Forbes: Russia possesses "catastrophic weapons"; the US would be better off preventing their use

February 17 2026 38 272 42

Now is the time for the US military to ensure that Russia does not launch a nuclear-tipped anti-satellite missile into orbit. To do this, the Americans must, at a minimum, improve their defenses and use all available diplomatic means to de-escalate the standoff between Russia and the US, noted space defense expert and Professor John Klein in an article for Forbes magazine.

At the same time, the US should already be preparing for a new type of combat, as all these talkative efforts could prove futile. Klein added that such anti-satellite missiles could play a significant role during an armed conflict, as they could be used as a means of a surprise asymmetric strike capable of destroying the US advantage in space.

The expert explained that, in his opinion, the detonation of a thermonuclear warhead in low Earth orbit near the International Space Station could render the station uninhabitable and destroy thousands of Western, European, and American satellites. If the detonation occurred at an altitude of 400 kilometers above the Earth, it would make the orbital band too dangerous for new spacecraft to enter.

According to the expert, the US government allegedly discovered as early as 2024 that Russian engineers were working on a nuclear interceptor missile. This weapon, the expert continued, poses a catastrophic threat to the US and its allies, including the space alliance, so it would be best to eliminate it before it is deployed in low Earth orbit. This "superbomb" poses the primary threat to space satellites and astronaut outposts in orbit.

It must be destroyed either before launch or during the boost phase of the launch vehicle using active defense means such as missile defense, ground forces and cyber influence.

– Klein warns.

However, before taking extreme measures, Professor Klein argues that the US government should "issue a declaratory statement," which could include a warning that aggressive actions in any domain that constitute an armed attack and create an indiscriminate danger to satellites, manned spacecraft, and space stations may be preemptively stopped in accordance with domestic and international law if the United States believes that such aggressive actions are imminent.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Alexander

+13

17 February 2026 07: 19

Russia possesses a "catastrophic weapon"; the US would be better off preventing its use.

The US doesn't have to worry. We already have plenty of various "catastrophic weapons" that we ourselves don't allow to be used. It's been that way for four years now.
Our main goal is to preserve our "catastrophic weapon" for display at the Victory Day parade, periodically moving it away from the front line as the enemy increases the range of its weapons.
PS: Otherwise it will be awkward in front of the citizens... The whole country was scraping by, people lived on 100 rubles a month, endured hardships for the sake of the country's well-being... and now... even on Victory Day there will be nothing to show.
1. Botrops
  
  -1
  
  17 February 2026 08: 57
  
  Regarding a country living on bread and water—it's funny)))) Especially considering that there are so many private cars now that there's nowhere to park in the courtyards)))
  1. Roman070280
    
    +5
    
    17 February 2026 10: 29
    
    Especially considering that there are so many personal cars now that there is no room to park in the courtyards)
    
    The crests also have traffic jams on the roads... apparently, they also live richly...
    Even the bogeymen drive jeeps around Africa... and don't you get tired of using this as an excuse?
    
    Why hasn't anyone thought to write that everyone wears socks and you won't see anyone in foot wraps? Look how rich they are..))
    1. Botrops
      
      +3
      
      17 February 2026 10: 48
      
      Well, if the crests have traffic jams and every family has a car, that means they haven't reached the limit yet. The Barmaleys drive jeeps, but it seems to me that these jeeps weren't bought by them as a group, but rather provided by those who really want the Barmaleys to exist.
      Socks, my dear, unlike cars, are not a sign of wealth. Many people had them even in the Middle Ages. And in modern times, everyone has them. Not everyone on this planet can afford a car. And if there are plenty of them (cars) in a certain part of the world, then everyone's socks are fine too.
      1. freddyk
        
        +1
        
        19 February 2026 19: 47
        
        You can buy any car on credit, and it will just take up space in the yard. This isn't a sign of prosperity anymore. Homeless people drive fancy cars, there are plenty of them. It's called showing off.
        
