WHY SPACE IS INTEGRAL TO SOVEREIGNTY
Future military advantage will belong to the state capable of maintaining coherent decision making under conditions of disruption, uncertainty and degraded access to space
Space has become so fundamental to modern military power that most nations rarely consider what happens when it stops working.
For three decades, the West has operated within a largely uncontested orbital environment. Satellites quietly enabled precision strike, strategic communications, intelligence collection and global coordination while military planners focused their attention elsewhere. Space was treated as an enabler rather than a battlespace. The infrastructure overhead was assumed to be persistent, reliable and largely immune from interference.
That assumption now looks increasingly dangerous.
Modern armed forces are dependent on space systems to function. Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) enables everything from precision-guided weapons to logistics coordination and manoeuvre. Satellite communications underpin command and control across dispersed theatres. Space-based Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) compresses the sensor to shooter timeline to near real time. If any of those systems are removed or degraded then even highly advanced militaries begin to lose tempo, and coherence and confidence drops remarkably quickly. Just ask Ukraine.
The same dependency exists across civilian society. Financial transactions rely on satellite timing signals. Telecommunications networks depend on orbital infrastructure. Energy distribution, shipping and global supply chains increasingly sit on top of systems operating hundreds of kilometres above the earth. The UK government estimates that space-enabled services contribute hundreds of billions of pounds annually to the British economy. Much of modern society now rests upon infrastructure that most people never see and few policymakers truly think about until disruption occurs. The UK’s adversaries, however, have thought about it extensively.
Russia and China have spent the better part of two decades studying how Western militaries generate combat power and deploy it. They have reached a fairly obvious conclusion: the West relies heavily on an unprotected and uninterrupted access to space. That is why both Russia and China have invested heavily in counterspace capabilities spanning direct ascent anti-satellite weapons to cyber operations, electronic warfare and increasingly sophisticated co-orbital systems.
Yet perhaps the most important lesson emerging from recent conflicts is that satellites do not necessarily need to be destroyed physically to become strategically ineffective. A satellite parked in a specific regime will create enough of a strategic dilemma for an adversary by restricting its freedom of manoeuvre, and that alone is enough sometimes.
Ukraine has demonstrated this repeatedly. GPS disruption and electronic warfare have affected targeting, degraded drone operations and complicated force coordination across the battlespace. But the deeper problem is psychological as much as technical. Once military operators lose confidence in the information environment itself, decision making slows. Operational tempo deteriorates. Forces become less willing to act decisively because they no longer fully trust the data they are receiving. This matters because modern warfare increasingly revolves around speed and coherence rather than simply mass.
THE SPACE DOMAIN IS TRANSITIONING FROM AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT INTO A CONTESTED OPERATIONAL THEATRE
During recent operations in the Middle East, forces were able to prosecute large numbers of targets across dispersed geography because space-enabled ISR, communications and targeting networks compressed the sensor to shooter loop to near real time. The operational advantage did not come from one aircraft, one satellite or one headquarters. It emerged from the ability of the network itself to sense, process and coordinate joint actions faster than the adversary could react and that is precisely why orbital infrastructure has become such an attractive target.
That is why space architectures traditionally prioritised efficiency and performance over survivability. Capability became concentrated into relatively small numbers of exquisite satellites, each representing years of development and substantial financial investment. These systems remain technologically extraordinary, but they are also strategically fragile. In a contested environment, concentrated capability creates concentrated vulnerability.
The obvious response is to centre around proliferation. Launch larger constellations. Build more satellites. Spread the risk. But scratch a little deeper and all this does is extend the attack vectors.
A constellation composed of hundreds or even thousands of satellites that still depends upon centralised command and control, vulnerable communications links or fragile ground infrastructure inevitably becomes a larger and more complex target set. Worse, mass proliferation introduces systemic burdens of its own. More satellites create more congestion, more telemetry, more coordination requirements and greater dependence on networks that may themselves be contested.
