Why World War III Could Be Fought in Space | Unveiled

Why World War III Could Be Fought in Space

In times of War, and as tensions on the ground increase, militaries all over the world are traditionally deployed across land, sea, and sky. All the bloodiest and most shocking battles in history have played out this way. But now, in the twenty-first century, and with the unfortunately always present threat of a Third World War, it could be that the next international conflict takes the fighting to an all-new field. Following decades of digital and technological progress, perhaps not even Earth’s atmosphere can contain us any longer.

This is Unveiled, and today we’re exploring the extraordinary reasons why World War Three could be fought in space.

In 2022, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the developing geopolitical situation in Europe, talk of the possibility for World War Three has dominated headlines, and in a big way. At the time of publishing, an official Third World War has yet to take hold… but a large-scale and volatile invasion mounted by a global and nuclear superpower has seemingly moved us closer to that reality than we’ve been for many years. And with reported attacks and overhauls at nuclear sites, as well, including at the infamous Chernobyl power plant, the world is once again having to come to terms with the harsh reality of things like; how many weapons we have on Earth, and how quickly we could bring everything to ruin by using them. But, on top of all that, in modern times we have the situation in space to consider, too… and the fact that above all our heads there now exists an ever-thickening blanket of satellites that we increasingly rely on. Satellite technology is responsible for so much of our contemporary lives… but once the fighting begins, it all suddenly feels extremely vulnerable.

In November 2021, news broke of a successful bid by Russia to blow up one of its own near-Earth satellites - the long-defunct Kosmos 1408 satellite, which was originally launched in 1982. It was a test of the country’s A-235 anti-ballistic missile system, otherwise known as Nudol… and while it perhaps wasn’t an aggressive act in itself, the explosion did send a shower of space debris past the International Space Station, reportedly forcing those on board to shelter in escape pods.

News outlets all over the world picked up on the story, variously reporting it as evidence of how World War Three could one day play out. In space, above our heads, with some suggestions that it could all be over very quickly. The fear being that if any force can easily blow up its own satellites, then it should just as easily be able to take down enemy satellites, as well. Alongside Russia, other countries to have tested anti-satellite weapons (or ASATs) include the United States, China, and India - with varying success. In almost all cases, however, ASAT-capable countries tend to pitch these weapons as though they’re primarily deterrents… and designed to discourage other countries from ever using their own. But, again, whenever tensions do rise on the ground, whenever World War Three does threaten to break out, then ASAT technologies are once more pushed to the fore.

But why should this be such a concern? If the hypothetical missiles of a theorized Third World War are targeting machines (and not people) hundreds of miles above our heads… then might much of the devastation of war be avoided this time around? What’s a few satellites if it means that towns and cities might be kept out of the direct line of fire? But, in reality, a war in space isn’t quite so far removed from chaos and tragedy on the ground.

In the event that countries and states did start blowing each other’s satellites out of orbit, perhaps there would be less direct fighting in a traditional sense. One of the primary motivations for anti-satellite weapons is seemingly that they afford the aggressor an opportunity to take out enemy communication links. This could mean that frontlines are left unable to organize themselves, or that air forces lose all means of tracking target planes - giving the aggressor an immediate advantage, and perhaps cutting the battles short. Theoretically, whole militaries could quickly be brought to their knees, so reliant have they become on satellite technology. But, really, how likely (or even possible) is it that ASATs would destroy only those satellites used for the waging of war? So much of the whole of contemporary human society depends (in some way) on our satellites being there… so, in a war where ASATs are used, pretty much everyone is instantly affected.

Consider that after only a few minutes of an ASAT bombardment, banking systems for an entire nation could be taken offline. Communication links for whole cities (and perhaps even countries) could falter or disappear. While most wars in history have been marked by territorial, geographical advances… militaries could now get a major and lasting grip on their enemy without even leaving home. An invading force on the ground could never hope (in just a couple seconds) to physically destroy all banks, for example… but that may effectively be possible during a war in space. Press a couple of buttons, land a couple of shots, and suddenly an entire population is left reeling. Savings disappear, transactions become impossible, businesses fold, stock markets crash, economic crises take hold. And seemingly it would be those communities that most rely on contemporary, digital, satellite systems - those who’ve most embraced modern technology - that then suffer worst of all. And, ultimately, banking is just one example of the things that could quickly go wrong.

It might not be just missiles aimed at satellites, either. Since the mid-2010s, numerous stories have emerged about plans for high-powered lasers, too… including a rumored NASA initiative to set one up on the ISS, and a rumored Roscosmos proposal to build one on the ground. At present, the reported reasoning behind the lasers is peaceful and beneficial, the idea being that they’ll be used to clear up space debris - either by redirecting it or simply disintegrating it first-hand. And space debris has increasingly become a major problem in low-Earth orbit, as more and more satellites have been added to the growing network… and so more and more of our machines are at risk of damage. However, the proposed use of lasers as a solution for this has carried some controversy, too… because what happens if those lasers are ever aimed at working satellites, as well? Again, while no-one would be directly caught in the line of fire, were this to happen, it would be an act which could still instantly affect millions of people.

For more than half a century, fears of a space war have been mostly quashed by the “Outer Space Treaty”, signed in 1967. Among its main clauses are that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all; that no-one can claim territory in space; and that no one can place nuclear weapons (or any other weapons of mass destruction) in space. Moving through the twenty-first century, however, the Treaty is being tested like never before. The privatization of space has arguably led to some blurring of the boundaries laid out by it, with competition between firms leading to more and more private launches. And while there are regulations in place nation to nation, there are concerns that satellite launches are becoming difficult to track on an international scale.

But, more specifically, ASATs have seemingly emerged partly because they’re not specifically prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty. Remember, the Treaty was first drawn up in the 1960s, at a time when satellite technology was in its absolute infancy. There were sci-fi concepts back then, yes, but now we’ve seen those ideas realized in real life… and it might be argued that part of the new space race seemingly involves negotiating around the old rules, for better or worse. That said, there are still parts of the Outer Space Treaty that could yet prohibit the use of ASATs… including that it stipulates how states are liable for any damage they cause in space, and that harmful contamination of space should always be avoided. Deliberately destroying satellites in an effort to wage war might, then, fall short of either of those.

There’s no doubt that any variation of a hypothesized World War Three is a truly frightening prospect. With nuclear and chemical weapons on the ground, there’s the potential for complete devastation. But there’s good reason why so many are predicting that some of the most significant moves in the next worldwide conflict will take place out of sight, and miles above our heads. As we move through our modern daily lives, we perhaps don’t give a lot of thought to the machines watching over us that enable most of it to happen… but we’d certainly notice if they were ever taken away.

And so, in modern warfare, it may well be possible to invade the very fabric of an enemy society without ever breaching their physical territory. With the development of ASATs, it’s feared that warring powers might now be able to choke each other from afar… starve each other of resources… and trigger widespread collapse within moments. It remains to be seen quite how human civilization can steer itself through these darkening waters, but that’s why World War Three could be fought in space.