The Next 100 Years

s pac e wa r fa re 
Regardless of the changes taking place in warfare, there is one thing that re­
mains unchanged: the commander on a battlefield must have knowledge of 
that battlefield. Even though the global battlefield may be radically different 
from the traditional battlefield, the principle of the commander’s knowl­
edge remains in place. On a global battlefield, command and control must 
be tied together with knowledge of what the enemy is doing and how your 
own forces are deployed. The only way to achieve this on a global battle­
field, in real time, is from space. An essential principle of warfare has always 
been to hold the high ground, on the theory that it provides visibility. The 
same idea holds true in global war. The high ground permits visibility, and 
here the high ground is space—the area in which reconnaissance platforms 
can see the battlefield on a continuous, global basis. 
Global war will therefore become space war. This is not by any means a 
radical change. Space is already filled with reconnaissance satellites designed 
to provide a large number of countries intelligence on what is happening 
around the world. For some, particularly the United States, space- based sen­
sors are already creating a global battlefield, identifying tactical targets and 
calling in air strikes or cruise missiles. The weapons systems have not yet 
evolved, but the platforms are already there and moving into maturity. 
Space provides line of sight and secure communications. It also provides 
clear tracking of hostile objects. Battle management will therefore move 
from earth to space as well. There will be space stations—command plat­
forms—at various distances out from the earth’s surface, tasked with com­
manding robotic and manned systems on land and at sea as they evade 
enemy attack, conduct operations, and attack enemy platforms. 
Blinding one’s enemy, then, would mean destroying the space- based sys­
tems that allow the enemy to select targets. In addition, there are naviga­
tional systems, communications systems, and other space- based systems that 
must be destroyed if an enemy’s capability to wage war is to be crippled. 
Therefore, the destruction of enemy satellites will become an essential goal 
of twenty-first-century warfare. 
It naturally follows, then, that defending one’s own satellites will be crit­
ical. The simplest way to defend a satellite is to allow it to maneuver out of 

---

181
p r e p a r i n g f o r wa r
harm’s way. But this is not as simple as it sounds. First, it requires fuel to 
maneuver a satellite, which is heavy and expensive to send into orbit. Sec­
ond, maneuvering won’t save a satellite from an anti- satellite (ASAT) system 
that can also maneuver, and certainly not from a laser beam. Finally, these 
are orbital platforms, placed in a certain orbit in order to cover the necessary 
terrain. Maneuvering shifts the orbit, degrading the satellites’ usefulness. 
Satellites must be protected, whether by deflecting the attack or destroy­
ing the attacker. By the middle of the twenty- first century this idea will have 
evolved in the mode of other weapons systems in history, and the result will 
be the satellite battle group. Like a carrier battle group, where the carrier is 
protected by other vessels, the reconnaissance satellite will be protected by 
auxiliary satellites with various capabilities and responsibilities, from block­
ing laser beams to attacking other satellites. The problem of defending 
space- based systems will escalate rapidly, as each side increases the threat 
and thereby increases defense measures. 
Weapons will also be fired from space to earth eventually, but it is more 
complicated than it appears. A weapon in space is moving at many thou­
sands of miles an hour, and the earth is rotating as well. Hitting a target on 
the surface of the earth from space is a capability that will develop more 
slowly than surveillance from space, but it will undoubtedly come to 
fruition eventually. 
A satellite costs several billion dollars. A space-based battle group will 
cost even more. Currently, except for relatively rare instances, a damaged 
or failed satellite is a total loss—no part of it is ever recovered. The more ex­
tensively space is used, the more valuable platforms will become and the less 
this total loss model will work. Particularly as space becomes a battleground, 
the need to repair space platforms will become urgent. And, to repair com­
plex, damaged systems, humans will have to go physically into space. 
Launching them into space each time a repair has to be done is inher­
ently inefficient, and launching spacecraft from earth will cost more than 
moving spacecraft already in orbit. At a certain point it will make more 
sense and become more economical to station personnel permanently in 
space to carry out repairs. Obviously, they will become targets themselves— 
and will have to have the capabilities to defend themselves. They will also be 
able to manage and oversee the space- based systems. 

