
Britain's next war could begin in space, warns top military commander
Major General Paul Tedman, head of UK Space Command (UKSC), said that the 'space domain' will become increasingly important in the coming years, and called for more investment to protect the country from extraterrestrial threats.
Space is one of the fastest-growing areas of military development, and was dominated by Russia in the lead-up to its invasion of Ukraine, when the Kremlin hacked Ukrainian satellites.
Foreign powers now look to control the space above the air domain before launching fighter jets, and both the UK and US are developing weapons that could be used in space.
Maj Gen Tedman said Britain must be more wary of threats to its satellites, and invest more in a domestic space capability.
Asked by the political magazine The House whether the next war would begin in space, he said: 'It's highly likely. You need to be able to control the space domain in order to secure the air domain, and that will provide you freedom of manoeuvre in the land and the maritime domain.
'Then if you agree with that assertion, then the logic would point to that you need to secure the space domain before you can do anything.'
He said that Sir Keir Starmer's Government 'does get it' and the space sector received significant investment in the recent Strategic Defence Review (SDR). But he warned the UKSC has 'a long way to go until we are at the mass and the spend that the other domains get in these big reviews that happen'.
The UKSC was founded in 2021, and is staffed by members of all three traditional services from an RAF base in High Wycombe, Bucks.
Air Marshal Allan Paul Marshall, the Ministry of Defence's air and space commander, said in March that the UK would look to create a blend of space technology that combines UK-only resources, equipment procured with allies, and privately developed software and hardware from the civil defence sector.
'We can't afford to have sovereign everywhere,' he said. 'We need to work out where we have interoperability with allies and where we need to access other capabilities. I'm very happy to buy in services.'
Maj Gen Tedman said that the UK would look to plug any gaps in its defences first when allocating money from the SDR, including the ability to strike against hostile forces in space.
He added that there was a 'space blindness' among the public that made it more difficult to make the case for his sector when speaking to voters.
'It's challenging to bring enthusiasm to the British public about space and its importance,' he said.
'If you want to talk about investment into the Army, you can go and visit a tank. If you want investment into the air force, you can go and see a jet. It's really difficult for me to demonstrate how we would invest money and show the investment in space.'
The UK launched its first spy satellite, Tyche, last July from a SpaceX rocket in California.
The MoD is hoping to develop a series of satellites that will operate as a network, and give British forces intelligence and high-resolution imagery from around the world.
The UK also runs a military space sensor at RAF Fylingdales in North Yorkshire, which provides 24/7 missile warning and space surveillance to the British military. The radar could detect an object the size of a bottle of water up to 3,000 miles into space.
However, the UK's enemies are also developing their capabilities, and Russia reportedly placed a nuclear anti-satellite weapon in orbit last year.
The UN passed a resolution in 1963 banning the use of weapons of mass destruction in space, and 116 countries including Russia have signed the Outer Space Treaty, which bans nuclear missiles outside of the Earth's orbit.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Times
19 minutes ago
- Times
Labour MPs tell Rachel Reeves: Don't rely so much on OBR forecasts
Rachel Reeves should stop relying so heavily on the fiscal watchdog because its forecasts are not a 'crystal ball', a group of Labour MPs has said. The chancellor is under pressure to reduce the influence of forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) over tax and spend decisions. The Red Wall caucus of more than 40 Labour MPs has backed calls to 'adjust the way we report and respond to forecasts' and to 'stop treating single-point estimates as gospel'. The MPs also backed calls to cut the forecasts produced by the OBR from two to one a year. • Cabinet minister refuses to rule out wealth taxes in budget Andy MacNae, MP for Rossendale & Darwen in Lancashire, said the OBR provided only a 'rough guide' as to where the economy might be in four years. 'But the OBR has never claimed to have a crystal ball and we shouldn't treat it as if it does,' he said. MacNae pointed to a report from the forecaster in 2023 in which it admitted its 'central forecast' number 'has virtually no chance of being correct'. In March the OBR downgraded the economic effect of Labour's welfare plans before the spring statement, leading to last-minute cuts to benefits totalling £500 million. The following month Sir Keir Starmer criticised the watchdog for the assessment, saying he 'personally struggles' with the way it drew up its forecasts. The prime minister later dropped the reforms to disability benefits after a backbench rebellion. Reeves has indicated that she would consider adopting a different approach to the OBR. This month she said she was 'looking at how the OBR works', adding: 'The International Monetary