        Botrops
        
        -2
        
        20 February 2026 09: 47
        
        Let's start with the fact that in Russia, about 80% of the population owns their own privatized apartments. In the US, 70% either rents or is paying off a mortgage. So, as we can see, the housing situation for Russian citizens is even better than in the US. Maybe there are plenty of people driving fancy cars. This means they took out a loan and are making payments on it (even if only for a while). This means they have money. And in the US, as I mentioned above, this scenario (i.e., a citizen rents an apartment and drives a car) is apparently common, which allows their level of well-being to be considered quite high. So why can't this metric be applied to our citizens as well?
2. Vladimir1155
  
  -1
  
  17 February 2026 20: 02
  
  You, like many experts, suggest hitting Tiao in Lviv?
Paul3390

+13

17 February 2026 07: 40

The very existence of a satellite constellation over our heads directly participating in military operations against us is absurd. A normal leadership would immediately give the mattress-makers a choice: either you stop it, or we stop maintaining the constellation. There's no other way. We're free to do whatever we want over our territory. Yes, our satellites will be deployed, but given the West's total superiority in this area, it's worth it. The benefits are obvious.
1. gxmlygw
  
  +2
  
  17 February 2026 16: 27
  
  What are you saying?! The mere thought of such a "terribly dangerous action" would render our leadership incapacitated.
Alexpan

+6

17 February 2026 08: 15

Quote from Paul3390
either you stop this or we stop the group's existence.

Only the strong and capable can make such statements. Russia is neither.
1. Botrops
  
  -3
  
  17 February 2026 09: 02
  
  Seriously? Well, then explain to us what weapon was used to knock our satellite Tselina out of orbit at 530 km in 21, if you think the Russian Federation is incapable of such a thing. Remember the outcry the US raised about that? That the debris scattered all over space, that it was a dirty operation—and all that jazz. However, now, four years later, no debris is bothering them.
  1. AndrK72
    
    +2
    
    17 February 2026 14: 21
    
    One is not tens of thousands!!!
    1. Botrops
      
      +2
      
      17 February 2026 14: 56
      
      Tens of thousands don't need to be deorbited. Russia has about 110 military satellites in orbit. NATO has three times that many. It's enough to deorbit the satellites responsible for providing targeting information, radar, and optical reconnaissance satellites. NATO has dozens of those. Without them, NATO is blind and deaf. And the deorbiting of virgin soil has shown the world that 500-kilometer orbits (where the aforementioned satellites typically operate) are perfectly within reach of Russian weapons.
      1. Sergei Fonov
        
        0
        
        18 February 2026 14: 44
        
        Eugene!
        The Russian Federation has 110 military satellites and 181 civilian ones. The United States has 247 military satellites and 5176 civilian ones. The question is, are there purely civilian satellites, or do they also carry out other related military programs?
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        18 February 2026 15: 41
        
        Dual-use satellites have much weaker characteristics. For example, photos from Earth observation satellites are freely available, but they only show fairly large objects. This means, for example, that their data can't be used for mission control and reconnaissance. But for communications, it's perfectly acceptable. This is evident in the Starlink example. You won't find any published photos from military satellites, as they can only be used to draw conclusions about a given satellite's capabilities. In the event of a conflict, communications satellites don't need to be disabled, but the most expensive ones, which handle various types of reconnaissance (optical and radar), must be.
        
        Sergei Fonov
        
        0
        
        18 February 2026 16: 06
        
        For reconnaissance, atmospheric conditions are important in addition to imagery; weather conditions influence the use of UAVs, and much more. Satellites have allowed us to take weather forecasting to a new level. According to some estimates, our meteorological service lags behind the European one by 20 years. I believe that data from many satellites, after analysis and processing, could be used for military purposes. It's like open-source intelligence.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        18 February 2026 17: 17
        
        For reconnaissance, along with photographs, the state of the atmosphere is important
        
        Well, for satellites performing radar reconnaissance, weather is generally unimportant. For optical reconnaissance satellites, yes, weather can be an issue. I agree with you—if Russia has more good and diverse satellites, that's a plus. But what we have, as demonstrated by the SVO, is quite capable of solving reconnaissance, targeting, and communications tasks.
        
        Sergei Fonov
        
        0
        
        18 February 2026 17: 26
        
        I'll tell you a secret: after the Kursk Offensive, the Ukrainian Armed Forces, like many others, have many questions about intelligence. Intelligence provides the basis for analyzing the current situation and the enemy's anticipated actions.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        18 February 2026 17: 35
        
        I agree with that. But satellite reconnaissance is more strategic in nature. While a satellite's swath can be quite wide (up to 1000 km in an orbit of 500 km), its scanning swath (that is, the swath the satellite scans while flying over a given area of land with a specified resolution) is around 40-50 km. This means that an airfield or strategic facility can be monitored with a resolution of several hours or even days. Still, it's possible to track, say, a concentration of aircraft at an airfield or the deployment of large units. But in a nonstop situation, you can't monitor large areas. The situation in Kursk was somewhat different. Initially, they concentrated Ukrainians The units there weren't that large; they were used for the breakthrough, and then they brought in reserves. We only had border guards there. And even then, it was a small number, enough for a breakthrough. It's not even a matter of satellite reconnaissance, but reconnaissance using UAVs (they're the ones responsible for providing tactical-level intelligence). But on the other hand, our hypersonic weapons are spot-on; I can't recall a single instance of them hitting, say, a residential building. Otherwise, they'd be screaming at the top of their lungs. This means the targeting system is working properly with that number of launches. Moreover, Ukrainians often fly in during formation, which is good reconnaissance work (maybe through intelligence, or maybe using UAVs). And anything can happen in war. Look at how much the USSR retreated during World War II, and ultimately won.
        
        Sergei Fonov
        
        0
        
        18 February 2026 18: 28
        
        High resolution isn't required to pinpoint the location of equipment; they're run through a computer, which performs a step-by-step analysis of the images. Equipment isn't deployed to the attack line instantly, not nonstop; there are both concentration and deployment lines, which takes time. We had the Great Patriotic War, not World War II, in which we retreated for two years, and not everywhere.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        19 February 2026 10: 01
        
        Well, your opinions contradict what can be found in open sources about radar and optical reconnaissance satellites. Yes, at a 500 km orbit, the scanning swath is about 800 km. But let's remember that, say, a reconnaissance satellite is like Hubble, only with the objective facing the Earth. And the objective is a system of lenses and mirrors that provides the stated resolution only at the focal point. This can only be achieved with a very sharp viewing angle (corresponding to a 40 km swath on the ground). Outside this swath, there will be no focus. In other words, the image will be blurry. And whether a satellite can identify, say, a tank from a stand-alone barn in a 100 km swath is questionable. At least, I haven't seen such data. If you have a link to such materials, please share. The same applies to radar satellites. A quick glance at the satellite antenna's transmitting pattern reveals that it must be quite sharp to provide the required radar resolution. From my own experience, I can say that during naval launches of the Granit anti-ship missile, target acquisition (a decommissioned barge at anchor, displacing approximately 3000 tons, roughly equivalent to a corvette) occurred within a narrow angle of 15 degrees. The guidance system was unable to identify anything beyond this angle. I suspect the same is true for satellites. Outside the scanning band, they can only detect the existence of an object, but they cannot identify it. This means they are also unlikely to be able to track the satellite to any significant depth to provide targeting information.
        
        Sergei Fonov
        
        0
        
        19 February 2026 17: 07
        
        Actually, based on the same open sources, there are algorithms for step-by-step image analysis, which are used to obtain more accurate data. Unfortunately, our troops have never launched an offensive 40 kilometers deep; during the Battle of Kursk, the defensive depth on the Rokossovsky front was up to 250 kilometers. I think if you're conducting an offensive with the goal of capturing territory 300-1000 meters deep, deep reconnaissance isn't required, and what's happening now in the LBS is strictly local combat. Satellites, of course, aren't as important here as reconnaissance UAVs, which can be used 24/7 and show movements in real time. Maybe someone in the General Staff is preparing a strategic offensive that could change the current reality. I don't know, but I think four years is a long time, and if nothing has happened, then we shouldn't expect anything in the current negotiations.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        20 February 2026 09: 58
        
        Well, negotiations could just be a game. We put forward conditions, but 404 refuses. Everyone sticks to their guns—the war continues, and it seems like old Trump has been appeased with our desire for peace. As for the slow progress on the LBS, let's recall World War I. Back then, the front was at war for years. Which didn't stop Germany, for example, from suddenly collapsing when it reached a critical point. The welfare of the people there at that time is beautifully described in Remarque's works. So I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just yet. Especially considering that if an agreement is signed now that doesn't align with the goals of the SVO, our Supreme Commander will become politically bankrupt. Which, I'm sure, he understands perfectly well.
        
