The Future of Space Warfare, Atlantic Council Style (Patreon)

I was back at the Atlantic Council on August 13, 2025, for a panel discussion dubbed "Experts read between the lines of the US Space Force’s warfighting framework." Originally, the keynote speaker was to be a chap called Jonathan Farrow, OBE. But Farrow canceled, surely to my eternal regret.

At this point, my bonafides as a diehard Dr. Strangelove fan are beyond reproach. And here I was, set to listen to an honest-to-goodness Royal Air Force Officer who's actually serving in the Officer Exchange program, on loan to the US Space Force. He was even going talk about Armageddon, albeit with space weapons rather than nukes. But still.

There's irony, and then there's this. And the Atlantic Council denied me --the bastards.

Truth be told, I think the Atlantic Council is already starting to grow weary of my visits. The event was scheduled for four hours, but they wrapped up after one. At that point the panel shuffled into a private elevator, which took them to another location to continue to the discussions with other VIPs.

Suffice to say, they wouldn't let me tag along. The crowd for this outing was a fraction of the last event I attended, yet there was security visibly present this time. Moderator Clementine G. Starling-Daniels even shot daggers at me when we briefly locked eyes. I'd have offered to buy her a cup of coffee if I wasn't reasonably certain I would be tazed had I tried to speak to her afterwards.

As for the event, the purpose was to discuss the US Space Force's recently unveiled Space Warfighting: A Frame for Planners and how it would be marketed. Controversy was expected, as was made clear from the beginning.

The festivities began with opening remarks by General James E. "Hoss" Cartwright. "Hoss" gained infamy back in 2013, when he was accused of leaking classified information about the US-Israeli Stuxnet virus that was used to target Iranian nuclear facilities. This was of course coming against the backdrop of Obama's attempted détente with Iran. Ultimately, Hoss plead guilty is 2016, but to making a false statement to the FBI rather than the more serious charges. Obama pardoned him exactly four months later, on his way out of office.

At least Hoss and I have something in common: we've both plead guilty to a crime, though I never got a presidential pardon. But if I ever get the opportunity to speak with the general, at least I've got a conversation starter.

As for Hoss' remarks, they were pretty perfunctory. He mostly focused on the origins of the Space Force, briefly touching on the clashes the Joint Chiefs of Staff had with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld over whether it would become a separate branch or have a relationship with the Air Force like the Navy and Marine Corps. Obviously, the JCS prevailed.

By far the most interesting statement General Hoss made was in regard to the cultural shift in terms of the offensive emphasis the Special Force was acknowledging. This was the first time the Space Force had formally articulated its' offensive capabilities. The US, along with Russia, India, and China, are the only countries that have acknowledged testing destructive space weapons (per the panel). The USSF clearly wants to highlight its options:

As panel participant Peter Hays acknowledged, the Space Force emphasis on total air superiority will be especially controversial in this regard. He defined superiority as having full capabilities while denying an adversary there's. In theory, even a stalemate, in which both opponents denied each other's capabilities, would be disadvantageous for the US.

If that weren't enough, they also insisted that restrictions on the Rules of Engagement had to be eased:

What the panel actually said was even more striking. Jennifer Cannon insisted that technology had transformed warfare to the point that decisions policy makers previously had days or even weeks to mull over now had to be decided in seconds. To facilitate this process, the panel was adamant that decision making had to be moved from the White House to the lower levels. Basically, the DoD needs more autonomy and less civilian supervision in deciding when to start humanity's first interstellar war.

Interestingly, the panel was very big on further declassifying the US's space capabilities. Per the panel, the hope is that this would spur China and Russia to do the same. The thinking is that we must have some kind of mutually assured destruction (MAD) doctrine for space to achieve détente, and this can only be managed if we all know we're totally fucked if we start a war in space.

Victoria Samson made some surprisingly blunt statements. She acknowledged the US is internationally viewed as a bad actor in space --The perception is that we're driving the weaponization. Changing the narrative and shifting blame to Russia and China is thus an ongoing concern. But even then, she blatantly acknowledged that the US's obsession with space "interceptors" is fueling the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) among America's rivals. She also noted the staggering damage the first six month's of Trump presidency has done to "international partnerships" --i.e. the European Union. Samson saw the Europeans as increasingly seeing America as a rival. I would not disagree as far as Trump 2.0 is concerned.

By far the most interesting comments made were in regard to Elon Musk. Hays actually accused him of toppling the Westphalian order. As Peter told it, since the Peace of Westphalia nation-state's had a monopoly on force. But that was no longer the case. Now, if Elon denies the DoD access to his technology, they have to scrap the operation.

No, I'm not joking --this was the actual implications of Hays' comments. The panel was weary of Musk the entire time, highlighting the US' vast advantages in the commercial space industry while noting Musk's "quirks." But after Hays got all Westphalia in discussing Musk, Cannon was quick to jump in and insist SpaceX's collaboration with the DoD were like Starksy & Hutch. It was a wee bit awkward, to put it mildly.

This jives with recent reports. After the Trump-Musk feud, the White House reviewed the possibility of ending some of SpaceX's contracts. Instead, it was determined that it would be almost impossible to end any contracts because of how critical they were to the DoD and NASA. As for the panel, it was Musk's decision to bogart the Starlink in Ukraine that really chapped their ass.

The swipes at Musk's remained me of a recent analysis of the Big Beautiful Bill offered up by The Gray Zone. There, a possible brewing civil war in the military-industrial complex was discussed. For years, the "Big Five" --Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman --have dominated the MIC. They're mostly engaged in heavy manufacturing, especially the aerospace industry. Their reign has been nearly unchallenged for decades, but Silicon Valley --and especially the PayPal Mafia --is upending everything.

As the DoD becomes ever more dependent on tech, the traditional powerhouses seem to be on the outside looking in. It's a dramatic, but not unexpected, reversal. The earlier tech barons like Bill Gates or the Google executives engrained themselves with the neo-liberal establishment. While they certainly profited from defense work, they kept it at enough arms' length so not to interfere with their business in foreign nations.

In contrast, Peter Thiel went all in with the national security establishment following 9/11. While Apple, Microsoft, and Google may have been the early winners, Thiel and Musk were playing a long game. Palantir is every bit as indispensable to the surveillance state as SpaceX is to space warfare. As the military's dependency on technology increases, this state of affairs is only going to become more institutionalized. The first six months of Trump's presidency have ensured this.

Game, set, match.