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
Rebuttal of Operation Sindoor: Countering the India Centric Framing Bias
The recent account by the Center for Military History and Perspective Studies (CHPM), Switzerland, on the May 7th conflict between Pakistan and India reflects an over-simplification of a complex issue. The historical account suffers from selective framing and a lack of empirical verification, which skews the understanding of the Indo-Pak conflict.
CHPM Report: Misreading Operational Outcomes
In modern conflicts, the fog of war does not clear as ceasefires commence; it only gets thicker and becomes a fog of narratives.  It is in this post-conflict situation that military historians have the responsibility of undertaking impartial analysis as they scramble to find coherence in chaos. As a caution, they should avoid prematurely echoing any one side’s narrative and instead endeavour to interrogate all claims with balanced scepticism. The Centre for Military History and Perspective Studies’ (CHPM) exploratory note on Operation Sindoor falls short of this mark.
Conflicted Calculations: When Strategic Decisions Aren’t Strategic at All
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of any military campaign or national policy is strategic planning. Unfortunately, these decisions are often driven by ideological and political motives rather than reason

