The United States acknowledges that it has weapons in space: between reality, secrecy, and science fiction

While Major Dany Rivera Marrero of the FAR threatens to execute Donald Trump and the Castro-communist regime displays outdated war machinery drawn by skinny oxen, mules, and poorly fed horses, the United States has just publicly acknowledged, for the first time, that it possesses weapons deployed in space. 

The statement represents a significant shift in space security policy, although the U.S. government has not disclosed the name, number, operation, or location of these systems.

The announcement was made on September 14, 2026, during the Air, Space, and Cyberspace Conference. The Secretary of the Air Force, Troy Meink, stated that the United States has "weapons for space control in orbit" capable of defending its forces against hostile actions. Meanwhile, the head of Space Operations, General Douglas Schiess, confirmed that the guardians of the Space Force are already operating orbital weapons to protect U.S. forces.

What weapons are they? That is precisely the information that remains classified. The official doctrine offers some clues. A publication from the Space Force in 2025 categorizes offensive operations into orbital strikes, disruption of links, and attacks on ground installations. These actions can be kinetic—physical destruction—or non-kinetic, reversible or irreversible. They include electronic warfare, cyber operations, communication interference, satellite approaches to other satellites, lasers, and, as a last resort, systems capable of damaging or destroying an enemy vessel.

Therefore, "space weapon" does not necessarily mean a cannon firing at the Earth. It can be a satellite approaching another to interfere with its communications, disable its sensors, capture it with a robotic arm, divert it from its orbit, or destroy it. It could also involve equipment that temporarily blinds enemy cameras using lasers or jamming positioning and communication signals.

Non-kinetic capabilities seem the most likely because they can be used temporarily, provide a certain degree of denial, and do not produce thousands of fragments. Destroying a satellite through impact would generate debris traveling at enormous speeds, which could indiscriminately reach military, civilian, and scientific satellites, including the ones owned by the attacker.

The famous "rods of God"

One of the supposed space weapons most commonly featured in publications, documentaries, and social media is the so-called “rods of God.” Its origin lies in the concept known as Project Thor, formulated during the 1950s and later examined in military documents.

The most widely circulated version involves placing tungsten cylinders in orbit that are approximately six meters long, thirty centimeters in diameter, and weigh several tons. When launched at a terrestrial target, they would enter the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and destroy bunkers through kinetic energy, without explosives or radioactive contamination.

The physical principle is real: kinetic energy increases with mass and with the square of velocity. However, many publications greatly exaggerate its effects. A nine-ton rod striking at three kilometers per second would release around 40.5 billion joules, roughly equivalent to ten tons of TNT. It would be a devastating blow with considerable penetrating power, but it would be far from a small nuclear bomb, whose yield is typically measured in hundreds or thousands of tons of TNT.

Additionally, enormous challenges would need to be addressed: placing tons of tungsten into orbit, maintaining the platforms, diverting them from their trajectory at the right moment, protecting them during reentry, and guiding them to a specific target through plasma and strong atmospheric winds. As of September 2026, there is no verifiable public evidence that the United States has deployed these rods. They are technologically conceivable, but they remain in the realm of studies and speculation, not in confirmed arsenals.

There is also no evidence that the X-37B spaceplane carries bombs or kinetic rods. Its military missions and experiments are partially classified, but turning every classified mission into a weapon is an unfounded conclusion.

From Reagan to the new "Star Wars"

The inevitable comparison is with the Strategic Defense Initiative announced by Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983. The press nicknamed it "Star Wars." Reagan proposed to develop a defense system capable of intercepting Soviet ballistic missiles using sensors, ground and orbital interceptors, lasers, particle beams, and later small impact vehicles known as Brilliant Pebbles.

Much of that vision could never be realized. The costs were extraordinary, the decoys could confuse the systems, and it was cheaper to produce new offensive warheads than interceptors capable of stopping them. Nevertheless, the initiative deeply alarmed the Kremlin because it threatened to diminish the effectiveness of its main strategic instrument: the enormous Soviet nuclear arsenal.

The Soviet Union researched lasers, anti-satellite weapons, additional missiles, and various asymmetric responses. This competition intensified the pressures on a stagnant economy that was technologically behind and burdened by military spending. Mikhail Gorbachev avoided building a complete replica of the American system and preferred negotiation.

The Soviet economic ruin had much broader structural causes: centralized planning, low productivity, technological backwardness, bureaucracy, a decline in oil revenues, and a disproportionate military burden.

Donald Trump resumed part of that ambitious initiative with the Golden Dome project, a multi-layered defense system designed to detect and intercept ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic missiles. Its space components could include sensors and future orbital interceptors, but they should not yet be confused with the weapons whose existence has just been acknowledged. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that different constellations of space interceptors could cost between $161 billion and $831 billion over twenty years.

A dangerous horizon

Russia and China are developing jammers, anti-satellite weapons, orbital approach vehicles, cyber capabilities, and directed energy systems. The U.S. revelation may strengthen deterrence, but it could also accelerate a space arms race. A conflict in orbit could impact navigation, banking, communications, weather forecasting, aviation, emergency services, and military operations worldwide.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in orbit, but it does not establish a sufficiently clear general prohibition on conventional space weapons.

Nothing would be better than a world without weapons and without wars. But that ideal is still very far from reality. As long as there are expansionist regimes developing tools capable of destroying satellites, attacking democracies, or imposing their will by force, free nations cannot abandon their defense.

In an inevitably armed world, it is preferable that technological and military advantages remain in the hands of the leading power of the free and democratic world. A planet where dictatorships achieve undisputed military and economic superiority over democracies, where freedom, human dignity, and fundamental rights are best protected, would be far more dangerous.

"If you want peace, prepare for war," said the Roman military writer Flavius Vegetius in the late 4th century AD. And the phrase is grounded in solid logic. Certainly, in the case of a tyranny loathed by the majority and in its terminal phase, such as the Cuban regime, if it wishes to avoid a tragic end, it must negotiate democratization immediately. There is no better way out.