Russia rejects US criticism of anti-satellite weapon test

[ad_1]

Adds comment from Stoltenberg and the UK government

MOSCOW, Nov. 16 (Reuters) – Russia on Tuesday announced that it had successfully conducted a weapons test targeting a former Russian satellite and denied claims by the United States, Britain and NATO that the test had been dangerous for spacecraft in orbit.

U.S. officials said Monday’s test generated a field of low-earth orbit debris that endangered the International Space Station (ISS) and would pose a danger to space activities for years.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the test was reckless, posed a threat to the ISS and a Chinese spacecraft in orbit, and showed Russia was developing new weapon systems. A spokesman for the British government condemned the test and urged Moscow to join discussions at the United Nations on “responsible behavior in space”.

The Russian Defense Ministry said the test debris did not pose a threat to the ISS, and Washington knew it.

“The Russian Defense Ministry successfully conducted a test on November 15 that hit the non-operational Russian spacecraft Tselina-D, which had been in orbit since 1982,” he said in a statement.

He said the United States, China and India had carried out similar tests in the past.

Russia, he said, has been forced to boost its defense capabilities due to what it said are weapons tests by the United States and Washington establishing a space force in 2020.

Moscow said it had called for years for an agreement to stop the deployment of weapons in space, but that Washington and its allies had blocked the deal at the United Nations.

Officials at U.S. space agency NASA will seek to discuss anti-satellite weapon testing on Wednesday during a trip to Moscow, Russian news agency RIA said on Tuesday, citing the NASA chief.

(Reporting by Polina Devitt in Moscow, Sabine Siebold and Robin Emmott in Brussels, Idrees Ali and Steve Gorman in Washington and Kate Holton in London; written by Tom Balmforth; edited by Catherine Evans and Timothy Heritage)

(([email protected]))

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

[ad_2]