The First Interplanetary War: Tactics in the Solar System

Zaxby's Ad

0:00Zaxby's Giant Chicken Finger Wraps are no snack. In fact, they're so big, they get their own menu. Get one in your choice of Asians in Zation, Buffalo Blue, and Chicken Bacon Ranch. And you know they're coming packed with three crispy, hand-breaded famous fingers, fresh ingredients, and their signature sauce all wrapped to perfection. Big on size, bolder on flavor. But that's just how they do it at Zaxby's. Zaxby's Giant Wraps, they're no snack. Who's got the sauce? Zaxby's.

Interplanetary War Introduction

0:30The first interplanetary war begins the moment people on two worlds wake up and realize the others aren't us anymore. Planets don't rebel, people do. And once they live on different worlds long enough, even peace may come with an expiration date.

0:50Science fiction loves to show us tidy conflicts between planets, Earth squaring off against Mars, or even against its own moon, fleets meeting in neat formations and armies that seem suspiciously small for planetary wars, with a few thousand troops supposedly representing civilizations of billions. It makes for good drama and simpler storytelling, but it quietly cheats on the demographics, the logistics, and the politics. A real interplanetary war is not defined by whether the weapons are lasers or railguns,

1:22or whether the battlefield is in orbit rather than a field. It is defined by where people live and who they think we includes. In the early days of spaceflight, war will still be an entirely earthly affair with higher stakes. The first conflicts involving space will look like extensions of our current politics. Someone will shoot down a satellite, someone else will jam a navigation network, or spoof a lunar mining rig's telemetry. A country will accidentally nudge a rival's orbital platform out of its aligned lane.

1:56These will be ugly incidents, possibly deadly, but they will still fundamentally Earth-based conflicts. The soldiers, taxpayers, and voters will all sleep under the same sky, even if some of their toys circle that sky at 8 kilometers per second.

True Interplanetary War

2:11A true interplanetary war requires something very different. Two sides, whose people no longer live on the same world, whose majority population, industry, and military power are based on different planets, moons, or clusters of habitats. Once that happens, you are no longer dealing with quarrels inside one civilization, you are dealing with rival civilizations who both think of themselves as the rightful adults in the room. As we often say on this channel, world is a flexible word.

2:44A world might be a planet like Earth or Mars, a moon like Ganymede, a dwarf planet like Ceres, or a dense cluster of rotating habitats buried inside an asteroid and home to millions. Imagine a future where the Jovian moons form a federated Jovian League, Martian city-states argue over terraforming policy, and the asteroid belt is full of buried arcologies carved into the rock. When children on those worlds grew up thinking of Earth not as home, but as the place our grandparents came from.

3:14That's when you have the ingredients for interplanetary politics, and thus for interplanetary war.

War Experience

3:21War is something I have a bit of experience with, though not in space. Although amusingly, I was a minor advisor on the Emerging Space Force, and got to guest lecture at the Air Force Academy, but my direct experience was as an army grunt in the 2000s. I sometimes miss my time in the army in the same way I miss college and grad school, even though I think I made the right call not staying in any of those as a full career path. I love my job right here and now far more than I ever did any of those, although I did actually like them and have many fond memories.

3:53Very few of my fond memories come from the combined 14 months I spent operating in war zones, mostly as light infantry. I am not a pacifist, but it is rare that war is the wise alternative, and often those involved know that and stand up in one anyway. If there is one thing war teaches, it is how very smart or wise people can find themselves in very stupid situations. One of the first lessons I ever got from my sergeants, and one that applies as well in space as it did on the ground,

4:23is that everything is a potential weapon. We might call that the first rule of warfare, On the battlefield, that means rocks, shovels, vehicles, terrain, and even the timing of a meal. In space, it means orbital trajectories, power beams, asteroid mines, communication delays, coolant radiators, and the simple fact that a one kilometer wrench, tossed in the right direction at orbital speeds, can hit harder than a tank shell. There is no such thing as a truly unarmed spaceship,

4:54not when movement itself implies the ability to transfer lethal amounts of energy. On an interplanetary scale, your economy is a weapon. Your infrastructure is a weapon. Your fuel depots, cycler stations, mass drivers, and space elevators are weapons or targets or both, depending on the day. Distances shape strategy. Strategy shapes identity. How people think about risk and security, about who protects whom and why. Identity then shapes whether two wars can still compromise like call some siblings,

5:27or whether they start to see each other as genuinely foreign powers, whose defeat might be less unthinkable than it used to be.

