Space: The Final Domain

The United States’ public announcement of space-control weapons risks intensifying strategic competition with China and Russia. Through the lens of the security dilemma, this article examines how military dominance, diminishing strategic ambiguity and reciprocal threat perceptions could accelerate an arms race in space.

Once upon a time in the realm of Science Fiction, Space constituted Captain Kirk’s final frontier, a realm of wonder and the unknown in a far distant future. But reality appears to be catching up with fiction faster than one could have anticipated. On Monday the 14th of September US Secretary of the Air Force Dr. Troy Meink stated, “The United States now has in orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action” (Air & Space Forces Association, 2026). What we will explore in this analysis are the implications of this very public statement in the context of the security dilemma and the resulting fears of a new arms race. The fundamental problem argued in this analysis is rather than the existence of such weapon systems, the necessity of great powers to compete for security once such public challenge has been made.

Spacebound weapons aren’t new phenomena, but have been an active security challenge for leaders since the Cold War. Neither the US nor USSR were strangers to it with both sides actively pursuing such capabilities. A declassified CIA report regarding the Soviet space program published in 1983 stated that, while the USSR’s capabilities were partially inferior to the technologically more sophisticated US program, they had reportedly fielded ASAT-capable orbital interceptors, lasers and EW technology (Central Intelligence Agency, 1983, p. 7). The United States’ most famous space weapons project would have been President Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative, which had the aim to deploy weapon systems in space which could overturn MAD through reliable missile defence (Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, n.d.). Contrary to today’s reporting, ASAT capabilities are not a new threat emerging from China and Russia, but a natural evolution within the defence landscape, with state actors improving on their capability to deny access to space to their opponents.

The Security Dilemma in Space

Space has yet to become an active combat domain, loss of access to space would severely diminish a modern army’s ability to conduct Multi-Domain Operations due to the reliance on information and communication technology (NATO Allied Command Transformation, n.d.). The strategic implications of losing access to the space domain therefore constitute a security dilemma for great powers which need to possess both tools to defend their own orbital systems and potentially strike at their opponents. The term “security dilemma” stems from John H. Herz work “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma” (Herz, 1950). At its core, the “security dilemma” is the understanding that in an essentially anarchic world order without omnipotent power imposing law, groups or – in our case, nations – are always concerned with their own security. The threat of being attacked or subjugated by stronger enemies drives groups to improving their own security. The dilemma being those improvements to their own security or even a guarantee is always at the expense of others (Herz, 1950, pp. 157–180). Those nations in turn then start to require more security, fuelling a buildup of military hardware, an arms race. The naval arms race accompanying the build up to the First World War and the nuclear arms race throughout the Cold War are both prime examples of the security dilemma in practice (Slantchev, n.d., p. 5; Jervis, 1978). Within the context of space, the power dynamics between the primary actors of China, Russia and the United States, as well as their motivations, are very apparent. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has enjoyed an unprecedented dominance across domains, including space, through its more than 10,500 satellites of which at least 240 are designated as military hardware (Orbital Radar, 2026). To China and Russia, who field less than 3300 satellites collectively, the American dominance of space presents a threatening prospect, even accounting for unknown or secret military satellites (Kruczek, 2026).

Furthermore, civilian systems that are already in place can easily be repurposed into military systems, such as has been demonstrated in the use of Starlink satellites in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war (Ogden et al., 2024). Within the context of the security dilemma, China and Russia are fighting an uphill battle against a disproportionally more dominant competitor in the space domain. Attempts to level the playing fields through a massive increase of their own satellites in space would both be financially ruinous and incite a response from the USA to retain its dominance. The development and deployment of weapons and technologies capable of disrupting or practically denying the US free access to the domain is therefore a logical strategic step aimed at providing them with more security. While such steps are logical for these state actors to take, the US, following the principles of the security dilemma we laid out earlier, cannot permit their critical space-based systems to be threatened and therefore will enhance its military capabilities. These processes of development in military strategy are not even noteworthy as for each tool developed a countermeasure is created and vice versa.

How Public Disclosure Could Accelerate an Arms Race

But what then separates the official announcement of possessing such abilities by the US, form the already “naturally” occurring build up between the great powers? The difference is that before a public announcement created a new status quo, tensions were limited by the fact that neither side would have wanted to kick off an arms race. With the public announcement, ambiguity was lost, forcing both Russia and China to consider expanding their capabilities if they wished to maintain some level of security. Acknowledging and thereby permitting without counteract the placement of a rival weapon system in space would mean to concede the domain and risk total vulnerability. While Beijing’s warning to the US not to start another arms race must be viewed on the context of their own weakness in the domain, the claim is not invalid (Baptista, 2026). We will most likely see a new arms race in space now that the US cast the first stone, capitalizing on its own dominant position in the domain. Here lies the crux of the matter; had the US chosen not to announce such weapons, all parties could have pretended they were not there slowly building up their own capabilities. Instead, by opting for a public show of force the US in effect forces its rivals, which were challenged in public to address their own lack of security. Agreement like the Outer Space Treaty signed by the US, Russia and China may still stand in place to prevent the stationing of WMD’s in space but there are other tools (United Nations, 2002, p. 5). Now that the genie is out of the bottle, Russia and China will have to ask themselves how long it will be until the US weapons may evolve from targeting only other spacebound assets, to employing their new dominance in space to project kinetic power directly over terrestrial battlefields. Realisation of Project Thor and the “Rods from God” would present a paradigm shift in which orbital bombardment can be used to overcome missile defences and destroy vulnerable targets from command-and-control notes to the nuclear forces (Stilwell, 2020). It is important to note that we are not intending to denounce increasing worries around the militarisation of space as misguided alarmism, or to denounce America for developing weapons in response to threats to their security. The aim is to highlight how the security dilemma leads to a potentially unsustainable and dangerous arms race when applied to an arena in which military development has been historically tame at best, such as space. Rather than focusing on assigning blame, we ought to consider the possibility of the ratification of a new Outer Space Treaty, and whether the principles of MAD might be applied here as they were with nuclear arms, to maintain peace (United Nations, 2002).

The Risks of Strategic Dominance

As we had learned during the Cold War, Americas initial monopoly on nuclear weaponry fuelled Soviet paranoia who then moved to restore parity (Burton, n.d.). Russia and China will be forced to quickly catch up and place their own weapons in space thereby giving the US a need to increase their own presence. Once the arms race is underway in earnest, we can only hope that the actors involved arrive at an understanding that MAD is the only real outcome at which both sides realise there is no secure strike and any attempt to overturn such situation may result in catastrophe. Taking Reagan’s “Star Wars” program as an example here, had the US succeeded in their efforts, the USSR would have been in a state of absolute vulnerability, forcing either a desperate scramble to restore some semblance of own security or a pre-emptive strike to head off the expected American attack (Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, n.d.). Absolute security may sound appealing, but it ignores the state of absolute vulnerability other parties must endure while giving their own leadership a much greater sense of security when planning “guaranteed” military actions without reprisal. In the international system, balance guarantees peace while dominance invites dangerously belligerent behaviour.

References

Air & Space Forces Association (2026) ‘Keynote Address—Advancing Combat Power in Air and Space’, Air, Space & Cyber Conference, 14 September. Available at: https://www.afa.org/air-space-cyber-conference/2026-agenda/ (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

Baptista, E. (2026) ‘China warns US space weapons could fuel arms race’, Reuters, 16 September. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/china-warns-us-space-weapons-could-fuel-arms-race-2026-09-16/ (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

Burton, K.D. (n.d.) ‘Cold Conflict’, The National WWII Museum. Available at: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/cold-conflict (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

Central Intelligence Agency (1983) The Soviet Space Program. National Intelligence Estimate 11-1-83, 19 July, p. 7. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP00B00369R000100050007-1.pdf (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

Herz, J.H. (1950) ‘Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma’, World Politics, 2(2), pp. 157–180.

Jervis, R. (1978) ‘Cooperation under the security dilemma’, World Politics, 30(2), pp. 167–214.

Kruczek, T. (2026) ‘The 10 countries with the most satellites in orbit’, KeepTrack, 7 October. Available at: https://keeptrack.space/top-10/10-countries-with-the-most-satellites (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

NATO Allied Command Transformation (n.d.) ‘Multi-Domain Operations’. Available at: https://www.act.nato.int/activities/multi-domain-operations/ (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

Ogden, T. et al. (2024) ‘The role of the space domain in the Russia-Ukraine war and the impact of converging space and AI technologies’, Centre for Emerging Technology and Security, The Alan Turing Institute, 23 February. Available at: https://cetas.turing.ac.uk/publications/role-space-domain-russia-ukraine-war (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

Orbital Radar (2026) ‘United States satellites in orbit’, last updated 6 October. Available at: https://orbitalradar.com/satellites/country/united-states (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

Reagan Presidential Library and Museum (n.d.) ‘Star Wars and SDI: Defending American and the Galaxy’. Available at: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/upcoming-exhibit/star-wars-and-sdi-defending-american-and-galexy (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

Slantchev, B.L. (n.d.) ‘Lecture 10: The Security Dilemma’, p. 5. [Incomplete reference: add the course or institution, publication date if available, and URL or other publication details.]

Stilwell, B. (2020) ‘These Air Force “Rods from God” could hit with the force of a nuclear weapon’, Military.com, 22 December. Available at: https://www.military.com/off-duty/2020/12/22/these-air-force-rods-god-could-hit-force-of-nuclear-weapon.html (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

United Nations (2002) United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space. ST/SPACE/11. New York: United Nations.