Key takeaway: The Pentagon says forces must be ready to operate "from the seabed to cislunar space," weeks after Space Force acknowledged it placed weapons in orbit. Cold War planners once imagined lunar bases and even moon-to-Earth bombardment systems, but technical and political hurdles ended those programs. Today the debate centers on orbital warfare—balancing kinetic ASAT risks (debris) against cleaner non-kinetic options like jammers and directed energy.
Seabed to the Moon: How the Military Envisioned Combat in Cislunar Space
William Anders' "Earthrise."
This week the U.S. military’s senior uniformed officer warned that forces must be ready for combat from Earth all the way into cislunar space—the region around the Moon. Speaking at the Air, Space and Cyber Conference, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine urged the services to ensure the force "is prepared to fight, endure and win ... from the seabed to cislunar space."
Weapons in Orbit and a Renewed Focus on Space Conflict
Days earlier the Secretary of the Air Force, Troy Meinke, disclosed that the U.S. Space Force has placed "space control weapons" into orbit. Space Force has not specified how many systems were launched or their exact types, making this the first public acknowledgment that the U.S. has deployed offensive-capable systems in space.
Cold War Origins: Moon Bases and Lunar Weapons
The idea of fighting in space—and even on the Moon—has a long history. During the Cold War the U.S. services studied a variety of concepts for inserting forces into space and operating there. From the 1950s onward branches of the military explored how they might operate from, fight on, or strike the Moon itself. Proposals ranged from an Air Force concept for a lunar base hosting a "Lunar Based Earth Bombardment System" to the Army’s Project Horizon, a blueprint for a manned Moon base defended by purpose-built guns.
In the 1960s the Army even examined small personal weapons suitable for lunar conditions, including unconventional options such as spring-powered pistols. Popular and service-produced films—like a 1963 Air Force animation—imagined fighter-like spacecraft launching from docking hubs and conducting orbital combat sorties, a cinematic view of how planners pictured future engagements.
Why Lunar Warfighting Lost Momentum
As the Space Race faded and the technical, logistical and political challenges of sustained lunar operations became clear, plans to deploy armed forces on the Moon lost traction. The immense cost, complexity, and diplomatic implications cooled ambitions for lunar bases and moon-to-Earth strike concepts.
Today’s Debate: Orbital Warfare and Weapon Options
Modern discussion focuses less on boots on the lunar surface and more on orbital competition. Space Force leaders have used terms like "orbital warfare" while outlining steps to protect U.S. assets from adversary satellites. Analysts say the systems deployed to orbit could include kinetic and non-kinetic tools.
Kinetic anti-satellite (ASAT) approaches—using projectiles or explosives to disable objects in orbit—are proven but create hazardous debris that endangers other satellites and spacecraft. For that reason, nations have also pursued non-kinetic options such as electromagnetic jammers and directed-energy systems, which can neutralize or disrupt satellites without producing clouds of fragments. To date, many advanced non-kinetic systems held by the U.S. are ground-based rather than stationed in orbit.
What Comes Next
The admission that offensive-capable systems are in orbit has intensified debate over how to deter or fight in space without triggering dangerous escalation or debris cascades. Policymakers must weigh operational needs, technological capabilities and international norms as attention turns to securing assets across Earth’s skies and the region around the Moon.
Help us improve.
