Kalina: a Russian ground-based laser to dazzle imaging satellites

[Flyaway]

As you will see from the article this is just one amongst a number of laser based ASAT systems that Russia is developing or has already deployed. Some appear to be designed to dazzle a satellite temporarily others to permanently blind an electro-optical satellite. Possibly both government and commercial satellites would be considered targets. They also appear to be developing systems to operate against radar satellites.

The Space Review: Kalina: a Russian ground-based laser to dazzle imaging satellites

 

[TomcatViP]

Dazzling could be either countered by the deployment of a reflective fabric screen (one axis for viewing and one for the screen) or, better, a double Laser plasma lens in the upper atmosphere.
Plasma lens offer the advantages to be only apperiodical (period that depends only of the aggressor laser and the cooling parameters of the sensor) hence less demanding in energy*. High altitude ionization helps in the sustainment of the lens, greatly lowering the amount of energy needed.


*static solid screen need to be built robust enough to resist dazzling for a longer period of time, or have dynamic actuation, something that eats away capabilities when you think at launch mass, time on and orbit altitudes.

 

[Forest Green]

Who's to say blinding is all it really does?

 

[TomcatViP]

Because targeting a foreign satellite is an act of war?

It is thus found that in legally characterizing a military operation directed
at a satellite, its terrestrial impact is likely to be a significant consideration
under the jus ad bellum and more clearly so under the jus in bello. The terrestrial
impact will also be a significant consideration in identifying injured or bellig￾erent States. On the other hand, there is no need to afford special protection
to the rights and interests of a third State that may be affected as a result of
the targeting operation. This finding has strategic implications for spacefar￾ing nations as they become more reliant on space-based assets and services or build counter-space capabilities.

States do not enjoy complete freedom to employ non-physical means of
interference with satellites, such as signal jamming and laser dazzling, as a
means of taking strategic advantage against their competitors. Even if a State
forms the view that non-physical interference is not prohibited as a use of
force or by any other basis under international law, other States could chal￾lenge such a position. No State can be oblivious to the potential casualties
and damage that are reasonably expected to arise, as a result of the targeting
of a satellite, in the terrestrial environment.

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu

 

[Forest Green]

And a war is also an act of war.

 

[Ainen]

Because targeting a foreign satellite is an act of war?

Act of aggression at best, if there won't be any lasting damage - probably no one will go for a definition over harmful interference(art.IX OST). Frankly speaking - even shooting down a non-existential satellite on purpose will probably (no practice!) really depend on the circumstances.
Dazzling a satellite - with a probable exception of SBIRS - won't constitute an Act of War in the sense of IHL.

 

[Avimimus]

Generally speaking there is also the likely results of domestic and international public opinion to consider. Damaging the electronics of a spy satellite (in which no one is killed) while that spy satellite is in orbit over your own country, is likely to be perceived as a more justifiable act than many others. This is especially true if the country whose satellite is damaged is not a current signatory to a treaty that would protect such satellites from interference.

On the other hand targeting missile launch warning satellites that provide early warning of a first strike would definitely be taken more seriously by all parties (e.g. in the Russian case, it is one of the few situations under which they'd doctrinally consider first use of nuclear weapons).

So... big topic. But I do think international/public opinion should be considered, in addition to what theorist in academia write on the matter... as one needs to convince the former, not the latter of the justice of a military retaliation.

 

[Flyaway]

Because targeting a foreign satellite is an act of war?

Act of aggression at best, if there won't be any lasting damage - probably no one will go for a definition over harmful interference(art.IX OST). Frankly speaking - even shooting down a non-existential satellite on purpose will probably (no practice!) really depend on the circumstances.
Dazzling a satellite - with a probable exception of SBIRS - won't constitute an Act of War in the sense of IHL.

Luckily SBIRS being in GEO cannot be touched by these faculties.

 

[jeffb]

There may be commercial considerations as well as there are many commercial microsat ground imaging systems up there now. Although, those considerations probably get pretty short shrift if it's over an area affected by a 'special operation'.

Dazzling a satellite doesn't necessarily damage it, it just overloads the sensor for the time it's being focused on.