Armies have soldiers, navies have sailors and an air force has airmen and the US space force has ‘guardians’. This name for the Space Force personnel was announced by Mike Pence in December 2020, when he was vice president of the United States. Now six years later, on September 15, 2026, the US Air Force secretary Troy Meink has stated that these guardians would also have an offensive role in future. Meink has announced that the US has now deployed weapons in space and would use them to defend the country and its forces, if required. He argued that the US needs such capabilities in orbit as a form of deterrence. He claimed that this is a signal to adversaries that the US can respond effectively to any hostile action in the space domain.It is unfortunate that the US has positioned weapons in space. This development is expected to rapidly make space warfare a reality, which is not in the interest of any country in the world.Probable threats to space systems have been debated and discussed for many years. This debate became shrill particularly after China conducted an anti-satellite test (ASAT) during 2007. There was a global response to this too and subsequently such tests have also been conducted by the US (2008), India (2019) and Russia (2021). Such tests could be viewed more as a demonstration of capability. For some years now, there have been efforts mainly by China and Russia to develop various kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities as counter-space weapons.Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.In response to such efforts, Trump 1.0 decided to establish a separate military vertical for space and thus the birth of the US Space Force happened during 2019. During 2024, the Biden administration had claimed that Russia was developing a space-based nuclear weapon capable of loitering in orbit and disabling nearby satellites. Obviously, threats to space systems should not be discounted. Yet, the question is whether it is appropriate to place weapons in space or for that matter, to publicly announce that weapons have already been deployed in space.The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) established the principle that outer space should be used for peaceful purposes and prohibited the placement of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in orbit. The limitation of this mechanism is that it does not explicitly prohibit all forms of conventional or non-kinetic weapons in space. Nevertheless, for all these years, it has been believed that the spirit of maintaining space as a domain for peaceful use is in the interest of everyone. Space systems today support a wide range of civilian activities, including navigation, communications, weather forecasting and disaster management.Routine activities like management of rail, maritime and air services and financial transactions are increasingly dependent on satellite-based systems. A wide range of civilian activities, from education to telemedicine also rely on space-based infrastructure. Internet connectivity is more and more dependent on satellite systems. Therefore, any deliberate damage to or disruption in satellite services could have consequences far beyond the immediate parties involved and would ultimately be detrimental to the interests of humanity as a whole.There could be a view that maintaining complete ambiguity about military capabilities in space may itself create instability and hence pronouncement of capabilities and positioning weapons in space are essential to establish ‘space deterrence’. But, it needs to be realised that rocket science and nuclear science are fundamentally different domains. The concept of nuclear deterrence cannot be blindly juxtaposed on space domain. Nuclear deterrence is relevant because nuclear weapons can threaten a state’s survival and invite massive retaliation. Today, the civilian applications of space far exceed their military uses. At the same time, losing satellites can be serious, but it is generally not an existential threat to a state. Traditional models like Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) are not going to be effective for the space domain.On the contrary, putting weapons is space is actually going to increase instability in the space domain. Russia and China for some years were found playing an interesting game. Covertly, they may have been developing counter-space technologies but officially they were pushing for ideas like treaty mechanisms called PPWT (Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects) which was presented in 2008 to the UN Conference on Disarmament (CD).During 2014, the successor to this treaty draft was also presented. More importantly on December 2, 2014 UNGA Resolution 69/32, ‘No First Placement of Weapons in Outer Space’, was adopted with 126 votes in favour, 4 against and 46 abstentions. Possibly, the US saw this move as a trap. However, US participation in continued debate and deliberations under the UN aegis could have actually helped to restrain China and Russia’s motives of weaponising the space.Move could be counterproductive to the strategic interests of the USIt is important for the US to recognise that placing weapons in space could ultimately prove counterproductive to its own strategic interests. Russia and China already possess significant counter-space capabilities and could potentially develop or deploy additional space-based weapons. This is given, but the main concern may not necessarily arise from these established space powers alone. The greater challenge could emerge from the wider proliferation of such capabilities. Countries such as Iran and North Korea have demonstrated the ability to develop and launch satellites and are capable of extending these capabilities for space weaponisation purposes.Similarly, countries with advanced space programmes, including India, Japan and South Korea could face pressure to reconsider their own position which is against ‘space weaponisation’, if China or North Korea were to place weapons in space. In West Asia, the existing military challenges involving Israel and Iran could also extend into the space domain. Such a chain reaction could gradually normalize the deployment of weapons in space and contribute to a broader space arms race. thereby making the space environment less secure for all states.The growing strategic importance of outer space makes its security a concern for the entire world. Some states may view space-based weapons as instruments of deterrence, but their deployment could trigger countermeasures and accelerate a space arms race. It is important for the US to recognise that space sustainability is essential for the long-term survival and well-being of humanity on Earth. A Trump-style approach that prioritises unilateral action and immediate strategic gains may prove damaging not only to the international community but also to US strategic interests.Ajey Lele is a researcher and is the author of the book Institutions That Shaped Modern India: ISRO.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.