Air Force Secretary Troy Meink recently drew considerable attention by acknowledging that the United States has deployed weaponry in space.

He refrained, however, from specifying the nature of these weapons, the mechanisms by which they operate, or whether they were intended to target other objects in orbit.

It is not only U.S. efforts concerning space weapons that remain shrouded in mystery.

Here is an examination of the issues that preoccupy experts:

Speaking at a defense conference, Meink said the U.S. had fielded “on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary action,” referring to U.S. forces.

It remains unclear which type of weapon Meink was referencing.

Resources like the 2026 Global Counterspace Capabilities Report, which is published by the nonprofit Secure World Foundation and based on publicly available information, help to provide an overview of potential space weapons.

The report lists five categories of counterspace capabilities and examines systems being developed by 13 countries, including the U.S., Russia, China, India, Australia, France, Iran, and Israel.

These include satellites designed to maneuver near, inspect, disable, or destroy spacecraft.

The report also examines ground-, air-, or sea-launched missile interceptors intended to destroy satellites kinetically.

Furthermore, the report highlights electronic warfare, such as jamming, alongside lasers or high-power microwaves intended to blind or damage satellite sensors.

It also lists cyber operations targeting space networks.

Victoria Samson, chief director of space security and stability at the foundation, which advocates for the peaceful use of space, said that while the existence of various satellites and their physical location in orbit is fairly transparent, their capabilities and intended uses are considerably harder to understand.

For instance, the Vienna-based U.N. Office for Outer Space Affairs promotes transparency in space by maintaining a register that links each object to the country responsible for it.

States that signed on to a 1976 agreement are obliged to furnish information regarding launches by governments and private companies, as well as the general function of the space object, yet they are not required to disclose details concerning its purpose.

As an illustration of a dual-use technology with both military and civilian applications, it came to light in 2021 that China had tested a satellite equipped with a robotic arm capable of manoeuvring toward a target system, grappling it, and displacing it from its orbit.

In 2022, China employed such a system for the first time to tow one of its defunct satellites out of orbit.

Moreover, two years earlier, the U.S. had warned that Russia was developing a new space-based anti-satellite weapon, although the White House said at the time that the danger was not imminent.

John Kirby, who was then the White House national security spokesman, declined to comment on whether the weapon was nuclear capable, but did say it would violate the Outer Space Treaty.

Russia refuted allegations that it was developing such a novel capability.

The Outer Space Treaty constitutes the principal international accord establishing the rules and norms governing how nations explore and utilise space.

Beyond Russia, the U.S., China and all other nuclear-armed states are signatories to the treaty.

Article IV provides that the parties “undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.”

The treaty also states that space is a global commons that may be used only for peaceful purposes.

The treaty was concluded in 1967, during the Cold War, at a time when the United States and the Soviet Union were both vying to explore space and had conducted a series of nuclear tests in orbit.

At that juncture, space appeared radically different.

Jonathan McDowell, a retired astronomer affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has devoted over four decades to monitoring satellite launches.

By the close of 1967, 128 satellites were in orbit and communicating with Earth, according to McDowell.

At that juncture, every satellite was the product of state-backed, public undertakings.

This stands in contrast to what McDowell cites as approximately 16,810 operational satellites today — a great many of which belong to companies such as SpaceX’s Starlink network.

In 1962, as part of Operation Fishbowl, the United States detonated a series of atomic bombs in space.

The first of these, the Starfish Prime test, was launched from an atoll situated to the southwest of Hawaii.

The ensuing explosion generated an artificial radiation belt that annihilated several satellites and partially incapacitated street lights and telephone lines across Hawaii.

Similarly, between 1961 and 1962, the Soviet Union carried out nuclear tests in space under the auspices of Project K.

These detonations precipitated electrical grid failures, rendered telephone lines inoperative, and ignited a blaze that obliterated an entire power plant in Kazakhstan.

The trials demonstrated the immense risk that atomic explosions in space pose to civilian infrastructure and communication on Earth, which drove the superpowers to pursue an agreement banning nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in space.

Analysts contend that the treaty falls short of addressing certain challenges peculiar to the modern era.

Jessica West, a senior researcher at Project Ploughshares, a Canadian institute dedicated to peace and security research, asserted that the legal framework governing space needed to be “fundamentally changed.”

She said that while the Outer Space Treaty serves as a “constitutional foundation” that remains relevant and applicable, the international community has not done the “hard work” to build a legal structure around the treaty, particularly in improving verification mechanisms for space activities and extending its principles to ban conventional weapons in space.

Michelle Hanlon, executive director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law, agreed, saying there is a “gap” in the treaty when it comes to barring conventional weapons.

International efforts to negotiate a new framework banning all weapons in space have stalled, as there is no agreement on what counts as a space weapon, among other things, according to Samson.

Many of these capabilities are "dual use," she said, meaning they can serve both civilian and military purposes, which makes it difficult to define what constitutes a weapon.

“You can get up close to a satellite to refuel it, but you can also get up close to a satellite to release objects at it, shine a laser at it, or try to jam it,” Samson said.

The deliberations concerning the prohibition of weapons coincide with a period in which the United States, under President Donald Trump, has increasingly prioritized space.

In 2019, during his inaugural term, Trump established the Space Force as a distinct military branch.

In his second term, he has unveiled the “Golden Dome” missile defense system, which encompasses plans to deploy weapons in space.

Attempts by Russia and China to introduce a new treaty to prevent the placement of all weapons in space have hit a wall, partly because of the lack of a definition.

In addition, Washington says it ignores ground-based anti-satellite missiles that, when used, create massive amounts of dangerous space debris.

In November 2021, Russia launched one such missile to destroy a defunct Soviet-era satellite, generating over 1,500 pieces of debris that heightened the risk to U.S. and Russian astronauts aboard the International Space Station, as well as to those aboard China's Tiangong space station.

With progress on the full treaty apparently stalled, international negotiations have shifted their focus to discussing responsible behavior in space, such as avoiding the accumulation of space debris.

Samson said the U.S. has long had a policy of avoiding the buildup of space debris, since such debris can interfere with space flight safety and harm U.S. self-interest.

She also said that, for the same reason, the space weapons Meink referenced could potentially be non-kinetic weapons, such as jammers.

Space debris is generated not only by kinetic space weapons but also when satellites collide and get smashed into countless fragments and smaller particles that travel at high velocity and are capable of destroying or damaging more spacecraft.

"If you begin to have collisions that generate more debris, and more debris that generates more collisions, you run the risk... of this irreversible cascading effect," said Steven Freeland, who is emeritus professor of international law at Western Sydney University as well as professorial fellow at Bond University.

According to the European Space Agency, approximately 46,950 pieces of debris are routinely monitored by space surveillance networks in Earth's orbit.

Drawing on statistical models, the agency estimates that millions more smaller fragments of space debris are orbiting Earth.

Reporters receive financial backing from a number of private foundations.

AP bears sole responsibility for all content.

Details of AP’s standards for collaborating with philanthropies, a roster of supporters and the areas of funded coverage are available at AP.org.