Escalation and Strategy

5:34Before we talk about fleets and fortresses, we need to talk about escalation, because that is where the real wars start, and where sensible people try to keep them from going even further. Or even push to throw that first knockout punch before the other side is braced for it. When people imagine future battles between Earth and Mars, or Earth and the Belt, they picture unified worlds and decisive engagements, admirals making bold moves, fleets charging, dramatic speeches about victory or death. What they almost never picture is the job real military spend most of their time doing,

6:09which is trying very, very hard not to let things spiral out of control, and to ensure that they do, you're the side that's least confused and off guard. The slightly sarcastic summary of this is enshrined in the Army's unofficial motto, hurry up and wait. Escalation is the real battlefield, long before anyone fires a shot. Science fiction usually skips that part because it is complicated, full of half-truths, nervous phone calls at 3 in the morning, contradictory intelligence reports,

6:41and diplomats trying to find language that lets everyone back down without losing face. Often, while trying to convince their boss that they stay all loyal and objective and haven't gone native, which is often true, it is very unwise to ignore what your diplomats and spies are telling you. It is also very unwise to trust them unequivocally, because historically, many do lose perspective or turn traitor. That can be labyrinthine to sort through, and it is much easier just to have the fleets fire first and worry about politics later.

7:13In reality, politics is what decides whether the fleet ever leaves port. There is a common armchair argument that if war is inevitable, you should strike first and hardest, preferably in some devastating surprise attack. You see this idea pop up a lot in fictional space warfare too. This can definitely be a good plan, ethics aside, but the problem is that it usually assumes only two sides exist. That nobody else will react, that there are no third parties or internal political rivals, and that victory is a simple on-off switch where one side lives and the other dies.

7:49None of those assumptions hold in a mature interplanetary civilization. It would be very unlikely the solar system consisted only of a unified Earth and unified Mars. You probably have separate sovereign nations on both, and dozens of other major and minor players, if not hundreds or thousands that border on the battlefield, metaphorically and literally. If you live in a solar system full of different powers, allies, neutrals, and grudging partners, a preemptive extermination strike is less a masterstroke,

8:19and more of a mass recruitment drive for your enemies. This brings us to the first rule of warfare. Avoid making enemies out of friends. Don't recruit for your enemy. In a solar system packed with fragile habitats and shared infrastructure, if you casually obliterate a civilian station, you are not just hurting your opponent. You are also showering lethal debris into orbits your neighbor's share, destroying trade routes everyone else uses, and proving to all bystanders that you are willing to risk their lives for your war.

8:51You might win the battle and lose every ally you have. That is probably a very bad trade. Biology has its own escalation control. Most animals do not fight to the death if they can avoid it, because no patch of ground or potential mate is usually worth a serious injury that might kill them later. I suppose the exception that proves the rule there is that many creatures will actually die during their mating processes. I should also note that exceptions that prove a rule are often the first thing you want to pay attention to as military strategists, because the enemy has brains and will often try to use them.

9:24Anyway, threat displays exist for a reason. The same logic applies to politics. If two factions know that any full-scale exchange might kill not just them, but everyone who depends on them, they will look for every possible partial fight, limited skirmish, or pressure tactic before going all-in. Incidentally, I wrote this episode at the beginning of the year, but I'm recording it right now about two weeks into the conflict in Iran. So it was not written with that conflict in mind, but I'd imagine to me the rules do still apply.

9:54Though I'd also cautioned never to focus too much on any one given conflict, as people often do with World War II, to figure out what the rules of warfare actually are, they change a lot and also stay the same. I suspect they will in the future too, and this is where the realities of interplanetary war collide hard with the way science fiction often depicts it. Many authors, even those writing military sci-fi, have never spent time in a real chain of command, or watched how organizations handle risk and escalation. They tend to imagine tidy wars between two players who go at each other until one side is dead.

10:28Real wars are sprawling, political, and full of third parties, fourth parties, and people who are technically on your side, but will happily replace you if you give them a bad look, or if you give them a chance. In reality, a clean, decisive strike meant to send a clear message can often create three new messy political problems for everyone it solves. In space, that ratio might be even worse. If you escalate carelessly when everyone's air and water are on delicate systems, that carelessness can metastasize into extinction.

10:58Once things do go hot, the battlefield looks very different. Most likely limiting engagements initially with a handful of attempts at some decisive strike that, if successful, tilt the odds, and either grinding into a lower intensity stalemate, or escalating into a conflict where your main motivation for winning is now about seeing the enemy pay. And, once things do go hot, the first real battles between worlds will not be about dramatic close-range broadsides. They will be fought with geometry, probability, and deception. There is no classic stealth in space.

11:30You can usually see ships coming. This can imply a shared mutual battlefield omniscience, like we have when you're playing chess. But it's not. And if I haven't said it recently, chess is a horrible analogy for warfare, and poker is not much better. Anyway, what you can do is confuse the enemy's picture and make their firing solutions unreliable. You do not always need to be invisible. Sometimes you just need to be ambiguous. At interplanetary ranges, fleets will fire a log before they have clean, binocular vision on their targets.

