вЂњHaving a ban on debris-generating anti-satellite tests is an area where I think there could be wide agreement,вЂќ he says. ThatвЂ™s a major reason why Aaron Boley, a planetary scientist and cofounder of the Outer Space Institute in Vancouver, British Columbia, calls for banning tests of weapons that can destroy satellites. Those are things that can cause serious damage to satellites,вЂќ he says. вЂњNow imagine youвЂ™re at orbital speeds, and you have something the size of a paint chip moving at thousands of miles an hour. Bruce McClintock, lead of the Space Enterprise Initiative at the Rand Corporation, a federally financed and military-focused research center based in Santa Monica, California, notes that, on Earth, tornado winds can jam pieces of straw into telephone poles. Even tiny bits of untrackable space flotsam can be harmful, because theyвЂ™re moving at high speed. The dangers of space debris, which could be generated by an orbital collision or attack, continue to draw attention, especially considering the amount of debris produced by anti-satellite missile tests, such as those by China in 2007 and India in 2019.

Representatives from the American space industry often participate in the US delegation.) (The space industry was not invited to directly comment, since individual companies are regulated by their national, not international, policies. For example, while some military communications involve dedicated military satellites, 80 percent of those communications use a variety of commercial satellites, which could nevertheless be considered military targets. ThatвЂ™s a particular problem with вЂњdual-useвЂќ technologies, Samson says, referring to spacecraft that can be used for military and civilian purposes. The latter points out that вЂњthe use of weapons in outer space вЂ¦ could have significant impacts on civilians on Earth.вЂќ If, say, a satellite that people depend on for weather information, communications, or navigation were disabled during some international dispute, it could have far-reaching consequences. Nongovernmental groups, including SamsonвЂ™s Secure World Foundation, arms control groups, and even the International Committee of the Red Cross, have done so as well. So thatвЂ™s what we want to create, but it takes time.вЂќДozens of countries have already published responses to the UN proposal, mostly in support of it. вЂњIf we donвЂ™t get this right, we risk getting into conflict, because people donвЂ™t have rules of the road at the moment. вЂњThereвЂ™s an understanding that, if we donвЂ™t get this right, we wreck the space environment,вЂќ says David Edmondson, who leads the UKвЂ™s effort as the countryвЂ™s policy head of space security and advanced threats. There are many players in space now new kinds of cyberweapons and lasers can jam, dazzle, or spoof satellites and tens of thousands of satellites are orbiting in the sky. вЂњMeanwhile, space is getting increasingly complicated,вЂќ says Victoria Samson, the Washington office director for the Secure World Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank based in Broomfield, Colorado. The most important piece of space law, the Outer Space Treaty, was negotiated by the fledgling space powers in 1967. This is the first significant progress in developing space rules in more than four decades. As spacefaring nations advance their military satellite capabilities, including being able to disrupt or damage other satellites, such provocative behavior could escalate already-tense diplomatic situations-and create more space debris in low earth orbit, a crucial region thatвЂ™s already chock-full of derelict spacecraft. On Monday, a group of diplomats from the United Kingdom proposed that the United Nations set up a group to develop new norms of international behavior in space, with the aim of preventing the kinds of misunderstandings that could lead to war.

Nations at war map