Russia and China are threatening SpaceX's Starlink satellite constellation, new report finds
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
SpaceX's Starlink satellite constellation is facing threats from Russia and China because it was tapped for military use in Ukraine following Russia's invasion of the nation in 2022, according to a new report evaluating the counterspace capabilities of a dozen countries over the past year.
The report, published on Thursday (April 3) by the nonpartisan policy think tank Secure World Foundation (SWF), highlights how humanity's growing reliance on space — especially for national security — has led an increasing number of countries to develop their own counterspace capabilities. The 316-page document assesses the counterspace capabilities of 12 countries including the U.S., Russia, China, India, Australia as well as North Korea and South Korea, based on publicly available information spanning February 2024 through February of this year.
"We feel strongly that a more open and public debate on these issues is urgently needed," the report's foreword states. "Our global society and economy are increasingly dependent on space capabilities, and a future conflict in space could have massive, long-term negative repercussions that are felt here on Earth, as everyone on this planet is a user of space data in some form."
SpaceX's Starlink uses a massive network of satellites in low Earth orbit to provide high-speed broadband internet. Ukrainian residents began using Starlink in 2022 to maintain internet connectivity after Ukraine's own internet services were disrupted following Russia's invasion. The service also enabled secure communications for the Ukrainian military and government. Starting in May 2024, however, the Ukrainian military began experiencing outages in Starlink connections, with military officials attributing the disruptions to Russia "testing different mechanisms" for its electronic warfare systems seemingly employing new and more advanced technology.
The SWF report cites leaked U.S. military documents that suggest a Russian system called Tobol — that was originally designed to protect Russian satellites from jamming — was used to disrupt Starlink commercial satellite signals over Ukrainian territory. Those leaked documents "suggest that Russia has used at least three Tobol installations to try and disrupt Starlink commercial satellite signals over Eastern Ukraine," the report notes.
Russia appears to also be developing a newer, more sophisticated system called Kalinka, which is intended to detect and disrupt signals to and from Starlink satellites in order to interfere with Ukrainian drones and military communications, according to the SWF report. Andrei Bezrukov, the director of the Russian Center for Unmanned Systems and Technologies, which is developing the Kalinka system, told state media that the so-called "Starlink killer" could also detect communication terminals connected to Starshield, the military version of Starlink that's designed with enhanced security features.
Additional reports revealed that Russia had jammed GPS signals in four European countries: France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg. There have also been reports that Russia interrupted children's TV channels in these countries to broadcast images of the war in Ukraine. The International Telecommunication Union's Radio Regulations Board has said the interference likely originated from stations in Moscow, Kaliningrad and Pavlovka.
"As of February 2025, the Starlink service appears to have been remarkably resistant to further cyber attacks," the report notes.
According to the SWF report, China is investing in similar capabilities for potential future armed conflicts with the U.S.
In July of last year, researchers from the People's Liberation Army Navy proposed laser-equipped submarines with retractable masts that could surface to target Starlink satellites or other space-based surveillance systems, although the researchers acknowledged that the submarines' limited detection capabilities would require external forces to provide satellite position guidance for accurate targeting.
Related Stories:
— US Space Force picks Rocket Lab and Stoke Space to compete for national security launches
— Secretive Russian military satellites release mystery object into orbit
— Chinese astronauts install debris shields on Tiangong space station during 8.5-hour spacewalk (video)
Meanwhile, the U.S. Space Force is testing new satellite jammers called the Remote Modular Terminals, intended to operate remotely and provide counterspace electronic warfare capability, the report notes.
"Everyone is jamming," Victoria Samson, the director of Secure World's Washington office and one of the report's primary authors, told Breaking Defense earlier this week.
So far, only non-destructive counterspace capabilities are being actively used against satellites in current military operations, the report notes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Said 'In America, It's Pretty Easy To Keep Yourself Alive' — So He Challenged Himself To Live On $1 A Day, Eating Hot Dogs And Oranges
Before he became the richest man in the world, Elon Musk set out to prove something to himself—that if all his bold ideas failed, he could still survive in America. Literally. In a 2015 interview with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson on StarTalk Radio, Musk reflected on his early mindset, revealing just how far he went to test his personal threshold for survival. At the time, he had already founded Tesla and SpaceX, but the conversation turned to a much earlier phase in his life—just after college, when he first arrived in the U.S. "In America, it's pretty easy to keep yourself alive," Musk told Tyson. "So my threshold for existing is pretty low. I figure I could be in some dingy apartment with my computer and be okay and not starve." Don't Miss: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Peter Thiel turned $1,700 into $5 billion—now accredited investors are eyeing this software company with similar breakout potential. Learn how you can So that's exactly what he tested. Musk challenged himself to live on just $1 a day for food. His grocery list? Hot dogs, oranges, pasta, and bulk green peppers with a big jar of sauce. "You get really tired of hot dogs and oranges after a while," he admitted, laughing. "And of course pasta and a green pepper and a big thing of sauce. That can go pretty far, too." He wasn't trying to impress anyone—he just wanted to prove that even if every business venture failed, he wouldn't. "If I can live for a dollar a day, then at least from a food cost standpoint, well it's pretty easy to earn like $30 in a month anyway, so I'll probably be okay." Musk immigrated to the U.S. from South Africa in the mid-1990s, during his early twenties. By 1995, after earning degrees in physics and economics from the University of Pennsylvania, he co-founded his first startup, Zip2. Back then, money was so tight that he and his brother Kimbal slept in the office and showered at the local YMCA. Trending: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: . At the time, a dollar stretched further. In the mid-90s, the average cost of a loaf of bread was under $1, and hot dogs ran about $1.29 per pound. By comparison, the average cost of hot dogs today has soared to over $5.22 per pound. Inflation has made Musk's once-thrifty diet virtually impossible to replicate. Even pasta—once a budget staple—is now often $1.50 to $2 a box, and fresh produce prices have more than doubled since his college days. Now, decades later, he controls some of the most valuable companies in the world and has an estimated net worth topping $340 billion, according to Forbes and Bloomberg. But that extreme frugality never really left him. Musk has said he doesn't own a yacht or even a home, doesn't take vacations, and considers his private jet—used for work—his largest personal expense. "It would be very problematic if I was spending billions of dollars a year in personal consumption," he said in a 2022 TED interview with Chris Anderson. He added, "but that is not the case."Today, spending just $1 a day on food in America seems laughable, especially with inflation and rising grocery prices. