nuclear-news

Space-based missiles, killer robots key to U.S. effort to gain orbital dominance.

By Bill Gertz – The Washington Times – Wednesday, February 11, 2026

The U.S. Space Force is accelerating the deployment of counterspace weapons under a new Trump administration policy aimed at reasserting and ensuring American dominance over China and Russia in any potential orbital conflict.

The force is deploying three electronic satellite jammers and racing to match the more advanced space forces of China and Russia, which include arsenals of anti-satellite weapons.

Space Force Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, chief of space operations, said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently set the goal for the U.S. military to dominate in space.

“And the Space Force was created to do just that,” Gen. Saltzman told The Washington Times. “The service has and will continue to invest in a full range of counterspace capabilities to deter conflict in space and to win decisively if called upon.

“Continuing to train and equip combat-credible Guardians is essential to maintaining our warfighting readiness,” he said.

Mr. Hegseth said in a speech to workers at the space company Blue Origin last week that the $25 billion being spent on the Golden Dome national missile and drone defense system would produce “cutting-edge, space-based capabilities which we are going to need.”……………….

“That is how we will establish total orbital supremacy,” he said.

Golden Dome systems are expected to support Space Force counterspace arms.

A Space Force spokeswoman declined to provide details on Gen. Saltzman’s plans for counterspace weapons, but at this point, the newest branch of the American military — the force was founded in 2019 under the first Trump administration — has only limited capabilities with counterspace systems. The force will be challenged to match enemy systems…………………….

Funding for counterspace weapons in the recently passed $890.6 billion defense authorization bill is relatively meager and does not appear to support a space dominance policy.

Procurement for counterspace weapons in the current fiscal year is $2 million, and the research, development, testing and evaluation budget for counterspace systems spending is $31.2 million, according to a funding chart in the defense authorization act.

Developing space weapons is a priority for the Pentagon because U.S. space systems, including high-altitude Global Positioning System satellites — used for GPS targeting and navigation in military operations, missile warning satellites and key imagery and communications systems — were not designed for conflict in space…………..

A Pentagon official said a presidential directive requires U.S. space superiority and therefore “American leadership in space is nonnegotiable.”…………………………..

“The Department of War has and will continue to invest in a full range of capabilities — kinetic, non-kinetic, reversible and irreversible — to restore deterrence and, if necessary, prevail in conflict.”………………………………………………

Charles Galbreath, a retired Space Force colonel, said Mr. Hegseth’s comments on space power dominance are “probably some of the most aggressive language I’ve heard ever, openly, about conflict in the space domain.”………………………………………………………..

The orbital playbook

Space Force plans for waging warfare in space are outlined in a March 2025 report, “United States Space Force Space Warfighting: A Framework for Planners.”

The report defined three main types of counterspace operations as control of space using both offensive and defensive action.

“Counterspace operations are conducted across the orbital, link and terrestrial segments of the space architecture,” the report said, creating effects aimed at “space superiority.”……………………

The combat will include “orbital warfare” using fires, movement and maneuver to control space.

Also used will be electromagnetic warfare to defeat enemy space and counterspace threats.

Cyberwarfare will be a major part of space combat, with strikes and other actions aimed at gaining control of space.

Offensive space combat will include orbital strike operations, pursuit and escort of satellites, standoff attacks, interdicting space communications links, and maneuvering killer satellites that can grab and crush enemy systems.

Orbital attacks will use “pursuit operations” with an attacking system maneuvering to an enemy spacecraft before firing weapons. Alternatively, the Space Force will use standoff operations — space-based or ground long-range missiles that attack without a nearby orbital rendezvous.

Space link interdiction will use electromagnetic or cybernetwork attacks……………………………………………

For electronic attacks, high-powered lasers and microwave weapons are being built, and some reports indicate that electromagnetic pulse arms could be used to damage satellite electronics without causing debris.

Emil Michael, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, stated in a X post that the Pentagon has directed energy weapons………………………………………………………………………………..

U.S. policymakers must take urgent action to ensure the United States wins the new space race and retains the strategic high ground that has long underpinned our military and economic leadership, the panel said. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/11/us-racing-build-space-weapons-counter-anti-satellite-power-china/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=threat_status&utm_term=threat_status&utm_content=threat_status&bt_ee=wjQ2GCMecOIl6%2Ftk98uhjTa%2F2aWCScEubIvYIkRk66Y0v%2FpyHece2aahuYzGEgHT&bt_ts=1770914789113

February 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hegseth calls for U.S. space dominance.

