and what to do about it.
Throughout the Cold War, the assumption by both sides was that the first use of nukes would be in space to knock out communications and blind the other side preemptively. The current threat is likely a type of ASAT – or Anti-Satellite Missile System. Russia is keeping mum about the whole thing.
Direct-Ascent ASAT missiles are launched from the ground to destroy satellites. It’s a tricky move, and the US, China and India have pulled it off. It’s a question of aim, not power; satellites are very flimsy – get close enough you could knock one out with buckshot. In late 2021, Russia destroyed one of its own defunct satellites to create a large debris field, demonstrating a capability to destroy satellites.
The “space weapon that was launched on 16 May is likely a Co-Orbital ASAT – which shadows a target satellites in close orbit then disables or destroys it. It is currently shadowing a US government satellite.
It also may be an electronic jamming and spoofing weapon designed to queer communications and GPS signals, disrupting military and civilian operations. In 2020, two Russian satellites, Kosmos-2542 and Kosmos-2543, performed unusual and potentially threatening maneuvers near a U.S. spy satellite.
A little hairier on the intelligence side, there are rumors that Russia may be developing directed energy weapons that could disable satellites without creating debris. If it did work (a huge if) this would mean “Havana syndrome” from space.
There is also the possibility that it is a “fractional orbital bombardment system” (FOBS) that essentially puts a nuclear weapon in space to orbit over the earth so it can strike anywhere without warning. These are prohibited by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, but treaties are being trumped by the realpolitik these days. There is plenty of evidence that China is working on its hypersonic glider program.
That is more ominous, of course. The US does have the capability, along with China and India, to knock a weapon out of space in fairly short order. The only real defense would require US foreign policy to shift to a proactive stance – something Washington rarely does – and take such a weapon out before it gets into position to strike without warning.