out one of their own satellites in a test of their capabilities for 8 years now. Russia would but they don't have the money to even try. This place is no better than X...seriously...it is just too small for the propaganda operations to target and yet it is still just as bad. I don't even think it is HN's fault, just the skew of the population HN attracts.
      - notahacker 10d ago
        yawns Not even sure who I'm supposed to be propagandising for here, but as the person that actually works on European dual use satellite tech I can assure you it's well established fact that all superpowers have taken out their own satellites with ASAT weaponry (Russia more recently than China fwiw, though China's in-space capabilities are likely a lot better). None of those are a violation of the very narrow anti-WMD proscriptions in the Outer Space Treaty, and whatever counterspace capability the US is vaguely announcing here (or indeed the capability they and their adversaries have had for years) is unlikely to be either.
- PorciiVorbesc 11d ago
  >after fairly strong evidence that Russia and China have been breaking the treaty by deploying weapons into space for years. The US invasion of Iraq was also based on "strong evidence" of WMDs.

rjsw 11d ago

Almaz had a 23mm cannon [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz_program#Defense_measures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz_program#Defense_measures

voidUpdate 11d ago
Yes, but again that was a conventional weapon, and would have been fine under the treaty. I don't exactly condone it but it was also crap and never flew again. This video https://youtu.be/e-n_V5iEwAs https://youtu.be/e-n_V5iEwAs goes into some of the reasons it was a particularly crap idea

notahacker 11d ago

Realistically pretty much anything in orbit is a viable space to space weapon (for related reasons all space propulsion is ITAR controlled) so it was never practical to ban them. Space to earth, maybe, but that isn't unless it hits vague 'WMD' categories, and I'm not sure space to ground is necessarily what the US is declaring here. I suspect whatever capability the US is referring to is far more "counter space" than WMD in scope and an incremental improvement on kinetic and electronic warfare capabilities it's long had. You can do a lot of irresponsible damage in to space assets with ground launched anti-satellite capability, as multiple tests have already demonstrated...

spwa4 11d ago
But people want laws to not have to face this, and yet systematically refuse to actually do anything when those laws get violated. A law is fundamentally what's enforced, not what's on the paper. Which means if countries vote against any kind of enforcement, like happened here, those laws (whether rights or something else) don't exist. And they don't exist because regular people may shout about them (most don't), but they won't actually do anything, which, for most people, means pay for it. What's worrying is that human rights are definitely on the same train. When you critique this you get an angry retort that for example China commits large scale human rights violations against it's own population, and how unreasonable it is to expect anyone to do anything about it. Okay, but then we don't have human rights, please don't claim otherwise.
- zenbane 11d ago
  This is why culture is important to. You can't legislate morals and ethics.
  - Forgeties79 11d ago
    You absolutely can legislate morals and ethics. That’s why you can’t murder people.
    - brookst 11d ago

exe34 11d ago

> used for defending yourself against wild animals > in the event that you land in a forest or similar. I was very confused and wondered where this was going!

nojvek 11d ago

Do US and Russia even give a shit about treaties. Like Pompey “ Will you stop reciting laws to us? We are men girded with swords” Might also mean, our civilization gets wiped out due to our stupidity m. In 1000 years, other galaxies also wonder, why are there no aliens? Are we the most advanced civilization? Then get get “high IQ” president and wipe themselves out.

ak39 11d ago

What is the point of any treaty with the current US administration which does not play by international laws? Rules and laws that the USA itself spearheaded after WW2.

nickff 11d ago
The Soviets attached cannons to space stations, and the Chinese are believed to have deployed space-based weapons. The USA is actually a laggard in this field.
- zobzu 11d ago
  Exactly. Most of these things are just big world politics. Same for AI, btw. "OMG dont do this this is horrible" as the other country does it and hasn't talked about it or haven't been caught doing it. It's all information wars at the end of the day, and HN is not impervious to any of it. Its like OAI and Anthropic saying we should all slow down AI model work. Like, lol, right. As if others would do that. The only way to be safe, so far, has to be that everyone is second guessing everyone's capabilities - not "ahah they dont do it anyway lets go crush em". Same as nuclear weapons basically, we all have them.
deleted 11d ago
[deleted]

SG- 11d ago

The US doesn't care about treaties anymore.

varjag 11d ago

I think they don't fly survival guns on Soyuz anymore. But cosmonauts on ISS do keep a shank or two onboard for sure.

tastyfreeze 10d ago

I have little doubt that the OST was circumvented by definitional tricks. That is how the game of treaties and power is played. Something like rods from God or a conventional bomb orbiting platform wouldn't be considered a WMD but most certainly are the types of weapons common folk would think the OST forbids. I suspect since the OST didn't ban orbital weapons capable of attacking the surface outright that some of the signing parties already had them and didn't want to give them up.

pseudohadamard 10d ago

>the survival guns on Soyuz (if they still fly them), used for defending yourself against wild animals in the event that you land in a forest or similar Not to mention the 23mm cannon on Salyut 3, in case you needed to take out the wild animals from orbit.