The Frontier.
JWST "Cosmic Cliffs"
In Star Trek, space is famously referred to as "the final frontier",[1] a place mostly uncontested, unexplored and thus far unexploited for direct military purposes. However, its potential has always been acknowledged: the space race was fueled by science and propaganda as a façade, but it was also heavily supported as militaries realized how crucial space would be. [2] From communications to missiles that can fly faster and further than ever without being intercepted, the outer layers of the atmosphere have been the subject of many studies. Looking at the budgets of major militaries, especially that of the United States, it is easy to find a considerable amount of capital allocated to activities in this area. [3]
Critics have been vocal about the difficulties of using space weapons, as they are impractical, difficult to aim and extremely expensive. [4] However, the same criticisms were once levelled at aviation in the early years of military flying. The U.S. Space Force has been, to some extent, the laughingstock of the military branches, having a comedic Netflix series named after it. [5] However, after recent events, this view is set to change quite significantly.
During the Air & Space Forces Association conference at National Harbor, Maryland, on September 14, 2026, Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink declared in his opening keynote that the United States "now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action". He then proceeded not to expand on the matter or provide any details. [6]
This is the first time any serving Pentagon official has publicly confirmed the existence of developed American weapons in orbit.[7] Albeit not as spectacular or impactful as the revelation of the Manhattan Project, it certainly opens the door to an entirely new legal, political and financial discussion. This declaration is, however, too broad to support conclusive statements: it admits the existence of the systems but does not elaborate on the doctrine of use. It does, however, clearly state that everything done is fully compliant with international law, including the Outer Space Treaty and the law of armed conflict.[8]
A spokesperson for the U.S. Space Force later added some details on the doctrine, indicating that the weapons can contest the space domain through disruption, degradation and destruction, using kinetic and non-kinetic systems. [9] The international reaction to this news has so far been mixed. Victoria Samson of the Secure World Foundation described the statement as "destabilising", [10] while China's Foreign Ministry responded by invoking the Outer Space Treaty's peaceful-purposes provisions.[11]
On July 9, 1962, from Johnston Atoll, a Thor missile carrying a W49 thermonuclear warhead takes to the skies in what will be known as "Starfish Prime". [12] The latest invention out of Los Alamos is just one piece of the larger Operation Fishbowl, itself part of a bigger effort by the Atomic Energy Commission to study high-altitude nuclear testing. [13] After the explosion at around 400 km altitude, an EMP bigger than expected damaged around a third of satellites in low orbit and altered the composition of the upper atmosphere for years to come. [14] Following these tests, the US and the USSR signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, preventing the two superpowers from conducting further nuclear tests in space. [15]
In 1967, the Outer Space Treaty then prohibited the deployment of any weapon of mass destruction in orbit. [16] Finally, the 1972 ABM Treaty halted the development of any space-based anti-ballistic system. [17] However, the US withdrew from the latter in 2002. [18] Therefore, as of today, only weapons of mass destruction are effectively banned from being developed and deployed in space. The treaty's wording also limits its clauses against weapons to celestial bodies, not space itself. [19]
Another reason these treaties were drawn up was the test of the Tsar Bomba, the biggest nuclear weapon ever produced. [20] It led to building collapses, [21] radiation dispersed into the atmosphere all around the globe, radiation sickness, and a newly discovered contamination of glaciers now melting into the Bering Sea, which could poison a great number of fish destined for human consumption. [22] This event was criticized both internationally and domestically, [23] which is why the focus became stopping nuclear testing. The aim was to prevent the development and testing of much more powerful hydrogen bombs, such as the American Sundial, capable of flattening the entire territory of France [24] and poisoning the entire planet. [25] However, the legal framework failed to recognize the relevance of conventional ordnance. [26]
The US has since used political commitments as a substitute for the treaty it exited, such as the 2022 pledge not to conduct destructive direct-ascent ASAT tests. [28] The pledge was endorsed by UN General Assembly Resolution 77/41, by 155-9-9. [29] However, these commitments are not binding and are easily changed. [30] The initial reaction has been split. Russian and Chinese officials, such as Dmitry Peskov and Guo Jiakun, urged caution about a possible hostile development, [31] while American specialists point out that this is a long-standing commitment and that the reaction is excessive, given the lack of details. [32]
In 2024, the UN Security Council failed to unanimously support a PAROS (Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space) resolution. [33] In particular, Cassandra Steer criticizes the US for its lack of support on the matter, [34] which can be seen as undermining the efforts of the UN. It is also true, however, that other nations have not been especially supportive, [35] which makes the criticism of US behavior less impartial and objective. Ultimately, the political situation recalls the aftermath of the Trinity test and the Manhattan Project, when politics and strategic advantage became hard to reconcile. Before expanding on this theme, however, it is important to understand the financial background.
