ET NEWS

In his press briefings after the United States attacks a country — a regular occurrence these days — Dan Caine, the chairman of the joint chiefs, never forgets to give a shout-out to the Space Force and its guardians, as the service members are called. And for good reason. Whether America swoops into Venezuela or bombs Iran, it first takes out the eyes and ears of its adversaries, and that invariably involves assets and technologies in space that communicate or interfere with kit on the ground.Neither Venezuela nor Iran, though, is a technological peer to America in the space domain. The question that occupies the brightest minds of space warfare is instead what the next major war will look like when the adversary is either Russia or China; or, God forbid, both simultaneously.To peer into those scenarios, I recently talked (off the record) to insiders in Washington, DC, and Colorado Springs, home of the Peterson Space Force Base, which accommodates several integrated commands including the one for space. Herewith my own impressions, informed by these conversations. One point of agreement was that the first shots of the next world war will almost certainly be fired in space (with simultaneous volleys being exchanged in cyberspace, which increasingly overlaps with the space domain). The controversy is about what form an attack would take, and whether America in particular is vulnerable to a “space Pearl Harbor.”All major military powers today, but especially the US, China and Russia (in that order of sophistication) use space to spy on, map and track their enemies, and also to direct their own forces and firepower. That obliges all of them to have offensive and defensive plans, to take out the satellites and ground stations of their opponents while protecting as many as possible of their own.Also Read| US report flags Pakistan as base for long-active terror groups, some dating back to 1980sAt a bare minimum, this involves electromagnetic jamming, which already occurs regularly, even if it rarely makes the headlines. This type of interference tends to be temporary, though, and by itself wouldn’t count as a casus belli. More hostile types of attack include directed energy such as lasers or physical missiles, fired from the same space orbit or from the ground.An assault could also take the form of satellites ramming, swallowing or otherwise damaging other satellites. The US is keeping a close eye on Russian satellites that were described to me as nesting dolls, with one opening up to release another, which can then do peaceful repair jobs or, on command, turn into a kinetic kill vehicle. China has satellites with robotic arms that, again, could either be peaceful trash collectors or become wrecking balls.As ever in the history of war and weaponry, the accelerating innovation in space has already triggered an arms race in some orbits, especially those relatively close to Earth. Rivals are turning their satellites’ thrusters on and off in daring orbital “dogfights” that can stretch out for days.Such skirmishes aren’t trivial at speeds of 17,500 mph. As of today, moreover, the US doesn’t necessarily have the technological edge in those games. In an atmospheric analogy, American military satellites maneuver more like Boeing 747s (not all that nimbly, that is), while the Space Force wants them to move like F-15s.The larger defensive adjustment is architectural. Historically, the US military has favored launching relatively few but highly engineered and expensive satellites. Those nowadays look like “large, big, fat, juicy targets,” as one general calls them, almost tempting adversaries to launch a preemptive strike.Hence a trend toward “proliferation,” which aims at deliberate redundancy and decentralization, with many cheap satellites networked together in constellations, so that it becomes less worthwhile for adversaries to take out any particular node.(A similar logic prompted the Pentagon in the 1960s to distribute its communications systems, which led to the modern internet.)As the US makes its space forces more resilient, adversaries adjust their own tactics. A frightening scenario that came to Congress’s attention in early 2024 is a Russian plan to launch a satellite with nuclear weapons. Moscow denied the reports, but my interlocutors consider them realistic and the director of national intelligence told Congress this month that Russia’s “development of a nuclear counterspace weapon poses the greatest single threat to the world’s space architecture.”Also Read| A riskier Mideast will drive Big Oil toward new frontiersA space nuke wouldn’t kill humans on earth directly, either with its blast or its radiation. But as Kari Bingen at the Center for Strategic and International Studies explained to me, nuclear detonations in space could overcome the resiliency of proliferated constellations by making entire orbits unusable.The blast would first take out all the satellites in line of sight with an electromagnetic pulse that fries the electronics. It would then leave a radiation zone that destroys all the other machines in the orbit as they transit during their revolutions.Such a weapon would be a massive breach of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. More to the point, it would amount to a tool of coercion, a provocation and a menace that couldn’t go unanswered. In strategic terms, it would be comparable to Soviet plans to station nukes in Cuba in 1962, which led to a crisis that nearly ended in atomic holocaust.Even without a space nuke, though, the threat of orbits becoming unusable points to another danger, a “tragedy of the commons.” As empty as space looks to the human eye, it’s actually becoming perilously crowded, not only with new commercial satellites but also with the detritus of all the dead ones.Space watchers estimate that about 130 million pieces of junk are orbiting the Earth already, of which about 35,000 are large enough (the size of an orange, say) to be tracked. But even pea-sized debris, travelling at space speeds, can take out a working satellite or spacecraft. Those collisions then create more flotsam, which wrecks even more satellites, and so on in a hellish cascade known as the Kessler Syndrome, which could leave entire shells of space functionally dead.These orbits play an essential role in our daily lives. Beyond obvious uses such as our car navigation, satellites also power the communications that let us pay by credit card, fill up our gas tanks or even eat (since modern agriculture also relies on space). Make space inaccessible, and you may as well turn off the world economy.An important strategic wrinkle is that societies rely on space to different degrees, which creates asymmetries of vulnerability. America and its European and Asian allies are most dependent. (Germany’s defense minister recently called space his country’s Achilles heel.) China is becoming more vulnerable as it catches up with the US. Russia, by contrast, is comparatively less exposed; more of its economy could keep functioning if space suddenly went dark.This asymmetry explains why the US generally takes a different approach to space than Russia or China. Because Washington wants to preserve space as a domain, it wouldn’t launch an all-out preemptive war there for tactical advantage on the ground. Moscow, by contrast, might try to prevent military defeat on Earth with an initial strike in space, calculating that it would be more likely to survive what comes next.In such a scenario, humanity could at a stroke revert to the developmental stage of the previous century, if not the pre-industrial age. The damage and suffering would be less than that following a terrestrial nuclear war, but still greater than anything we can imagine today, when the closure of just one strait in the Middle East keeps us busy.The US, like its allies and adversaries, will of course keep honing its skills in space warfare. Even Washington’s plans for a Golden Dome — a constellation of satellites that would detect and shoot down incoming missiles from anywhere — are nothing categorically new; the only conceptual innovation would be placing interceptors in space, when they are currently only on the ground. And yet all countries, and especially the three mightiest military powers, would be wise to incorporate into their war games the lessons of nuclear strategizing, and especially the specter of Mutual Assured Destruction: The best strategy is not the one that would let them win the next war, but the one that will prevent it.

