This paper examines the militarisation of NanoSats and applies the U.S. Space Force’s Competitive Endurance framework to explore their potential military utility for space-based Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Earth Observation (EO) and terrestrial tactical responsiveness. While military NanoSats could offer redundancy in case of adversarial attacks, their dual-use ambiguity and proliferation rate challenge traditional deterrence paradigms. This complicates attribution and managing escalation control. Moreover, military utility of NanoSats is constrained compared to larger satellites as commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components in military NanoSat development risk cyberattacks, radiation vulnerabilities, diminish sensor ability, and decrease operational life. This highlights the fundamental trade-off of military NanoSats: affordability and modularity enable rapid deployment but expose them to adversarial exploitation. The United States military and aerospace firms have spearheaded the militarisation of NanoSats. Meanwhile, the military NanoSat programmes in several other states highlight how they can democratise space power. Military-commercial collaboration in NanoSat development further blurs the boundaries between civilian and military space operations. Therefore, proliferated deployment of military NanoSat constellations risks exacerbating orbital congestion and crisis misperception. This underscores the imperative of reconciling military innovation in NanoSat development with collective space sustainability, urging stakeholders to balance military advantages of NanoSat constellations with the risk of destabilising Earth’s orbit.
Share this article
The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management
Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.
Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status
On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power
Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict
Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.
