The top boss of the US Air Force (USAF) recently admitted that the Space Force has deployed weapons in space, a move likely to intensify tensions with China and Russia.
US Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said the country now possesses “on-orbit space control weapons” capable of defending US and allied forces.
Speaking at the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on September 14, Meink said: “Today we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist. This is why the United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action.”
Meink, the highest-ranking civilian overseeing both the Air Force and the Space Force established in 2019, declined to provide details on the weapons’ type, number, deployment timeline, or testing status.
“It is important from a deterrence perspective, but on the other hand, me talking about the details of what we’re doing would actually not benefit that deterrence,” he said. “So I’m not going to talk about the specifics of what we’re doing, whether we’ve tested or not tested, or anything else.”
The statement marks a shift from previous US emphasis on resilience and ground-based systems, and officially ends all speculation that it already had weapons in orbit.
Although he did not say what kind of weapons it has deployed, US Space Force doctrine emphasizes “space control,” described as the ability to contest and control the space domain using kinetic and/or non-kinetic means to disrupt, degrade, or destroy adversary capabilities. Thus, the deployed weapons can serve either offensive or defensive purposes.
Meink linked the deployment to threats from China and Russia, asking rhetorically whether anyone doubted those countries’ development of similar weapons.
“It is critically important that we maintain our dominance not only in the air but in space, and so we’ve had to take steps to make sure that when we’re threatened, we can take care of that,” Meink said at the conference, referring to the growing security threat by Russia and China.
These remarks come even as the US continues to accuse Russia and China of militarizing space and testing new offensive space capabilities.
Both China and Russia criticized the admission.
China’s foreign ministry responded to the U.S. announcement by accusing Washington of “preparing for war in outer space” and cautioning against transforming space into a battlefield or triggering an arms race there.
Meanwhile, in Moscow, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russia believes “space must be free of any weapon” and urged “the complete demilitarisation of space.”
US Weaponizing Space?
Notably, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit. However, it does not ban conventional weapons in space or the use of ground-based systems against orbital assets.
That treaty—formally the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies—is the foundational law of space. The United States, Russia, and China are all parties to it.
Its core weapons rule is Article IV, which forbids placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or other celestial bodies, or stationing them in outer space in any other manner.
The same article also requires that the Moon and other celestial bodies be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and bans military bases, weapons tests, and military maneuvers on those bodies. It does not ban conventional weapons in Earth orbit or ground-based systems that can attack orbital assets.
The treaty was written to keep nuclear war out of space. For decades, all major space powers have operated military spacecraft and developed counterspace tools without that activity being treated as an automatic treaty violation.
“Space control weapons” of the kind Secretary Meink described—if they are conventional kinetic or non-kinetic systems rather than nuclear or other WMD—fall outside Article IV’s prohibition. The treaty also does not bar the use of Earth-based lasers, jammers, missiles, or cyber tools against satellites.
The treaty does require that space activities be carried out in accordance with international law, including the U.N. Charter, and that states bear international responsibility for national activities in space, whether governmental or private. It does not, however, define “weapon,” ban the use of force from or through space in armed conflict, or create a general ban on “weaponizing” orbit.
A weapon placed in orbit can use a variety of methods to attack another platform or protect itself from impending threats, including offensive and defensive warfare.
US Space Force frameworks have previously referenced interest in both kinetic and non-kinetic effects, including orbital strike, which may include disrupting or destroying adversary satellites in orbit, and space-link interdiction, which centers around denying adversary use of space systems through non-kinetic means.
Modern militaries heavily depend on satellites, communications, missile warning, surveillance, and intelligence. This means any attack that destroys or disables them risks disrupting an entire military campaign.
More importantly, though, offensive space weapons could transform the nature of conflict as the opening engagement of a major war may no longer unfold on the ground, at sea, or in the air. Instead, it could start hundreds or thousands of kilometers above the planet, as nations race to disable the satellites that underpin modern military operations.
The US Space Force could use many non-kinetic options to destroy targets in space during a conflict. These include electronic warfare systems such as radio-frequency jammers or spoofers that interfere with satellite communications, links, or sensors without physical destruction, or directed energy weapons (DEWs) such as lasers and microwaves that neutralize a target without a kinetic strike.
It could also choose to be more overt and unforgiving, deploying physical interceptors or co-orbital systems designed to collide with or otherwise physically damage or destroy a target satellite in a kinetic strike, although these will create orbital debris. Notably, counterspace weapons also include direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) interceptors fired from the ground and other capabilities based within Earth’s atmosphere.