Trump’s War Department is returning to this illusory vision that hopes to erase the multi-polar world in favor of American global dominance. Thus, despite all the nice talk about negotiating with China, Russia, Iran and other BRICS+ nations, the US is stepping deeply back into the big muddy. This time though it includes a major league arms race in space.

For years China and Russia have been introducing a global ban on weapons in space treaty at the United Nations. The US and Israel have been blocking the development of such a treaty that would close the door to the barn before the horses get out.

 Bruce K. Gagnon , 7 Feb 26, https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2026/02/hegseth-calls-for-us-space-dominance.html

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth delivered an overly confident and aggressive speech at Blue Origin’s Rocket Park in Florida (owned by Jeff Bezos), emphasizing the strategic importance of space in U.S. war-making. 

Speaking to employees and big-wigs, Hegseth declared: ‘We will unleash American space dominance’. 

He underscored that space is the ultimate high ground, criticized the Biden administration, and praised the military initiatives of President Trump, highlighting the urgency of American leadership in the ‘space race’. 

This is not completely new as the US Space Command (and now the US Space Force) have long been calling for ‘America to come out on top’ in space.

He said, ‘We have a Commander in Chief who is interested in winning’.

The big difference these days is the current level of braggadocio and arrogance inside this administration.

‘We are just unleashing the war fighter to be lethal, disciplined, trained, accountable and ready’, he claimed.

Hegseth called it his ‘arsenal of freedom tour’ during the next month across the country. He declared that the administration intends to spend $1.5 trillion this year on war-making. ‘We will dominate in every domain’, he bragged.

Those funds include $25 billion to start work on Golden Dome – ‘total orbit supremacy’ he called it. ‘We have to dominate the space domain’.  

He congratulated ‘America’s deterrence in action’ at the US border, in Venezuela, Yemen, and Iran.

He described the Pentagon as a place where we ‘rip out the bureaucracy….and expedite innovation for the war fighter’.

This aggressive talk reminds me of an Iraq-war era speech by author Thomas Barnett where he told an assembly of Pentagon and CIA reps that America’s role in the coming years would be ‘security export’. He said at that time that we won’t make shoes, cars, refrigerators and the like. It is cheaper to produce those products overseas. Our role under corporate globalization will be to play the role of world policeman. 

Barnett declared that the Pentagon would go into nations not currently under our ‘control’ with overwhelming force – what he called ‘Leviathan’.  But the problem he said, is who will run these countries after we take them over?  

What we need he said is a force to run these nations after the initial take down.  He called this team ‘Systems Administration’.  Not too soon after watching his presentation I noticed that Lockheed Martin had received a huge contract to train ‘Sys Ad’ forces. Barnett said our ‘Sys Ad’ troops would never come home.

Barnett also claimed that the US would need legions of young people to go into the ‘Leviathan’ force and they would be easy to find because there are essentially no jobs in this country anymore.  He said that we need to recruit these ‘angry young men’ who wile away their time playing violent video games.  There is an endless supply of them across America.

Trump’s War Department is returning to this illusory vision that hopes to erase the multi-polar world in favor of American global dominance. Thus, despite all the nice talk about negotiating with China, Russia, Iran and other BRICS+ nations, the US is stepping deeply back into the big muddy. This time though it includes a major league arms race in space.

For years China and Russia have been introducing a global ban on weapons in space treaty at the United Nations. The US and Israel have been blocking the development of such a treaty that would close the door to the barn before the horses get out.

Trump appears to want to release all the war horses, and come what may, vainly attempt to make America ‘Mr. Big’ once again. 

Does his administration understand they are on a crash course with WW3 – total global annihilation?

There is always an Achilles’ heel.  In the case of the US it is our crumbling economy. Hegseth declares big dreams for global control. But where will the $$$ come from to pay for it? Do they intend to take Social Security for example?

Time will tell but in the meantime we all need to be on the case.

Protest and survive. Build resilience and hope. Keep paddling.