        Sergei Fonov
        
        0
        
        20 February 2026 17: 24
        
        The US's $13 trillion offer is hardly a "game"
        World War I isn't exactly a good example; in both World War I and World War II, Germany was defeated by a coalition of countries. Now we're up against that coalition, and it's vitally important for us to break the alliance between the US and Europe.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        21 February 2026 10: 35
        
        So far, 13 trillion is just a rumor. And the discussion was actually about joint investment projects. That means Russia will have to invest in them, too. Well, Germany was also an ally in the First World War, fighting against the Entente. It was also in the Triple Alliance with Austria-Hungary and Italy. As for the separation of the US and Europe—in my opinion, that's not so important. Far more important is that both receive due retribution for their indirect participation in the conflict. So that their gas tankers explode when our tankers are arrested; so that if our refinery is attacked by a British shad, a similar target is immediately hit, and the same hazelnut tree hits Britain. So that their underwater gas pipeline pumping gas from Norway to Britain suddenly explodes. In other words, we, too, need to take steps toward escalation. So that they are faced with a choice: either the whole world will fall into ruin, or you will leave the Russian Federation alone.
        
        Sergei Fonov
        
        0
        
        21 February 2026 11: 56
        
        Well, in the First World War, Germany was also in an alliance, fighting against the Entente. It was in the Triple Alliance with Austria-Hungary and Italy.
        
        Is this a hint at our triple alliance with North Korea and Belarus? An escalation of hostilities is necessary, but we have so many targets in Ukraine that talking about other countries is at best premature, and at worst provocative.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        24 February 2026 10: 49
        
        No, the German example is a response to your assertion that Germany fought against the coalition countries. I wanted to emphasize that it did not do so alone. And the reason for its defeat was not that it was alone on the front lines.
        If we don't step on the toes of the UK and everyone else, the SVO will continue for years to come. The West risks nothing. It supplies weapons that strike deep into Russia, helps Ukraine carry out terrorist attacks (Bortnikov's statement about Crocus), generously shares intelligence data, provides communications, plans operations, and itself, supposedly, sits on the sidelines. It's all fine with it. The more Ukraine is destroyed, the better. It's not its job to rebuild it. Now Britain is announcing it will supply Ukraine with cruise missiles capable of reaching 1000-1500 km into the Russian Federation. So what? Will we continue to improve our air defenses?
        We need to respond in kind. Did a British missile hit our oil refinery? Fire a nut at theirs. Did they help commit the terrorist attack at Crocus Stadium? Let's say after the Liverpool-Manchester United match, when the fans come out and their parked car explodes. Did an American tanker explode while carrying oil? Let their tanker be blown up by a torpedo fired by our multipurpose submarine. Only then will they realize that war isn't beneficial to them either. How can they respond to this escalation? Direct shelling of our territory—then expect tactical nuclear weapons to arrive.
        
        Sergei Fonov
        
        0
        
        24 February 2026 11: 08
        
        In theory, we could fire at Britain, too. But we're also shooting at Ukraine more in theory, while in practice, the bridges and roads are perfectly functional. We need to start where the missiles are launched, while we're looking for places where they're manufactured.
Rhino

+12

17 February 2026 08: 16

may be preventively suppressed in accordance with domestic and international law

What international law is the American talking about? As we can see, they don't really adhere to it.
1. Grei grin
  
  +3
  
  17 February 2026 15: 35
  
  That's their right, and it's definitely called international! By the way, our people at the gates also support and approve of it. It's only Europe that's gone crazy and is going against the Americans! Otherwise, everything's fine. As soon as the redhead gives the order, he booms out of the sandbox: "Yes, we'll do it!"
Alexander

+2

17 February 2026 08: 30

Quote: Alexpan
Only the strong and capable can make such statements...

Come on... Ryabkov, a month before the start of the Second World War, made this statement... What could be stronger?

Even a layman understands that demanding concessions from Russia in a situation where NATO has been striving for decades to, as they say, "sideline" our country and relegate it, if not to a subordinate role, then at least to a secondary role in European and international politics, and to do so at the direct cost of our security, will no longer be possible. That's all in the past. It didn't work very well before, but now it's simply over.

"So NATO needs to pack its bags and head back to the 1997 frontier." https://tass.ru/politika/13380415

PS: In less than four years, Russia will stop making concessions and NATO, along with its belongings, will retreat to the designated borders.
1. Yury Leonov
  
  +3
  
  17 February 2026 10: 15
  
  It's people like you, the ones with too many memories, who are doing harm to our Elite. Someone said something boldly and... forgot or hid. And some people, you see, remember that Someone once barked against the Hegemon. There's no need to remember. The less you remember, the better you sleep...
2. Grei grin
  
  +3
  
  17 February 2026 15: 39
  
  Four years and more have already passed, and NATO is still shitting on us, picking at Putin’s red lines, to the deep concern of our Foreign Ministry!
borisvt

+5

17 February 2026 08: 44

..space defense expert Professor John Klein

Another all-powerful mattress Klein! How they love to act preemptively "in accordance with domestic... law, if the US considers..."
On the other hand, they will continue to act as long as they are allowed to do so without response.
Alexander

0

17 February 2026 09: 13

Quote: Allexander
Our main goal is to preserve our "catastrophic weapon" for display at the Victory Day parade, periodically moving it away from the front line as the enemy increases the range of its weapons.

That's right... that's more accurate: https://news.mail.ru/politics/69836821/?frommail=1&md=1
The Su-57 is a fast plane... It will fly from the Chinese border to Moscow in time for the Victory Parade.
Alexander Sh.

+8

17 February 2026 10: 10

Before destroying the American satellite constellation, the triad of strategic nuclear forces must be brought to full combat readiness and be prepared for World War III, a war of total annihilation. Strikes against satellites would be the trigger for a world war. The question is: was Ukraine worth starting a world war over? It's much easier to start with something more minor—shooting down NATO reconnaissance drones over the Black Sea and declaring a no-fly zone.
Earl

+2

17 February 2026 11: 01

From what Professor Klein said, Russia should first destroy the United States.
vitgusin

0

17 February 2026 13: 47

If the detonation occurs at an altitude of 400 kilometers above the ground,

Then what has already happened will happen.
In 1962, the Soviet Union conducted three nuclear tests at an altitude of 400 kilometers in space over Kazakhstan. A surge in a long underground power line caused a fire at a power plant in the city of Karaganda. A 570-kilometer-long section of telephone line failed all fuses and destroyed all surge protection devices. The power lines were damaged, causing short circuits and causing some lines to break free from their supports and fall to the ground.

In July 1962, the United States conducted a test at an altitude of 400 kilometers over the central Pacific Ocean, approximately 1445 kilometers from the detonation point, knocking out approximately 300 streetlights, activating numerous alarms, and disrupting microwave communications.
Flying Hollandec

+4

17 February 2026 15: 00

I think our "elite" will draw another line of an unknown color, or a known one, and that's it. That'll be the end of it.
Kiril

+2

17 February 2026 17: 16

But the Yankees have a discus blower, and Trump won't lie.
twice-born

+2

17 February 2026 21: 09

Well, here's another reason the Americans have come up with to attack us and pretend to be innocent!
Alexey Lan

0

17 February 2026 23: 18

According to the expert, the American government allegedly discovered as early as 2024 that Russian engineers were working on creating a nuclear anti-missile system.

I think I heard that back in the USSR, missiles with nuclear warheads capable of detonating in space were deployed in the Moscow missile defense belt. I think it was the A-35 system. So, nothing new. Most likely, a more advanced system.