logo
Hijacked satellites and orbiting space weapons: In the 21st century, space is the new battlefield

Hijacked satellites and orbiting space weapons: In the 21st century, space is the new battlefield

Economic Times4 days ago
AP This photo provided by United States Space Force the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle-7 (OTV-7), the U.S. Space Force's dynamic unmanned spaceplane, successfully deorbited and landed at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., March 7, 2025. (United States Space Force via AP) As Russia held its Victory Day parade this year, hackers backing the Kremlin hijacked an orbiting satellite that provides television service to Ukraine.
Instead of normal programming, Ukrainian viewers saw parade footage beamed in from Moscow: waves of tanks, soldiers and weaponry. The message was meant to intimidate, and it was also an illustration that 21st century war is waged not just on land, sea and air but also in cyberspace and the reaches of outer space.
Disabling a satellite could deal a devastating blow without a single bullet, and it can be done by targeting the satellite's security software or disrupting its ability to send or receive signals from Earth. "If you can impede a satellite's ability to communicate, you can cause a significant disruption," said Tom Pace, CEO of NetRise, a cybersecurity firm focused on protecting supply chains. He served in the Marines before working on cyber issues at the Department of Energy. "Think about GPS," he said. "Imagine if a population lost that, and the confusion it would cause." Satellites are the short-term challenge More than 12,000 operating satellites now orbit the planet, playing a critical role not just in broadcast communications but also in military operations, navigation systems like GPS, intelligence gathering and economic supply chains. They are also key to early launch-detection efforts, which can warn of approaching missiles. That makes them a significant national security vulnerability, and a prime target for anyone looking to undermine an adversary's economy or military readiness - or to deliver a psychological blow like the hackers supporting Russia did when they hijacked television signals to Ukraine. Hackers typically look for the weakest link in the software or hardware that supports a satellite or controls its communications with Earth. The actual orbiting device may be secure, but if it's running on outdated software, it can be easily exploited. As Russian forces invaded Ukraine in 2022, someone targeted Viasat, the US-based satellite company used by Ukraine's government and military. The hack, which Kyiv blamed on Moscow, used malware to infect tens of thousands of modems, creating an outage affecting wide swaths of Europe. National security officials say Russia is developing a nuclear, space-based weapon designed to take out virtually every satellite in low-Earth orbit at once. The weapon would combine a physical attack that would ripple outward, destroying more satellites, while the nuclear component is used to fry their electronics.
US officials declassified information about the weapon after Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, issued a public warning about the technology. Turner has pushed for the Department of Defense to provide a classified briefing to lawmakers on the weapon, which, if deployed, would violate an international treaty prohibiting weapons of mass destruction in space. Turner said such a weapon could render low-Earth orbit unusable for satellites for as long as a year. If it were used, the effects would be devastating: potentially leaving the US and its allies vulnerable to economic upheaval and even a nuclear attack. Russia and China also would lose satellites, though they are believed to be less reliant on the same kinds of satellites as the US Turner compared the weapon, which is not yet ready for deployment, to Sputnik, the Russian satellite that launched the space age in 1957. "If this anti-satellite nuclear weapon would be put in space, it would be the end of the space age," Turner said. "It should never be permitted to go into outer space. This is the Cuban Missile Crisis in space." Mining the moon and beyond Valuable minerals and other materials found on the moon and in asteroids could lead to future conflicts as nations look to exploit new technologies and energy sources. Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy announced plans this month to send a small nuclear reactor to the moon, saying it's important that the US do so before China or Russia. "We're in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon," Duffy said. "To have a base on the moon, we need energy and some of the key locations on the moon. ... We want to get there first and claim that for America." The moon is rich in a material known as helium 3, which scientists believe could be used in nuclear fusion to generate huge amounts of energy. While that technology is still decades away, control over the moon in the intervening years could determine which countries emerge as superpowers, according to Joseph Rooke, a London-based cybersecurity expert who has worked in the U.K. defense industry and is now director of risk insights at the firm Recorded Future. The end of the Cold War temporarily halted a lot of investments in space, but competition is likely to increase as the promise of mining the moon becomes a reality. "This isn't sci-fi. It's quickly becoming a reality," Rooke said. "If you dominate Earth's energy needs, that's game over." China and Russia have announced plans for their own nuclear plants on the moon in the coming years, while the US is planning missions to the moon and Mars. Artificial intelligence is likely to speed up the competition, as is the demand for the energy that AI requires. Messages left with Russia's Embassy in Washington were not returned. Despite its steps into outer space, China opposes any extraterrestrial arms race, according to Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for China's Embassy in Washington. He said it is the US that is threatening to militarize the final frontier. "It has kept expanding military strength in space, created space military alliances, and attempted to turn space into a war zone," Liu said. "China urges the US to stop spreading irresponsible rhetoric, stop expanding military build-up in space, and make due contribution to upholding the lasting peace and security in space." What the US is doing about security in space Nations are scrambling to create their own rocket and space programs to exploit commercial prospects and ensure they aren't dependent on foreign satellites. It's an expensive and difficult proposition, as demonstrated last week when the first Australian-made rocket crashed after 14 seconds of flight.
The US Space Force was created in 2019 to protect American interests in space and to defend US satellites from attacks from adversaries. The space service is far smaller than the more well-established services like the Army, Navy or Air Force, but it's growing, and the White House is expected to announce a location for its headquarters soon. Colorado and Alabama are both candidates. The US military operates an unmanned space shuttle used to conduct classified military missions and research. The craft, known as the X-37B, recently returned to Earth after more than a year in orbit.
The Space Force called access to space a vital national security interest. "Space is a warfighting domain, and it is the Space Force's job to contest and control its environment to achieve national security objectives," it said in the statement. American dominance in space has been largely unquestioned for decades following the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union. But the new threats and competition posed by Russia and China show the need for an aggressive response, US officials say. The hope, Turner said, is that the US can take steps to ensure Russia and China can't get the upper hand, and the frightening potential of space weapons is not realized. "You have to pay attention to these things so they don't happen," Turner said. Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. IndiGo's GIFT City unit: Simple expansion or is there more to it than meets the eye?
GST cut to benefit; but who gains the most?
Good, bad, ugly: How will higher ethanol in petrol play out for you?
Why are mid-cap stocks fizzling out? It's not just about Trump tariffs.
Stock Radar: This hotel stock is showing signs of bottoming out; time to buy?
Logistics sector: Be tactical in the face of head & tailwinds; 6 logistics stocks with an upside potential of over 30%
Stock picks of the week: 5 stocks with consistent score improvement and return potential of more than 25% in 1 year
History of wealth creators: Everything should be in context, whether it is PE or PEG; on a standalone basis they mean nothing
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump
US court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump

News18

timean hour ago

  • News18

US court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump

Agency: PTI Last Updated: New York, Aug 22 (AP) A New York appeals court has thrown out President Donald Trump's massive financial penalty while narrowly upholding a judge's finding that he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The Thursday's ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory" in the case, which stemmed from a civil lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State," the Republican wrote. James, a Democrat, focused on the parts of the decision that went her way, saying in a statement that it 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud." The ruling came seven months after Trump returned to the White House, his political fortunes unimpeded by the civil fraud judgment, a criminal conviction and other legal blows. A sharply divided panel of five judges in the state's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive". A lower-court judge, Arthur Engoron, had ordered Trump last year to pay $355 million in penalties after finding that he flagrantly padded financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties for executives at his company, the Trump Organisation, including sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr, have brought the total to $527 million with interest. 'While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award" to the state, Judges Dianne Renwick and Peter Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. They called the penalty 'an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution." Both were appointed by Democratic governors. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. Donald Trump Jr celebrated the decision by mocking James, who had periodically posted a running tally of the fraud penalty, with interest. Over a post from James in February 2024, when the tally was nearly $465 million, Trump Jr wrote: 'I believe you mean $0.00. Thank you for your attention to this matter." The five-judge panel, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the monetary penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. In the meantime, Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause to prevent any punishments from taking effect. While the Appellate Division dispatches most appeals in a few pages in a matter of weeks, the judges weighing Trump's case took nearly 11 months to rule after oral arguments last fall and issued 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt James' lawsuit was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any lenders felt cheated, they could have sued Trump themselves, and none did. Another wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial that James had proven Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, appointed by a Republican governor, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business," Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business." Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man" and the case was a 'fraud on me". The Republican leader has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign". Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defence also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. top videos View all And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims. (AP) SCY SCY (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 22, 2025, 04:45 IST News agency-feeds US court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...