“While the specific systems remain classified, space control assets falls into three primary categories: Co-Orbital Electronic Warfare: Spacecraft capable of shadowing hostile satellites to jam their communications or GPS/navigation signals locally; Directed Energy / Lasers: Space-based systems designed to “dazzle” or permanently blind optical and infrared sensors on intelligence-gathering satellites; Proximity Operations & Manipulation: Inspection satellites equipped with robotic arms or localized thrusters that physically interact with, disable, or alter the orbit of an adversary’s spacecraft,” Group Captain Arvind Pandey (Retd), expert on geospatial intelligence and space told the EurAsian Times.
The United States has projected the need for these counter-space weapons to deter adversaries like China and Russia.
Deterring China & Russia?
The latest revelations raise crucial questions about the US weaponization of space and may also trigger an overt arms race in space, giving China and Russia clearer political and strategic justification to expand and accelerate the development of their own systems or encourage public admission of existing ones.
However, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink cited “evolving threats” as justification for deploying weapons in orbit, and directly referenced China and Russia’s development of space weapons. “Is there any question in the room, by anybody, about whether or not the Chinese or Russians have been developing these sorts of weapons?” he asked rhetorically, adding that the US had been expressing concern about this for over a decade.
The US Space Force also defended the weapons deployment, highlighting that China is building and fielding space and counterspace systems as part of a broader military modernization effort, while Russia regards space as a domain of warfare and considers achieving superiority there “decisive” in future conflicts.
China has conducted multiple direct ascent anti-satellite (DA-ASAT) missile tests since its maiden test in 2007.
In fact, Chinese DA-ASAT capability against LEO targets is likely mature and potentially operationally fielded on mobile launchers. However, Chinese DA-ASAT capability against deep-space targets (MEO and GEO) is likely still in the experimental or development phase, and insufficient evidence exists to determine whether it will become operational in the near future, as the EurAsian Times explained earlier in a detailed report.
China has launched satellites capable of “dogfighting,” or physically pulling other satellites out of orbit, as one means of combat in space. It also developed several non-kinetic anti-satellite offensive capabilities, such as ground-based lasers, jammers, cyber capabilities, and possible high-power microwave (HPM) weapons.
Last year, Gen. Chance Saltzman, Chief of US Space Operations, cautioned that China is quickly expanding its suite of counterspace weapons—ranging from ground-based lasers to satellites designed to seize other spacecraft—and that these systems represent a “grave threat” to the United States. “Aside from missiles, the PLA has fielded multiple ground-based laser weapons able to disrupt, degrade, or damage satellite sensors. By the mid-to-late 2020s, we expect them to deploy systems high enough in power that they can physically damage satellite structures,” he had stated at the time.
Russia, meanwhile, has conducted multiple tests of its Nudol (PL-19) direct-ascent anti-satellite system, one of which successfully destroyed a low-Earth-orbit satellite in 2021. It has also placed “nesting-doll” satellites in orbit that have closely trailed high-value U.S. spacecraft. In parallel, Moscow continues to develop electronic warfare systems, ground-based lasers, directed-energy weapons, and cyber-attack tools.
Not just that, US officials said Russia was developing a nuclear anti-satellite weapon that, if placed in orbit and detonated, could disable large numbers of satellites and make parts of low Earth orbit hazardous for years. “The Space Age will end when Russia launches its nuclear anti-satellite weapon into orbit,” said Rep. Mike Turner at CSIS in 2024.
“By design, the Pentagon wants potential adversaries to know that an operational defensive and offensive counterspace shield exists in orbit, without revealing how it functions. Disclosing exact specifications (such as frequencies, physical yield, or tracking systems) would allow rivals to develop countermeasures,” Group Captain Pandey said when asked whether the admission of placing weapons in space amounts to militarization of space by the US and if it could trigger an arms race.
“Meink’s emphasis on innovating faster than competitors highlights the rapid technological race between the US, China, and Russia. Because space capabilities can be upgraded or deployed faster than ground infrastructure, staying ahead depends on continuous deployment, autonomous software, and rapid launch iterations,” he added.
Amid what it perceives as a growing threat in the space domain, US Space Force leaders have argued for “integrated space fires” that include both non-kinetic and kinetic options to ensure survivability.
Last month, the US Space Force Gen. Stephen Whiting called for new “integrated space fires” capabilities, including both non-kinetic and kinetic options, underlining the need for “credible, acknowledged” means of damaging and even destroying enemy space assets if a war breaks out in orbit, as the EurAsian Times reported at the time.
“In space, there is no safe harbor. You can’t dig a trench or build a shield. Our satellites are consistently or predictably in an opponent’s weapons engagement zone. And we can build the most high-performing, exquisite satellites in human history, but if they depend on fragile, targetable supporting infrastructure, their performance will drop to zero on the first day of the next war,” he added, making a case for militarizing space.
The latest US announcement aligns with this and marks a shift from primarily discussing defensive resilience and ground-based tools to openly acknowledging on-orbit capabilities.
- Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
- Follow EurAsian Times on Google News
