Starlink Militarization and Its Impact on Global Strategic Stability

Analyzing the predictability of armament development, the current unbalanced state of outer space armament development reduces the possibility of reaching outer space arms control agreements and the predictability of armament development. Signing treaties to restrict armament development behaviors must be based on relatively balanced military power between parties. In the armament development process, technologically leading nations usually do not seek arms control first; in the absence of competition, they first seek unparalleled superiority, and when facing competition, they seek relative advantages. Only when a power balance appears do they seek stable mutual deterrence and arms control agreements. Currently, the development of outer space armament is dominated by the United States, which desires to freely use its space hegemony, maintaining the “right to unrestricted access to and operation in space assets,” and is unwilling to relinquish its leading position in the militarization of large low Earth orbit constellations. Therefore, it resists outer space arms control agreements, repeatedly obstructing arms control regulations proposed by China and Russia, such as the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects, the No First Placement of Weapons in Outer Space initiative, and the Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities. Instead, it attempts to dilute and avoid signing outer space arms control agreements by proposing non-binding political norms like “responsible behavior in outer space.” In this context, Chinese disarmament ambassador Li Song stated during a special speech on outer space issues at the First Committee of the 77th UN General Assembly: “If we turn a blind eye to the strategic, policy, and measures of superpowers dominating outer space and only pursue ‘responsible behavior in outer space,’ outer space security will present a situation of ‘U.S.-led, other countries following the rules,’ which clearly does not align with the common interests of the broader international community and does not help maintain common outer space security.” Given the current ambiguous international regulations on outer space and the unclear global governance paradigm, the international community lacks sufficient public products to constrain the militarization of outer space, with severely insufficient supply capacity. The unpredictability and uncontrollability of Starlink’s future militarization process also increase accordingly.