Are We Heading For “Pearl Harbor in Space”?

War Stories The Arms Race in Space Is Just Beginning By Enter your email to receive alerts for this author. Sign in or create an account to better manage your email preferences. Unsubscribe from email alerts Are you sure you want to unsubscribe from email alerts for Fred Kaplan? Sept 17, 20263:34 PM Getty Images Plus Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink declared this week that the United States has weapons orbiting in outer space. It was the first time a U.S. official has publicly acknowledged this fact. The questions, which went unaddressed, are what sorts of weapons they are, why he’s announcing this now, and—most important—what it all means for the broader issues of war and peace. Chinese and Russian spokespeople denounced Meink’s speech as a step toward “war in outer space.” This was not only predictable but also a sick joke. Both of those countries have been launching, orbiting, and testing weapons in space—devices designed to disable or destroy U.S. satellites—for more than a decade, to a degree and with a tactical sophistication that far outpaces anything we have done. And they have been doing this without publicly declaring anything. Retired Lt. Gen. John Shaw, who was deputy commander of U.S. Space Command until 2023 and is still active on boards and companies dealing with space security, told me in a phone conversation Wednesday that Meink’s remarks marked “not an escalation but a measured response” to what China and Russia have long been doing. That can’t be said of many of America’s arms races with other nations over the past 80 years, but it seems to be the case with this one. And an arms race in space, of some sort, now appears almost inevitable. For many years, and to an extent far greater than any other country, the U.S. military has depended on assets in space. Photoreconnaissance satellites spy on what adversaries are doing. Early-warning satellites detect attacks. GPS satellites transmit signals that guide “smart bombs” to their targets, connect communications networks, even tell troops on the ground and ships at sea exactly where they are. If some of these satellites get hacked, damaged, derailed, or destroyed, America’s ability to fight a war would be seriously degraded. That seems to be the intention of Russian and Chinese “space control” programs. It is widely thought that if the U.S. ever goes to war with Russia or China, the first shots would be anti-satellite attacks, complemented by cyberattacks against a wide range of computer and communications targets. In a cyberwar, the United States has much bigger stones but much glassier houses. In other words, we have a larger, more destructive array of cyberattack tools. However, our military forces, as well as our economy and social structures, are far more dependent on software networks—and therefore much more vulnerable to cyberattacks. In outer space, according to a former defense and intelligence official who still has high-level access to information on the subject, we are not only more vulnerable but outgunned. “The U.S. is absolutely vulnerable to a Pearl Harbor in space,” this person told me. “We’re getting better, but we’re not remotely able to do what we need to do to respond to the threat.” This former official said he doesn’t understand why Meink gave this speech; he doesn’t see what we gain from it and fears that Moscow or Beijing might respond by boosting their program. However, two retired officers, each of whom has dealt with space security, disagree. First, they doubt that Moscow and Beijing can do more than they’re already doing. Second, they see Meink’s remarks as, in the words of one former officer, “strategic communications—the beginning of a discussion about deterrence.” If that is the case, even the retired officers allow that Meink could have supplied more detail and context. He made his announcement during a Monday speech in National Harbor, Maryland, at the Air, Space, and Cyber Conference of the Air and Space Forces Association—an event that would certainly be covered by specialist publications. Here were his words: We are increasing readiness against existing threats, and the United States has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary action. To the general reader, the sentence might seem obscure and may have been so intended. To the aficionado, however, it marked a milestone. Some time ago, U.S. officials publicly said there were systems on the ground that could jam communications to and from satellites. Now Meink was saying we have systems that can do this “on orbit”—that is, while orbiting in outer space. Nor did he mention jammers specifically. He said we had “space-control weapons” (without defining what kind) that could defend “the Joint Force” (meaning the entire array of U.S. armed forces, in space and on Earth). Space Force, the service of the armed forces that deals with this topic, has defined space control as efforts to “destroy, disrupt, or degrade” vital assets in outer space. What kinds of weapons do this? Meink didn’t say, but the range can be inferred from published accounts about the kinds of space-control weapons that Russia or China has launched and tested. These include not just jammers that block or distort a satellite’s uplinks or downlinks, but also “laser dazzlers,” which blind imaging satellites; “co-orbital interceptors,” which collide with, grapple and move, or blow up near targets; and sprays that damage satellite cameras, sensors, or solar panels. It is likely that when Meink stated that we have “on-orbit space-control weapons,” he was referring to those sorts of weapons. He was not referring to President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome missile-defense program—though some elements of it might also apply to space control. Certainly he wasn’t referring to nuclear weapons in outer space, which are banned by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty—and which would be ridiculous anyway, because the blast, radiation, X-rays, and other effects would destroy many of our own satellites, commercial and military. (For the same reason, it’s hard to take seriously reports of Russian test nukes in outer space.) According to GlobalSecurity, a private nonpartisan research organization on defense issues, it’s unlikely Meink was talking about any sorts of “kinetic” weapons—i.e., weapons that unleash bullets or bombs—since the resulting debris could also be self-destructive. (The treaty outlaws “weapons” in space but doesn’t define the term, giving us and other countries a lot of leeway.) In a roundtable after his speech, Meink declined to get more specific except to say that he wouldn’t exclude “kinetic” weapons and that the weapons, whatever they are, could be used for offensive and defensive purposes (a subtle distinction, in any case). Nor would he state how long we’ve had these things in space, how thoroughly they’ve been tested, or other details. Others noted that the main point of publicizing the program is deterrence—to make clear to adversaries that we can respond in kind to any threats they might pose, which can be done without going into specifics on exactly what we can do. Meanwhile, the former defense and intelligence official told me, “Russia and China have been doing all of this. We’ve been doing some of it for decades, but mostly as R&D. Russia and China have been launching these things and testing them in very provocative ways.” He added, “They’ve not only closed the gap—they’ve demonstrated an ability to maneuver satellites and conduct operations that we cannot do.” Not only that; military agencies aren’t able even to detect some of this activity. “Commercial satellite companies, which provide the government with services, have detected Chinese activities and have alerted us. Otherwise, we’d be clueless about a lot of what’s going on.” This evolving and now possibly accelerating arms race in space should come as no surprise. Once a realm of life becomes a “domain” for military activity, it’s all but inevitable that weapons will be deployed to protect it. Over the decades, this has happened in the air, in the oceans, and in cyberspace, so why not in space? Back in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Security Space Strategy, declaring that outer space—previously considered a peaceful sanctuary—was “congested, contested, and competitive.” (Actually, this too merely acknowledged what had been true for some time.) It was hoped that conflicts could be managed through diplomacy or, if that didn’t work out, through military strategy. In 2014 and 2020, U.S. and Russian diplomats met to discuss possible treaties. Shaw, then still on active duty, led the American delegation. He later wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal lamenting that “the Russia delegation was merely groping for leverage against the U.S., its allies, and China.” Talks were going to continue, but Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 put an end to that chance. China has since pulled ahead as the dominant player in this new arms race. Will Trump and Xi Jinping discuss the issue at their Washington summit next week? Doubtful, given the more urgent issues on the table—and, likely, both leaders’ reluctance to place limits on any competitive activity. As is the case with A.I., it is a shame that just as a tempting technology is advancing to new levels at once alluring and dangerous, world politics are spinning out of control, relations between the major powers are deteriorating, and the United States—at one time the country best placed to moderate at least some of these tensions—is led by a president who not only is clueless on these matters but thinks he’s a genius. China Cyberwar Donald Trump Military Russia Space War