February 10, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Star Wars redux: the false promise of space-based missile defense

by Najam Ul Hassan, November 24, 2025, https://spacenews.com/star-wars-redux-the-false-promise-of-space-based-missile-defense/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Opinions%3A%20Is%20space-based%20missile%20defense%20a%20non-starter%3F&utm_campaign=Opinions%20-%202025-11-29

Star Wars is back in vogue with President Trump’s executive order to establish the “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. It will feature an ambitious space-based boost-phase interceptor program in addition to terrestrial systems. While admittedly the holy grail of defense against ballistic missiles, the obstacles that plagued its discontinued predecessor, “Brilliant Pebble,” under the Strategic Defense Initiative, remain unaddressed. The technological breakthroughs in launch capacity, decreasing costs of sending mass into space and faster data transfer have led to renewed hope for space-based missile defense, but the fundamental hurdle — physics, not technology — remains to be effectively overcome.

Recurrent interest in space-based missile interceptors (SBI) is driven by the motivation to neutralize the missile in the boost phase, contrary to the other air defense systems that intercept either in the mid-course or the terminal phase. This offers numerous advantages: it is substantially easier to detect and target as the booster has not detached yet, making the target bulkier; the plume from the burn makes it visible; its speed is slower compared to other phases; and the target has not hardened yet, making it more vulnerable. Once the missile enters the midcourse, it deploys decoys with a similar radar cross-section as the actual warhead, which float at similar trajectories, making it exponentially harder to achieve an effective kill. Additionally, the deployment of multiple warheads in case of a Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle or zig-zag moment of hypersonic glide vehicles adds another layer of complexity to successful interception.

However, this lucrative promise is heavily outweighed by the drawback of what could be termed the absenteeism problem in physics. These satellites, carrying kill vehicles, must be stationed in low Earth orbit (LEO) to reach the target in the boost phase, which only lasts from three to five minutes after launch. The fundamental problem is that objects in LEO cannot be parked above one point on Earth; they revolve around Earth, completing a cycle between 90 and 120 minutes. To cover the entire stretch of potential launching points and establish a genuinely global air defense, a constellation of 950 satellites has to be deployed, according to conservative estimates. The estimated cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, is $542 billion as opposed to the $175 billion claim by President Trump.

Not only is the scaling dynamic flawed, but the system is also easy to defeat. The constellation is easily overwhelmed by simultaneous launches. Even if each satellite were to carry more than one interceptor, the system still saturates quickly. Once that happens, instead of a linear increase in required satellites to intercept additional hostile launches, the requirement jumps exponentially, which is untenable. Besides, the enemy can simply punch holes in the chain by employing anti-satellite missiles, as the satellites can be tracked.

Furthermore, attempts to field even a limited number of SBIs for tests could pose a security dilemma for other states. These SBIs can be effective ASAT vehicles as they would require high thrust and maneuverability, allowing them to potentially reach and attack satellites in geosynchronous orbits. This can trigger an arms race of satellite-based weapons as well as counter-space capabilities, resulting in a net effect of added insecurity for all, including the U.S. itself, which depends heavily on its space capabilities. Challenging the effectiveness of an adversary’s deterrent would have profound strategic implications, at least insofar as it would either find qualitative ways to evade the newly developed defense architecture, or increase the number of their missiles to overwhelm the systems, or both. Ultimately, durable security cannot be achieved alone but in concert with others, including the adversary, and perhaps the only way to prevent attacks and ensure long-term stability remains deterrence by punishment.

The proposal for SBIs has also triggered sharp international reactions. China has already fielded its own “Golden Dome” prototype, which is essentially an early warning system with enormous big data computation ability, that uses the present capabilities in a more integrated and efficient manner, rather than seeking new platforms for interceptors. Criticizing the American approach, Beijing has asserted that SBIs would disturb “global strategic balance and stability” and turn “space into a war zone”, while Moscow has called it “very destabilizing.”

The desire to secure the homeland drives this saga, undergirded by the belief that technology could fundamentally alter defense logics. Yet despite significant progress in almost all the technological components needed to improve the cost-benefit equation, the physical — and perhaps insurmountable — barriers remain as formidable as they were three decades ago. The return to space-based interceptors thus reflects a recurring faith in technological solutions to strategic problems that are, at their core, governed by physics and deterrence. Rather than investing in an orbit-based missile shield that risks instability and imposes exorbitant costs, pursuing balanced security arrangements may offer a sustainable path toward long-term stability.

Najam Ul Hassan is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies, Lahore.

December 1, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment