{"id":12930,"date":"2026-06-24T03:24:02","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T03:24:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawahsolutions.com\/range\/space-force-must-prepare-for-all-out-warfare-think-tank-says\/"},"modified":"2026-06-24T03:24:02","modified_gmt":"2026-06-24T03:24:02","slug":"space-force-must-prepare-for-all-out-warfare-think-tank-says","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawahsolutions.com\/range\/space-force-must-prepare-for-all-out-warfare-think-tank-says\/","title":{"rendered":"Space Force must prepare for all-out warfare, think tank says"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Space Force needs to better define its policies regarding conflict in space and better rehearse for various scenarios, a new research paper argues.<\/p>\n

The paper flowed from a January workshop held by the Mitchell Institute. About 50 space experts envisioned various new ways that satellites and spacecraft might be used in gray-zone or even wartime conflicts. These included Russian cyber-attacks in Europe, jamming of U.S. satellites, the mysterious destruction of Cape Canaveral\u2019s bridges, the \u201crepositioning of a recently inoperable European commercial satellite without prior coordination,\u201d the deactivation of Midwestern power grids\u2014even an unattributed \u201cnuclear detonation\u201d in low earth orbit.<\/p>\n

But determining who is behind a space-focused strike and how the U.S. military should appropriately respond is often difficult, according to the Mitchell Institute\u2019s findings.<\/p>\n

\u201cSpace presents a uniquely complex warfighting environment. The global and technical nature of the domain complicates the understanding of and response to hostile acts,\u201d Mitchell Institute researchers wrote. \u201cAs a result, attribution, escalation management, and credible response selection are daunting. Further, actions taken in space rarely produce isolated or localized effects; instead, they cascade across geographic combatant commands, civilian infrastructure, and global equities.\u201d<\/p>\n

The U.S. Space Force is embracing a warfighting-focused identity and is pitching its largest budget in the service\u2019s six-year history. But as the Space Force grows, there continues to be a lack of norms and laws for how the military should respond to a variety of future attacks.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The increased ambiguity and difficulty of attribution for attacks makes it difficult for the U.S. to take decisive action, the report said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWorkshop discussions highlighted the inherent complexity of space as a domain that defies traditional geographic and legal constructs, complicates attribution, and enables adversaries to normalize coercive behavior below clear thresholds of armed conflict,\u201d the report said.\u00a0 \u201cParticipants emphasized that this ambiguity favors competitors by slowing decision-making and conditioning acceptance of increasingly hostile actions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Asian, European, and Middle Eastern theaters could all be targeted by space attacks. Participants discussed the possibilities such as \u201cregional GPS jamming disrupting airlines\u201d in U.S. Central Command, or China firing an anti-satellite weapon in the Indo-Pacific, causing the orbital debris to damage the International Space Station \u201ckilling a U.S. astronaut and positioning of satellites near U.S. systems,\u201d the report said.<\/p>\n

More direct attacks on the U.S. could also stymie the military\u2019s space operations. Other examples in the report included unattributed \u201cexplosions against all bridges connecting the mainland with Cape Canaveral\u201d that would cease missions at the Florida space complex or if a submarine \u201claunched a volley of 20 conventional ballistic and cruise missiles\u201d at key West Coast installations such as California\u2019s Vandenberg Space Force Base.<\/p>\n

Participants said space is \u201ca decision environment characterized by uncertainty and delay,\u201d according to the report. While determining the cause of certain space-based attacks and calculating a potential military response was complicated, Mitchell researchers said it is a necessary exercise that should inform space force policy.<\/p>\n

\u201cNone of this can remain theoretical. Guardians, joint force leaders, allies, and partners all need to train and exercise against these scenarios,\u201d Jennifer Reeves, a retired Air Force colonel and Mitchell Institute resident fellow said during a roundtable on Tuesday. \u201cRepeated exercises build familiarity, improve decision making, and help translate concepts into executable options.\u201d<\/p>\n

An enemy\u2019s space operations rely heavily on cyber attacks or jamming satellites, and often fall in the \u201cgray zone\u201d that dodges the laws of armed conflict. Participants said they believed \u201cthat U.S.-China interactions in space are firmly within the gray zone, characterized by actions that are coercive, often deniable, and deliberately calibrated to avoid triggering a decisive response.\u201d<\/p>\n

While the Mitchell researchers argued that the U.S. must \u201cbuild combat credibility by reducing ambiguity through clearer norms and frameworks,\u201d they also acknowledged there\u2019s some benefit to not having defined rules for space conflict.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile clearer expectations could help guide behavior and improve decision speed, establishing explicit thresholds presents trade-offs,\u201d the researchers wrote. \u201cClearly defined red lines risk constraining U.S. decision space while incentivizing adversaries to operate just below those thresholds, achieving meaningful effects without triggering a response.\u201d<\/p>\n

Charles Galbreath, a retired Space Force colonel and Mitchell\u2019s space studies director and senior resident, said during Tuesday\u2019s roundtable that \u201cthere really isn’t a lot legally prohibiting us from pursuing effective counter-space operations\u201d and added that \u201cwe need to make sure that we understand what our policies are and why they’re in place in such a way, and also not limit ourselves in terms of response options.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Mitchell Institute\u2019s research paper is the think tank\u2019s latest report advocating for the Space Force to adopt more aggressive strategies and policies. In May, researchers argued for putting troops on the moon to prepare for an in-person conflict with China and last year pitched the idea of putting guardians aboard critical assets in orbit.\n\n<\/svg><\/p>\n<\/div>\n