---

182
t h e n e x t 1 0 0 y e a r s
The task of efficiently managing warfare from space is not limited to re­
pairing multibillion- dollar satellites quickly. The communications link from 
earth to space is complex, and subject to interference. Therefore, any enemy 
will try the most logical, and economical, attack first—disrupting commu­
nications between ground and space. This can be accomplished with low-
tech maneuvers—the simplest method might be the destruction of 
earth- based transmitters with car bombs, for example. Launch facilities 
might also be attacked. Assume that the two major U.S. launch facilities, 
Kennedy Space Center and Vandenberg Air Force Base, came under attack 
by enemy missiles, causing enough damage to shut down operations for 
months. The United States would be unable to launch more equipment, 
and whatever was already in space at the time of the attack would be all that 
was available. Maintaining those systems could mean the difference be­
tween victory and defeat. Therefore, having repair teams deployed in space 
will be critical. 
As we can see, space warfare is a tricky subject. The deeper we explore it, 
the greater the risk of sounding like science fiction, but there is no doubt 
that humans really will experience all this in the coming century. The tech­
nology is there—as are the strategic and tactical advantages. 
Space warfare, like naval warfare in the sixteenth century, will spread 
outward. Geostationary orbit is strategic, and therefore it will be fought 
over. But orbits will be only one strategic point of conflict. Another will be 
the surface of the moon. As far- fetched as it sounds, bases on the moon will 
provide a stable platform—not encumbered by an atmosphere—for observ­
ing both the surface of the earth and any conflicts occurring in space. It 
would take too long for a weapon on the moon to reach earth—probably 
days. But a signal would be able to reach a hunter- killer satellite moving in 
to destroy a repair facility in seconds. Sustaining and defending a base on 
the moon will actually be easier than doing the same for orbiting systems. 
Battles will be fought for control of low- orbit space, geostationary space, 
libration points (stable points between the earth and the moon), and the 
surface of the moon. The purpose of any battles, like all earthbound battles 
that preceded them, will be to deny an enemy the ability to utilize these ar­
eas, while guaranteeing a nation’s own military access to them. Treaties or 

---

183
p r e p a r i n g f o r wa r
not, where humanity goes, war goes. And since humanity will be going into 
space, there will be war in space. 
Controlling the world’s oceans from space will be critical. Even today, 
the U.S. Navy depends heavily on space- based surveillance for making the 
fleet effective. Building fleets to challenge U.S. naval dominance is extraor­
dinarily difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Mastering the technolo­
gies and operational principles of aircraft carriers can take generations. Most 
navies have abandoned any attempt to do so, and few will be in a position 
to attempt it in the future. But in the twenty- first century, control of the sea 
will be less dependent on oceangoing fleets than on space- based systems that 
can see enemy ships and target them. Therefore, whoever controls space will 
control the sea. 
Let’s turn our attention for a moment to robots. While I expect humans 
in space to maintain and command space- based warfighting systems, these 
will have to be augmented by robotic systems. Keeping a human being alive 
in space is a complex and expensive undertaking, and will remain so through­
out the century. Autonomous systems, though, are already common, as are 
remotely controlled systems. Unmanned space flight is routine. In fact, 
space is where much of the pioneering work on robotics has been done, and 
will continue to be done. The technology is sufficiently developed that the 
U.S. Department of Defense already has fairly advanced projects in this 
area. We will see—or are already seeing—robotic aircraft, repair modules 
for satellites, intelligent torpedoes at sea. Toward the end of the century a 
robotic infantryman for relatively simple tasks, such as rushing fortified po­
sitions to avoid human casualties, is quite likely. 
All of this leads to a vital change in warfare—actually, a reversion. Preci­
sion means there is no need to devastate.