Indian stock markets will remain shut on March 31 as BSE and National Stock Exchange (NSE) will remain closed for trading on account of Shri Mahavir Jayanti, marking the first out of the two market holidays scheduled for this week.India's largest commodity exchange, the Multi-Commodity Exchange of India (MCX), will remain shut for trading in the first session (9 am to 5 pm) on Shri Mahavir Jayanti. Trading will resume in the evening session between 5 pm and 11:30 pm, as per the schedule on its website. The National Commodity & Derivatives Exchange Limited (NCDEX), meanwhile, will remain closed for trading tomorrow.Upcoming market holidaysAccording to the official holiday calendar, markets will next remain closed on April 3 (Friday) to observe Good Friday. It is important to note that markets are seeing three holidays in less than two weeks. Markets were also shut on March 26 (Thursday) on account of Shri Ram Navami.In total, there are 16 stock market holidays scheduled for 2026, of which four have already passed. After the two holidays this week, trading will be suspended on 10 more occasions over the remaining nine months.Markets will next remain shut on April 14 (Tuesday) on Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Jayanti. The BSE and NSE will then be closed for trading on May 1 (Maharashtra Day), May 28 (Bakri Id), June 26 (Muharram), September 14 (Ganesh Chaturthi), October 2 (Mahatma Gandhi Jayanti), October 20 (Dussehra), November 10 (Diwali-Balipratipada), November 24 (Prakash Gurpurb Sri Guru Nanak Dev), and December 25 (Christmas).Earlier last week, Zerodha CEO Nithin Kamath took to X to comment on market holidays amid ongoing global market volatility. “It's crazy that we live in a time when the entire global financial market seems to be at the whim and fancy of what one person decides to do. He can, and does, do whatever he wants depending on which side of the bed he wakes up on,” Kamath said, in an apparent reference to US President Donald Trump.His statement comes as markets globally have seen sharp downswings but not equally strong upswings since the war between Iran and the US-Israel bloc began earlier this month, triggering a sharp rally in oil prices.According to Kamath, the only way to survive as a trader in this market is to make survival the first goal, not making money. “When you're getting whipsawed out of positions on both sides, and there's very little you can do in a headline-driven market, the most logical thing is to trade with smaller amounts of capital, reduce the risk in your account significantly, and wait for opportunities where you can actually make money rather than taking undue risk in a highly uncertain, highly volatile environment,” he said.“Trading is also inherently a lonely activity. And when you're constantly getting feedback in the form of profit and loss, it takes a mental toll. This was true even when I was actively trading,” he added. So, with a long weekend coming up, Kamath said he can't think of a better time to take a break, recharge, and come back to the “blinking red and green lights” with a fresh mind.(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)

Shares of Central Mine Planning & Design Institute (CMPDI), a subsidiary of Coal India, could be poised for near-term upside, according to analysts, as the stock made a subdued market debut on Monday. The shares listed at a discount of around 7% to their issue price amid weak investor participation and cautious market sentiment.The listing performance came after the IPO saw only modest traction, closing with an overall subscription of 1.05 times.Gaurav Garg, Research Analyst at Lemonn Markets Desk, said CMPDI’s weak debut reflects broader caution in the market.He noted that the stock listed at a discount of around 5-7% despite marginal grey market expectations, pointing to subdued retail participation and only modest subscription levels.While the stock saw a slight recovery after listing, Garg said the lack of strong demand suggests limited near-term upside. He added that investors may consider using any short-term bounce to exit, while fresh entries should be approached cautiously, with a wait-and-watch approach for price stability and signs of institutional accumulation.The listing underscores the current trend in primary markets, where even fundamentally strong companies are seeing tempered debut performances amid selective investor appetite and tighter liquidity conditions.Demand for the Rs 1,842 crore offer for sale was largely driven by institutional investors, with Qualified Institutional Buyers subscribing 3.48 times their quota. In contrast, retail participation remained muted at just 33%, indicating limited broader investor interest.CMPDI operates as a mining consultancy firm, providing services across coal and mineral exploration, mine planning, environmental management and geomatics. The company holds an estimated 61% market share in the coal and mineral consultancy segment in India and works closely with its parent, Coal India.Financially, the company has delivered strong performance, reporting revenue of Rs 2,178 crore and net profit of Rs 667 crore in FY25, with EBITDA margins exceeding 42%. At the upper price band, the IPO was valued at around 18-21 times earnings, which was considered reasonable given its profitability and asset-light model.However, the company’s heavy dependence on Coal India and the coal sector continues to be a key overhang, raising concerns around concentration risk and long-term sector dynamics. (Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)