Saltzmans farewell warning: Prepare for war in space to preserve peace
Gen. Chance Saltzman in his final public address as chief of the U.S. Space Force warned that a conflict extending into orbit would expose the satellites of every nation, arguing that the best way to deter such a war is to build military forces capable of fighting and prevailing in space.
"Whether we want to be in the combat zone or not, orbital mechanics will put all of our space capabilities in a space war zone," Saltzman said July 15 at the Global Air & Space Chiefs' Conference in London. "We will share the consequences. Therefore, we should share the responsibility for a safe, secure, and stable space domain."
The address amounted to a strategic summation of Saltzman's nearly four years leading the military's newest service. During his tenure, the Space Force moved beyond its early struggle to establish an identity separate from the Air Force and concentrated more explicitly on preparing for combat against China and Russia.
Saltzman, who plans to retire next month after a 35-year military career, became the second chief of space operations in November 2022, when the Space Force was less than three years old. The service was still widely viewed as the organization responsible for providing communications, navigation, missile warning and other support to forces fighting on Earth.
Those missions remain central to the Space Force. But Saltzman increasingly argued that they could no longer be assumed to operate without interference. China and Russia are developing systems capable of jamming, disabling or destroying satellites, while their own militaries become more dependent on spacecraft for targeting, communications and battlefield surveillance.
The result has been a shift toward what the service calls space control: protecting U.S. and allied access to orbit while retaining the ability to deny an adversary the advantages provided by its own space systems.
Saltzman's "Competitive Endurance" strategy called on the service to avoid operational surprise, deny adversaries the benefit of striking first and develop counterspace capabilities that could disrupt enemy operations without creating dangerous orbital debris. The approach seeks to balance the need to achieve space superiority with the risk that widespread destruction of satellites could render parts of orbit unusable to militaries, companies and civilian agencies alike.
Thoughts on deterrence
In London, Saltzman said military commanders should spend less time trying to calculate what might dissuade an adversary and more time building forces capable of defeating an attack.
Deterrence depends on an adversary's perceptions, calculations and motivations, he said - factors that are difficult to measure. A military force preparing to defend against an attack can work from more concrete questions: how many weapons an adversary has, where they might be launched and what they are likely to target.
Military leaders should therefore concentrate on being able to "defend, if necessary, even disrupt, degrade and destroy," Saltzman said.
"If we have the capabilities to do this, it will be seen as a combat credible force, which should create a deterrent effect," he said. "And if it doesn't, we will be prepared to effectively respond to the aggression."
The distinction reflects an evolution in how the Space Force talks about its role. The service emphasizes resilience - building constellations that could absorb an attack and continue operating. Under Saltzman, it also began speaking more openly about offensive and defensive operations intended to prevent enemy satellites from tracking U.S. troops, guiding missiles or passing targeting information.
Saltzman's argument is that deterrence is a consequence of military capability, not a mission that can be accomplished through declarations alone. Preparing for combat, in this view, makes an attack less attractive while preserving the ability to respond should deterrence fail.
An appeal to allies
Unlike forces on land, at sea or in the air, satellites regularly pass over multiple countries and operate within shared orbital regimes. A government that stays out of a terrestrial war couldn't necessarily insulate its spacecraft from jamming, debris or other effects if the conflict expanded into space.
"I believe space is the ultimate team sport because the orbits that we rely on do not adhere to national boundaries," Saltzman said.
The U.S. has expanded military space cooperation with allies as threats have grown, including sharing surveillance data, placing liaison officers inside national space commands and bringing more countries into combined exercises.
Saltzman said he has never been a fan of "all-star teams" assembled from talented individuals who had little experience working together. Effective military coalitions, he said, require repeated interaction that builds trust and an understanding of how each member operates.
"We are stronger as a team of nations than any one of us as individuals," he said.
In his address Saltzman acknowledged that some of the problems he spent his term trying to address might never be fixed.
The Space Force has promoted itself as an alternative to traditional Pentagon acquisition, seeking to build smaller satellites, buy commercial services and field new technology more quickly than conventional weapons programs. Saltzman has pressed the service to accept more risk, abandon the pursuit of perfect systems and design its investments around the military effects it needed to produce.
He introduced a 15-year force-design effort intended to define the spacecraft, personnel, infrastructure and partnerships the service would need through 2040. The plan, known as the Objective Force, was designed to give acquisition officials a clearer picture of what to buy and when, rather than producing individual programs through disconnected requirements processes.
Yet in London, Saltzman cautioned against believing that any one organizational change or procurement initiative can permanently resolve the difficulty of buying weapons quickly.
"I've come to appreciate that not all challenges must be solved," he said. "Some challenges should simply be managed."
He placed acquisition speed alongside two other persistent obstacles to multinational space operations: connecting military systems built by different countries and sharing classified information across national boundaries.
Achieving full interoperability among allied systems is worthwhile but unlikely, he said. So is eliminating classification restrictions that interfere with combined operations. Buying weapons at a pace that matches rapidly changing operational demands remains a similar struggle.
"We are unlikely to solve this once and for all," he said.
The Space Force must continue improving interoperability, information sharing and procurement, said Saltzman, but senior officers also have a responsibility to give political leaders realistic expectations. Complex problems involving different countries, bureaucracies, technologies and security requirements shouldn't be presented as susceptible to quick fixes.
He called for stable funding, sustained research and development, long-term objectives and steady improvements that continue across changes in leadership.
Saltzman offered a carefully worded observation about the military's role in a divided political environment. He didn't identify any particular controversy, but described military leaders as "the ballast in the ship."
Ballast can appear to slow a vessel as political leaders attempt to move quickly, he said. Its more important function is to provide stability when the vessel encounters a storm.
"In the hyper-political environment we find ourselves, with partisan politics creating divisions between a multitude of stakeholders," military leaders must "think long term" and act as a calming presence, Saltzman said.
The remarks placed institutional restraint alongside combat readiness as part of his closing message. Military leaders, in Saltzman's telling, must be prepared to recommend force when necessary while also resisting the pressure to offer easy answers, unrealistic timetables or politically convenient assessments.
Saltzman's nominated successor, Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess, would become the third chief of space operations if confirmed by the Senate. He would take over a service larger, better funded and more central to Pentagon war planning than the one Saltzman inherited, but still working to field the weapons, personnel and organizational structure needed to fight in a domain long treated as a sanctuary.
Military leaders, Saltzman told the audience, should use the credibility gained through experience "to provide realistic expectations, stabilize decision-making processes, strengthen our partnerships, and focus on our unique roles in deterrence."
"After 35 years of reflection," he said, "I believe this is the best contribution that we can make to international peace and stability."
Thank you for reading the article!
