Nations that shoot down their own satellites get little military payoff for the debris they create, and the Federation of American Scientists wants a ban on such tests.
The think tank made the case in an Aug. 13 analysis by Matt Korda and Nivedita Raju, arguing that debris-creating direct-ascent anti-satellite tests score low on strategic and military benefits even though they carry enormous collision risk. More than 1.2 million pieces of debris larger than a centimeter now circle the Earth, and a relative handful of ASAT tests by the United States, Russia, China and India account for an outsized share of trackable junk.
The essay lands as UN space security talks weigh the issue. July’s session in Geneva saw constructive exchanges but deep divisions: some delegations pushed for a legally binding ban on destructive ASAT tests, while others argued that regulating tests alone misses development, deployment and use of other space weapons.
The central obstacle is missile defense. Interceptors and direct-ascent ASAT weapons share rocket motors, guidance and payload technology, so states fear that restricting the one handcuffs the other. FAS argues that overlap is overstated, because debris-creating tests offer limited military utility, and that the two mission sets can be decoupled in policy.
The authors recommend that states commit to banning debris-creating ASAT tests outright, treating the debris risk to satellite infrastructure, communications and nuclear command and control as the decisive factor.
