WASHINGTON D.C. — The Mitchell Institute released a report arguing that the Space Force needs to better define its policies regarding conflict in space and rehearse for various conflict scenarios. The report originated from a workshop held by the institute in January with approximately 50 space experts.

Workshop participants envisioned scenarios involving the use of satellites and spacecraft in gray-zone or wartime conflicts. Scenarios discussed included Russian cyber-attacks in Europe, the jamming of U.S. satellites, the repositioning of a recently inoperable European commercial satellite without prior coordination, the deactivation of Midwestern power grids, and an unattributed nuclear detonation in low earth orbit. The report stated that Asian, European, and Middle Eastern theaters could be targeted by space attacks. Participants discussed the possibility of regional GPS jamming disrupting airlines in the U.S. Central Command area and China firing an anti-satellite weapon in the Indo-Pacific. The report stated that orbital debris from an anti-satellite weapon could damage the International Space Station, potentially killing a U.S. astronaut.

Mitchell Institute researchers stated that determining the perpetrator of a space-focused strike and the appropriate U.S. military response is often difficult. They wrote, "Space presents a uniquely complex warfighting environment." They added, "The global and technical nature of the domain complicates the understanding of and response to hostile acts." Researchers stated, "As a result, attribution, escalation management, and credible response selection are daunting." They wrote, "Further, actions taken in space rarely produce isolated or localized effects; instead, they cascade across geographic combatant commands, civilian infrastructure, and global equities."

The report stated that increased ambiguity and difficulty of attribution for attacks makes it difficult for the U.S. to take decisive action. The report said, "Participants emphasized that this ambiguity favors competitors by slowing decision-making and conditioning acceptance of increasingly hostile actions." It added, "Participants said space is a decision environment characterized by uncertainty and delay."

Jennifer Reeves, a retired Air Force colonel and Mitchell Institute resident fellow, said, "None of this can remain theoretical." She added, "Guardians, joint force leaders, allies, and partners all need to train and exercise against these scenarios." Reeves said, "Repeated exercises build familiarity, improve decision making, and help translate concepts into executable options."

The report stated that enemy space operations often fall in the gray zone that dodges the laws of armed conflict. Participants said they believed that U.S.-China interactions in space are firmly within the gray zone. They characterized the gray zone as actions that are coercive, often deniable, and deliberately calibrated to avoid triggering a decisive response. Mitchell researchers argued that the U.S. must build combat credibility by reducing ambiguity through clearer norms and frameworks.

Researchers wrote, "While clearer expectations could help guide behavior and improve decision speed, establishing explicit thresholds presents trade-offs." They added, "Clearly defined red lines risk constraining U.S. decision space while incentivizing adversaries to operate just below those thresholds, achieving meaningful effects without triggering a response." Charles Galbreath, a retired Space Force colonel and Mitchell's space studies director and senior resident, said, "There really isn't a lot legally prohibiting us from pursuing effective counter-space operations." He added, "We need to make sure that we understand what our policies are and why they're in place in such a way, and also not limit ourselves in terms of response options."