SC greenlights Trump's NIH cuts: Impacts $783M in DEI grants; critics raise alarm
SC greenlights Trump's NIH cuts: Impacts $783M in DEI grants; critics raise alarm

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

SC greenlights Trump's NIH cuts: Impacts $783M in DEI grants; critics raise alarm

Supreme court (AP) The US Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to proceed with slashing $783 million in research grants awarded by the national institutes of health (NIH), lifting a lower court's block on the move. The grants were originally aligned with federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, reported news agency AP. The 5-4 decision marks a significant development in a broader legal battle over federal funding priorities. While allowing the past cuts to stand, the apex court has continued to block the administration's guidance on future research grants. The conservative majority, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, found that the dispute over the NIH cuts belonged in the federal claims court, in line with an earlier ruling on teacher-training programme funding. 'All these interventions should have been unnecessary,' Gorsuch noted in his opinion, as quoted by the agency. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's three liberal justices in dissent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a detailed dissent, wrote: 'A half paragraph of reasoning (issued without full briefing or any oral argument) thus suffices here to partially sustain the government's abrupt cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to support life-saving biomedical research.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indonesia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo The cuts are part of an estimated $12 billion worth of NIH research funding halted under the Trump administration's review of federal DEI spending. Sixteen Democratic attorneys general and several public-health advocacy groups, who challenged the move, argued that such cancellations disrupt scientific research and threaten public health. 'Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers,' the plaintiffs argued, according to the report. Earlier in June, US district judge William Young had blocked the funding cuts, calling them 'arbitrary and discriminatory.' At a hearing, he remarked: 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this... Have we no shame.' The Trump administration, represented by solicitor general D John Sauer, maintained that funding decisions are executive functions and should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing,' arguing that DEI programmes can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination.' The case continues to unfold in lower courts even as the Supreme Court's interim order enables the administration to move ahead with rolling back funding for multiple research programmes.

Trump Gives 2 Weeks To Assess Russia-Ukraine Peace Prospects
Trump Gives 2 Weeks To Assess Russia-Ukraine Peace Prospects

NDTV

time2 hours ago

  • NDTV

Trump Gives 2 Weeks To Assess Russia-Ukraine Peace Prospects

Donald Trump on Thursday set a two-week time frame for assessing peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, as the US president ramps up his efforts to negotiate an end to the war. "I would say within two weeks we're going to know one way or the other," he said in a telephone interview when asked about the chances of a peace agreement. "After that, we'll have to maybe take a different tack," Trump told Todd Starnes, a host for right-wing media outlet Newsmax, without giving further details. The Republican, who had promised during last year's presidential election to end the war in one day, has so far failed to achieve any major breakthroughs -- more than three years since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. He met Russian President Vladimir Putin last Friday at a highly anticipated summit in Alaska that failed to reach an accord and saw Trump drop his push for an initial ceasefire. On Monday, the US president held talks at the White House with Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky and a handful of European allies. Those meetings raised hopes that Putin and Zelensky could meet directly for a peace summit, as both leaders initially appeared open to that option. But Zelensky on Thursday accused Russia of "trying to avoid the necessity to meet" and said that it did not want to end the war. Russia, meanwhile, said that Ukraine did not seem to be interested in "long-term" peace, accusing Kyiv of seeking security guarantees completely incompatible with Moscow's demands. Trump has a track record of issuing two-week deadlines to deliberate on Ukraine and other issues. In late May, he said he would assess within that period whether Putin was serious about achieving a peace deal, promising to respond "differently" if not.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store