This situation changes the position of many players in global markets, as it opens up a new blue ocean. Companies such as SpaceX now take on new relevance because of their ability to deliver systems to orbit cost-effectively, [36] while Chinese competitors are rushing to develop their own launch vehicles to meet the new demand. [37] SPCX has been considered overvalued since its IPO. [38] If this new development program expanded, however, it would reshape demand and valuation, as the US government has a long history of very profitable contracts with its suppliers, and the company is currently the industry standard. [39]
Contractor lists are redacted; however, some names are already confirmed, such as L3Harris, with its existing Meadowlands system, which reached operational acceptance on June 26, 2026. [40] There is also another list: 20 names involved in future projects, such as the proposed "Golden Dome". [41] This is a prototype space-based interceptor system, and the list includes established names such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. [42] These are all well-established companies. However, there is a newcomer that has recently been the talk of the financial world: Anduril, [43] the creation of Palmer Luckey, [44] arguably the most successful of Peter Thiel's protégés. With his new approach of a private company focused on cheap, AI-driven, uncrewed systems, Luckey is reshaping the defense industry. [45]
Since the end of the Second World War, defense contractors have needed to be large companies, capable of investing huge amounts of capital and labor in development and production, as high R&D costs shut smaller firms out of big, lucrative contracts. [46] Anduril, on the other hand, is proving that modern technology can cut these costs, just as numbers become crucial in a race against China. At the same time, it is changing the financial side as well: by remaining private, it breaks with the tradition of public listing. [47] Both Luckey and Thiel seem convinced of this new approach, to the point that they co-founded Erebor Bank, which focuses on crypto, AI and defense startups. [48] Considering Thiel's track record in venture capital, it would not be surprising if these fields evolved into a new, profitable investment system, much more open to the average investor and closer to traditional institutions.
Space-based warfare has long been theorized, particularly through the concept of "Rods from God". This theoretical doctrine involves space-launched tungsten rods 20 feet long and 1 foot wide, [50] capable of destroying heavy, deep fortifications through kinetic force alone. [51] These weapon systems also fit extremely well within the legal framework, as they carry no explosive warhead, which places them in a grey area of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.[52] However, the sheer costs and complications caused the project to remain purely theoretical. [53]
Returning to the previous section, however, it is now clear that the financial burden can be reduced by using much more advanced and cost-effective deployment systems. [54] Problems with aiming and stabilizing the weapon itself still remain, however. [55] The diplomatic conundrum mentioned earlier rests on maintaining US weapons superiority. During the development of the first atomic weapon, data was kept from the other Allies in an effort to guarantee lasting American superiority in the years after the war. [56] This ultimately failed and caused a rapid escalation of the arms race, [57] and the same problem applies today.
In fact, US military doctrine is based on the quality of armaments, [58] especially as other superpowers, namely China, have proven capable of surpassing American production numbers, [59] and this is where the problem lies. Publicly disclosing the nature and status of the space arsenal would allow rival nations to gather data and develop systems of their own. At the same time, public opinion and scrutiny would slow production and deployment, widening the adversary's window to catch up with, and even surpass, the US.
On the other hand, keeping it concealed under more generic allocations of funds for military programs does not translate well in terms of transparency and international trust. This could damage international relations and start a new arms race to dominate this new battlefield.
Just as during the Cold War, the US faces a difficult choice between disclosure and concealment. Disclosure means losing its advantage while hoping that China, Russia and other rival powers choose to cooperate as well. Concealment would increase the deterrent value of the systems, but it would also create the conditions for a new arms escalation, and this time the US could not simply blame another country's actions, as it did with the Soviet Union.