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average cost of food per person per month in 2024 was over $300—even on a thrifty plan. And for context: a $1 daily food budget in today's economy breaks down to 33 cents per meal—less than a single egg, a slice of bread, or even half a banana in most U.S. cities. For millions of Americans now facing food insecurity, that number isn't just unrealistic—it's unthinkable. Still, Musk's point wasn't about inflation or cuisine—it was about fear. Or rather, the absence of it. He believed that if he could handle having nothing, he could risk everything. That mindset helped him bet big on rockets, electric cars, solar panels—and win. So yes, Musk once lived off hot dogs and oranges. Not because he had to. Because he needed to know he could. Read Next: Here's what Americans think you need to be considered wealthy. Image: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Elon Musk Said 'In America, It's Pretty Easy To Keep Yourself Alive' — So He Challenged Himself To Live On $1 A Day, Eating Hot Dogs And Oranges originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Russia: Other nations ready to supply Iran with nukes after U.S. strike
President Donald Trump is joined by his national security team in the Situation Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on Saturday, June 21, 2025, as U.S. bombers executed strikes on the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Photo via The White House/UPI | License Photo June 22 (UPI) -- In the wake of President Donald Trump's strike on Iran's nuclear sites Saturday, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that "a number of countries" are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear weapons. Gen. Dan Caine said at a Pentagon press conference Sunday that measuring the damage at the sites would take time but that an initial assessment indicates that all three sites sustained "severe damage and destruction." He revealed that the mission involved 75 precision-guided munitions, including 14 GBU-57 bunker-busters. "Do you remember that the operation was beginning, I promised you that Iran's nuclear facilities would be destroyed, one way or another. This promise is kept," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on social media, revealing that the strike was carried out by the United States in "full coordination" with the Israeli Defense Forces. While Israeli and American authorities have indicated major damage at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan, Iranian and Russian authorities have indicated only minor damage to Iran's capabilities for nuclear enrichment. "What have the Americans accomplished with their nighttime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?" Medvedev questioned in a post on social media. "The enrichment of nuclear material -- and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons -- will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." Medvedev said Iran's political leadership has survived despite Israel's apparent pursuit of a regime change and may have "come out even stronger." Like Russia, Iran ally Pakistan is armed with nuclear weapons but said Thursday that it had not yet received requests for any military assistance from Iran while expressing alignment with its neighbor. It has since condemned the U.S. attack on Iran. "The unprecedented escalation of tension and violence, owing to ongoing aggression against Iran, is deeply disturbing. Any further escalation of tensions will have severely damaging implications for the region and beyond," Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said in a statement Sunday. Sa'eed Iravani, Iran's ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations in New York, has called for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, Iranian state media reported Sunday. Iran is calling for the Security Council to rebuke the United States, which is a permanent member of the UNSC. The Russian Foreign Ministry also released a statement condemning the strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, calling them a violation of international law and the United Nations charter. It called the attack a "substantial blow to the global non-proliferation regime built around the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." "They have significantly undermined both the credibility of the NPT and the integrity of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) monitoring and verification mechanisms that underpin it," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. China's Foreign Ministry likewise said the United States had violated the U.N. charter and international law as it called for Israel to reach a ceasefire "as soon as possible." "China stands ready to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East. A Telegram account affiliated with the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps said Sunday that satellite images show Iran had evacuated everything from the Fordow site 48 hours before the US attack and moved it to a safe location. "This image shows a large number of trucks that had quickly evacuated enrichment materials, equipment and other supplies from the Fordow site," the post reads. "It is clear that Trump's failed and dramatic attack not only did not damage the underground Fordow facilities, but the site was empty." Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director-general of the IAEA, said Sunday he will call an emergency meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on Monday after the American strike. He said Iranian nuclear officials had not recorded an increase in off-site radiation levels. "As of this time, we don't expect that there will be any health consequences for people or the environment outside the targeted sites," Grossi said. "We will continue to monitor and assess the situation in Iran and provide further updates as additional information becomes available." In apparent criticism of the United States, Grossi said he had "repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities should never be attacked." He called for Israel and the U.S. to stop their "hostilities" against Iran so that the IAEA's "vital inspection work" in Iran could continue. Meanwhile, the IRGC-affiliated Telegram channel said Sunday that Iran struck Israel's Ben Gurion Airport, as well as a biological research center that reportedly housed research into biological warfare, among other military targets. "This time, sirens sounded after the precise hits, throwing the enemy off balance," the statement said. "We announce that the main parts of the capacity of the Islamic Republic of Iran's armed forces in this sacred defense have not yet been put into operation." Meanwhile, Israel's war against Gaza continues. The Gaza Health Ministry said Sunday that the death toll has risen to 55,959 people while medical facilities are facing blood shortages. The WAFA news agency reported Sunday that Israeli forces reportedly detained at least 26 Palestinians in the West Bank on Sunday after conducting overnight raids.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Trump Got This One Right
'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.