Fund has made some recommendations about how to deliver better fiscal policymaking and obviously I take those seriously.' In May the IMF said the chancellor should move down to one OBR estimate each year, which it said would prevent the government from responding to short-term market demands for more cuts or tax rises. According to the OBR in March, Reeves recorded £9.9 billion in 'fiscal headroom' — the flexibility in a government's financial plans. The IMF said moving away from the twice-yearly assessment would 'de-emphasise' the importance of the headroom in policymaking, as well as bring the UK into line with other countries. Jo White, the MP for Bassetlaw, Nottinghamshire, who chairs the Red Wall caucus, said: 'To deliver on national renewal we need policy and fiscal stability and the OBR has a vitally important role to play in that. 'Fine-tuning policy to fit a central estimate that we know will be inaccurate is not the way to do that. To recognise the value of the OBR, we must acknowledge their limitations.' Labour strengthened the OBR's powers in the Budget Responsibility Act, one of the first laws passed after the election. This was designed to reassure the markets that Labour would not act like Liz Truss, the former prime minister who bypassed the OBR when she and Kwasi Kwarteng, her chancellor, held a mini-budget. Any softened approach to the watchdog risks spooking the markets and making government borrowing more expensive, one government source said. However, others close to Reeves believe tweaks to the OBR's treatment would be accepted by the markets as necessary.


The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
French President Macron announces 6.5 billion euros in extra military spending in next two years
French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday announced 6.5 billion euros ($7.6 billion) in extra military spending in the next two years because of new and unprecedented threats, ranging from Russia to nuclear proliferation, terrorists and online attacks. The French leader laid out the spending plans in a sweeping speech calling for intensified efforts to protect Europe, and support Ukraine in its war against Russia's full-scale invasion. He said France will aim to spend 64 billion euros ($74.8 billion) in annual defense spending in 2027, the last year of his second term. That would be double the 32 billion euros in annual spending when he became president in 2017. ″Since 1945, freedom has never been so threatened, and never so seriously,'' Macron said in the French president's traditional speech to the military on the eve of the Bastille Day national holiday. ''We are experiencing a return to the fact of a nuclear threat, and a proliferation of major conflicts.'' ″To be free in this world, we must be feared. To be feared, we must be powerful,'' he said. He insisted that France can find the money to spend more on the military even as it tries to bring down massive national debts. Conservative and far-right parties have supported greater defense spending, while left-wing parties accuse the government of sacrificing hard-won social welfare benefits for military spending. Europe is in danger because of Russia's war in Ukraine and wars in the Middle East, and because ″the United States has added a form of uncertainty,″ Macron argued. Other dangers he cited included online disinformation campaigns by unnamed foreign governments and propaganda operations targeting children, in ″the screen era.″ Macron also ordered France's top military and defense officials to start a ″strategic dialogue″ with European partners about the role that the French nuclear arsenal could play in protecting Europe. In an exceptional move, France and Britain agreed in recent days to cooperate on nuclear defense issues. Macron's speech came as U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to make an announcement about Russia on Monday, and the head of NATO is traveling to Washington for two days of talks. Trump last week announced plans to sell NATO allies weaponry that they can then pass on to Ukraine, which has been struggling to repel massive and complex Russian air assaults. Macron recently spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time in three years, but remains a target of widespread criticism in Russia for his vocal support for Ukraine. The Kremlin argues that the Ukraine conflict is a consequence of Western countries' decision to ignore Russia's security interests. The head of the French military, Gen. Thierry Burkhard, laid out risks emanating from Russia that stretch well beyond Ukraine. Russia is disrupting trajectories of satellites to jam them or spy on them, is involved in undersea infrastructure sabotage, and leads disinformation campaigns in France and Africa, Burkhard said Friday. He said Russian attack submarines penetrate into the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and Russian military planes interact frequently with other aircraft over the Black Sea, Syria, the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic. French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu, in an interview published Sunday in La Tribune Dimanche, urged more French spending on defense technology and better training of engineers and technicians. ″Big powers and certain proliferating countries are working secretly on quantum computers ... that will be capable tomorrow of revolutionizing the battlefield. Do we want to stay in the game?'