This reflects a broader misunderstanding about the future character of orbital warfare. The decisive outcome is unlikely to come from the satellite bus itself. It will increasingly be the autonomy governing how distributed systems sense, fuse and react under pressure. Quantity without adaptability risks creating distributed fragility rather than distributed resilience. Therefore, future space systems must be designed from the outset to operate in environments where communications are degraded, intermittent or denied entirely. This points to the inevitable; satellites will increasingly require the ability to manoeuvre independently, prioritise tasks autonomously, reroute communications dynamically and coordinate with neighbouring systems without persistent humans in the loop.
There are now more than 10,000 active satellites in orbit, with tens of thousands more expected over the coming decade. Human operators cannot alone realistically monitor every interaction, assess every anomaly and coordinate every response manually at that scale or speed. Space warfare, much like cyber operations and integrated air defence before it, is moving steadily toward machine-speed decision making.
Future orbital operations will therefore require something closer to mission command adapted for machine-speed warfare. Human operators will increasingly define intent, constraints and strategic priorities, while distributed autonomous systems execute tactically within those boundaries. In practice, this means resilience will not depend on having more satellites, but on whether those satellites can continue operating coherently when isolated, disrupted or partially degraded.
This is where comparisons with maritime distributed operations and mosaic warfare become increasingly relevant. Modern navies long ago recognised that survivability emerges from adaptive networks rather than singular platforms. Integrated air defence systems function because sensors, shooters and command nodes distribute awareness and decision making across the wider architecture. Space is and should be moving in the same direction.
The challenge is that most institutions still largely think about space through industrial-era procurement logic. Traditional acquisition models prioritise exquisite systems, lengthy development timelines and tightly controlled operating concepts. Yet the future orbital environment increasingly rewards adaptability, replenishment and software-driven autonomy over singular technological perfection.
In many respects, the future of military space power may resemble resilient software architecture more than traditional aerospace engineering and this, without doubt also reframes the question of sovereignty. Strategic autonomy in space requires the sovereign ability to design, manufacture, launch, replenish and defend orbital infrastructure at scale. A nation unable to replace orbital losses or sustain operations independently during prolonged disruption will face immediate strategic constraints regardless of how advanced its individual systems appear on paper. For decades, European security has operated inside a broader American-enabled space architecture. That arrangement may well endure. But prudent strategy cannot rely entirely upon permanence. The geopolitical environment is becoming more uncertain, not less. Europe increasingly requires sovereign and resilient orbital capability not because alliances are collapsing, but because resilience demands optionality.
This extends beyond defence into industrial capacity itself. This is true of any domain, yet orbital resilience depends on launch infrastructure, manufacturing depth, secure supply chains, software capability and the ability to sustain operations during prolonged competition. States that lack these foundations may find themselves operationally dependent at precisely the moment strategic independence is challenged.
At the same time, the distinction between civilian and military infrastructure in orbit is becoming progressively less meaningful. Commercial communications satellites already support military operations. Commercial earth observation systems contribute directly to targeting and battlespace awareness.
Orbital infrastructure is becoming simultaneously economic infrastructure, military infrastructure and strategic infrastructure all at once. That convergence changes the character of deterrence itself meaning future deterrence in space will depend less on threatening retaliation and more on demonstrating resilience.
The objective increasingly becomes convincing adversaries that disruption will fail because the wider architecture can absorb damage, adapt dynamically and continue functioning coherently under pressure. In this sense, the most important measure of military space power may not just be how much capability a nation can place in orbit, but how effectively that capability can survive contested conditions.
Ultimately, this is the central strategic issue confronting defence planners. The space domain is transitioning from an enabling environment into a contested operational theatre characterised by persistent competition, compressed timelines and systemic vulnerability. Yet much of the existing architecture, doctrine and procurement thinking still reflects assumptions formed during a very different era.
Future military advantage will belong to the state capable of maintaining coherent decision making under conditions of disruption, uncertainty and degraded access to space. That is the real challenge now emerging overhead. The question is whether nations can adapt their architectures, institutions and industrial bases quickly enough to remain operationally coherent once that contest intensifies further.
Read more
