• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Ankit Panda",
    "Benjamin Silverstein"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "South Asia",
    "India",
    "East Asia",
    "China",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

The U.S. Moratorium on Anti-Satellite Missile Tests Is a Welcome Shift in Space Policy

Washington’s decision to voluntarily refrain from destructive, direct-ascent anti-satellite weapons tests opens new pathways to promoting norms of responsible behavior in space.

Link Copied
By Ankit Panda and Benjamin Silverstein
Published on Apr 20, 2022
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

On Monday, the United States became the first country to adopt a voluntary moratorium on the destructive testing of direct-ascent anti-satellite (DA-ASAT) missile systems. These weapons generally involve missiles that launch from the Earth’s surface to destroy a satellite passing overhead. The testing of these weapons—conducted in recent years by China, India, Russia, and the United States—creates debris that can remain in low Earth orbit (LEO) for years if not decades, threatening other satellites. Though there’s no international legal framework prohibiting these types of tests, other countries should follow the United States in voluntarily refraining from destructive, DA-ASAT testing.

Announced by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, the declaration eschews these tests on the basis that they “put in danger so much of what we do in space.” Consistent with past U.S. messaging, Harris also described these tests as “reckless” and “irresponsible,” citing Russia’s November test against an old Soviet satellite and China’s 2007 test. Each of those tests has left thousands of debris objects in orbit. India’s 2019 test, though not mentioned in Harris’ speech, created hundreds of debris fragments, with just one trackable piece still in orbit as of this month.

Debris poses a threat to all spacefaring countries and businesses that seek to use Earth’s orbits. The United States has an outsized interest in limiting the amount of debris created by anti-satellite tests, given its reliance on satellites to facilitate daily modern life and overseas military activities. And although the United States did repurpose a missile defense interceptor to destroy a satellite in 2008, it has never stated an intent to field a dedicated DA-ASAT weapon in the post–Cold War era.

In practice, the careful wording of the U.S. moratorium would not entirely foreclose the development of DA-ASAT weapons. The White House notes that the United States has committed “not to conduct destructive, direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) missile testing.” This phrasing does not preclude testing DA-ASAT weapons against simulated orbital targets, which would have latent DA-ASAT applications. Until its November intercept, Russia had conducted these kinds of DA-ASAT tests, which do not produce orbital debris.

While a single nation’s commitment to end destructive DA-ASAT testing won’t slow decades of space militarization, the United States has proactively initiated the development of space sustainability norms. The norm-building process will be inherently collaborative and necessitates international diplomacy. “I call on all nations to join us,” Harris said in her announcement, noting that the United States would “work with other nations to establish this as a new international norm for responsible behavior in space.”

Similar declarations from other states would help affirm this new norm. Washington should focus its efforts on its allies and partners that possess the basic technology and latent expertise that, if combined, could quickly develop DA-ASAT capability. As the United States itself demonstrated in 2008, DA-ASAT technology largely overlaps with certain missile defense concepts. U.S. outreach should focus on allies and partners like France, Israel, and Japan. India (which has conducted a DA-ASAT test) should also be a distinct focus. Japan and India have already affirmed their intent, as part of the Quad, to “consult on rules, norms, guidelines and principles for ensuring the sustainable use of outer space.” These countries should affirm that they will not conduct such tests in the future and join the United States in supporting efforts for an international legal framework banning any deliberate debris-creating events in LEO, including DA-ASAT tests.

Domestic critics of the U.S. declaration might note that Russia and China, which possess DA-ASAT weapons, are unlikely to follow in such an effort and that Washington should have left its options open. This view would be misguided for three reasons. First, this moratorium largely codifies what had already been de facto U.S. policy since 2008. Second, should the United States seek new counterspace capabilities, it is much more likely to find military utility—for both deterrence and coercion—in other types of weapons. DA-ASATs, if used, would be highly escalatory, immediately attributable, and produce irreversible and uncontrollable damage. Indeed, Russian and Chinese views of the utility of these weapons may change as they too continue to develop alternative counterspace capabilities. China is expanding how it uses LEO for new commercial, scientific, and military support purposes that could be jeopardized by new DA-ASAT tests.

Finally, the U.S. declaration casts a spotlight on Beijing’s and Moscow’s refusal to acknowledge DA-ASATs as space weapons, even as the two countries promote a draft binding treaty whose own title aims to prevent “Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects.” While these divergences remain far from resolved, by drawing a clear line against destructive DA-ASAT testing, Washington has clarified the scope of future efforts to define what exactly should be covered in international efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space.

About the Authors

Ankit Panda

Stanton Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program

Ankit Panda is the Stanton Senior Fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Benjamin Silverstein

Former Research Analyst, Space Project

Benjamin Silverstein was a research analyst for the Space Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Authors

Ankit Panda
Stanton Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program
Ankit Panda
Benjamin Silverstein
Former Research Analyst, Space Project
SecurityMilitaryNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaIndiaEast AsiaChinaRussia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Japanese troops take part in a counter-landing live fire exercise as part of the annual Balikatan joint military drills on May 04, 2026 in Laoag, Ilocos Norte province, Philippines.
    Article
    The Two Logics Driving Japan’s Security Policy

    Japan’s revision of its three strategic documents reflects an intention to keep the United States engaged in the region while Japan fills any vacuums of U.S. power to preserve the Indo-Pacific order.

      • Ryo Sahashi

      Ryo Sahashi

  • Robot arm with disposable test tube virus sampling in laboratory
    Commentary
    Caught in the Middle: Chinese Biotech Firms’ Divergent Responses to U.S. Sanctions

    Chinese biotech companies have been on the receiving end of U.S. economic coercion. Yet their responses have differed significantly because firm and state interests are not uniformly aligned. For Washington, treating all Chinese tech firms the same, irrespective of their actual interests, risks pushing them farther into Beijing’s corner.

      Xue Gong

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia’s Rubber-Stamp Duma Elections Are Exposing Schisms in Putin's Regime

    In the discussions made possible by the State Duma election campaign, one question is being asked more and more loudly. “What next?”

      Andrey Pertsev

  • Two people in blue PPE standing over large metal rolls
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Inside the Global Race to Erode a Battery Manufacturing Monopoly

    Over the past decade, China has moved from marginal player to major producer of all things batteries. The United States, Europe, and others are aiming to balance the market.

      Milo McBride

  • Aerial View of a Geothermal Energy Plant in the Imperial Valley of California near the Salton Sea
    Paper
    A Geothermal and Nuclear Strategy for the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation

    The DFC should focus on advanced, low-carbon energy sources, prioritizing areas where the United States has comparative advantages.

      • Noah J. Gordon

      Noah Gordon, Liana Schmitter-Emerson

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.