The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP
It comes to something when a senior member of a recent government – the former justice secretary, no less – describes actions by the state that were part of his remit as 'overbearing, unfair and almost totalitarian'. Yet this is how Alex Chalk KC, who held that office for 14 months in the government of Rishi Sunak, describes imprisonment for public protection (IPP) orders – which can keep someone in prison indefinitely after conviction for a relatively minor crime. Ousted from government by his party's defeat at the last election, and also from his parliamentary seat, Mr Chalk has returned to his legal practice. It is from this perch that he is now asking his successor, Shabana Mahmood, to consider new proposals – from the Howard League and a former lord chief justice, Lord Thomas – with a view to righting this now longstanding wrong. At The Independent, we make no apology for returning once again to the iniquity of IPP orders that go against so much of what should constitute any civilised judicial system. Two features stand out. There is the glaring disproportionality in so many cases between the crime and the punishment, with some prisoners having served almost 20 years (and still counting) for offences such as robbing someone of their mobile phone or laptop. This is not, by the way, to diminish such crimes, but to point up the disparity between the standard tariff for such a conviction and the actual time served by many of those still subject to IPP orders. The other feature is the cruelty of imposing a sentence that has no end, which has been described by the UN as psychological torture. With no prospect of a release date, more than 90 such prisoners have taken their own lives. Altogether, more than 2,500 are still languishing in jail on IPPs. This is in spite of these indefinite prison terms having been abolished in 2012, just seven years after they were introduced. The clear mistake then was not to have made the abolition retrospective. It applied only to new convictions, not to those already in jail, leaving the glaring injustice that one day could make a difference between someone left to serve what could become a lifetime sentence and someone convicted of a similar crime with a clear idea of the timetable for release or parole. The failure to make abolition of IPP orders retrospective has had consequences of its own. At least some of those still not released are now so damaged by their experience and will be so hard to rehabilitate that they could indeed present a danger to society if they were released. This is the very opposite of what a penal system should set out to achieve and amounts, in Mr Chalk's words, to nothing less than a failure on the part of the state. At which point, there is an obvious and not unreasonable question for the former justice secretary to answer. If the injustices and perverse effects of IPP orders were so apparent when he came to office – as they were – why did he not do something about it? Why did he not condemn the policy in the same terms as he is doing now and make the changes he is demanding be made by his successor? Part of his answer is that he did do something. He reduced from 10 to three the number of years that a released IPP prisoner was on licence and so subject to recall. That is not nothing, but it was nothing like enough. Two small pleas might also be made on his behalf in mitigation. As he says, there was 'not a single vote' in even the change in the licence period that he made, because of the general lack of public sympathy for prisoners. As he does not say – but is a sentiment with which the current government could well concur – a year can be too short a time in UK politics when it comes to getting anything done. The ponderous nature of the legislative process can be a minus as well as a plus. On the other hand, the size of the Labour government's majority and the years it still has to run mean it has time on its side. After more than a decade of political foot-dragging around IPP orders, however, there is no time to lose. The proposals from the Howard League and Lord Thomas show how this could be done, and offer sufficient safeguards for the public in terms of conditions for those who may be released and a new drive to rehabilitate those still considered a danger to society. At a time when other prisoners are being released ahead of schedule to free up scarce cell space, and the Exchequer needs every penny of saving it can get, it makes no sense at all to keep IPP prisoners inside any longer than the public's safety requires. As Alex Chalk says of the one reform he did make, this may not win a single vote, but it would be the right thing to do. Indeed it is – and the sooner it is done, the better.