12:02And if you have thousands of slugs, and each has a small chance of hitting, the math encourages you to begin shooting a lot before your sensors are happy. Otherwise, you'll get ground to dust and ashes while you advance into your enemy's less accurate but still lethal fire. You have finite ammo and fuel for maneuver, but so long as your ammo is highly lethal when it hits properly, you benefit by shooting even when your chance of missing might be 99%, because you've got a thousand more anti-ship missiles on hand. If you can empty out your magazines and kill an equal-sized ship in the process,

12:36that works, because you can restock those magazines a lot cheaper than they can rebuild that ship and crew. That's the first rule of warfare after all. Quantity has a quality all its own. Unfortunately, you might need to shoot several thousand ship killers just to get one through, as it takes a much smaller missile to wreck an incoming missile or kinetic slug, and they can generally wait longer to fire defensive guns and thus be more accurate with them. Consider a simple trick, what we call Whipple or Thin Shield Tactic.

13:06A ship can launch a wafer-thin sheet of foil or inflatable film just ahead of its main volley of slugs or missiles, pushed by a low-thrust radiant pressure from a broad laser beam. To enemy sensors, that sheet becomes a shimmering curtain. Lasers scatter. Radar pulses return messy echoes. LIDAR pulses refract strangely. When the sheet inevitably shreds, either from micrometeoroids or from deliberate fire, what appears on the scopes is a chaotic cloud of fragments, not a neat set of trajectories pointing straight back to your launch point.

13:38Hidden in that noise are the real projectiles, all much closer now, and moving as one volley. This makes them much harder to kill in a far shorter window of counterfire. This is a space-age cousin of smoke on the battlefield, and is exactly the sort of trick artillerymen love. I started my service in artillery, and the idea of hiding your punches behind misleading signatures is an old friend. The enemy, of course, does not just give up because you obscure the view. They start deploying countermeasures of their own,

14:10like scattering lightweight sensor probes at wide angles that fly past the suspected line of fire and get vantage points from the side. Three sensors from three directions cannot turn ambiguity into clarity again. Now, the game escalates. Probes are expensive in fuel, so you begin tethering several sensors together and letting them reel out on long lines, so a single small package can spread itself over hundreds of meters or kilometers bobbing unpredictably as tension changes in the tethers. The enemy now has to decide which spec is a sensor,

14:43which is a decoy, and how to aim at anything that darts around unpredictably. The battlespace starts to look less like two fleets' approach and more like a messy weather map, full of blobs of probability and little cones of guesswork, expanding and collapsing every second. Inside a real interplanetary war room, no one is steering at a single, clean, Star Trek-style board. They are steering at clouds of probability, overlapping error ellipses, and time-delayed telemetry. No admiral is lining up ships for broadside.

15:14They are asking questions like, where will that enemy carrier probably be in three hours if they preserve fuel, and what if they instead spend an extra 10% delta V to jink unpredictably? This is a very different sort of warfare from romantic naval engagements. All the while, the first rule of warfare hums along in the background. Don't get shot, that is the other side's job. Armor matters, point defense matters, but more than anything else, not being where the enemy thinks you are matters,

15:45and maneuver, the ability to change course, is always paid for in fuel. Space between planets is not a straight line. Travel is an ever-changing trajectory shaped by orbit positions and velocity changes. That makes it hard to fortify in the traditional sense. There is no obvious front line to build a wall on. At the same time, you cannot afford to simply dart past all enemy defenses at maximum thrust. If you double your speed, any random pebble, sabo, or mine you run into

16:16hits with four times the kinetic energy, and you have half as much time to notice it and attempt to dodge. The fuel you burn racing to the objective is fuel you do not have for fighting or retreating once you get there. To make it worse, your reinforcements and resupplies have to travel a different course, meaning they have to deal with another Star Fortress, cheerfully squatting orbital lanes, loaded to the guilds with nukes and 10 meter thick armor. That means lightning strikes will happen in special cases, but a lot of interplanetary wars likely look more like slow, methodical advance.

16:47You capture one fortress or depot, secure it, repair it, and move forward to the next. Always worry about your fuel reserves and the enemy's ability to counterattack or cut your logistics behind you. This is where the old truth, the logistics wins wars or loses them, becomes the primary law of space warfare. Delta V is the currency of movement, and propellant is how you mint that currency. On Earth, a soldier can sometimes forage or live off local supplies or siphon fuel from captured vehicles.

17:17In space, there is no living off the land, unless you already built the infrastructure to do so. If you have a chain of depots around the sun, anchored on lunar ice, nitrogen from Venus, motion carbon dioxide, outer systems water, or captured comets, you can move fleets and keep fighting. If you do not, then any fleet you send is an arrow fired at once. Once the burn is committed, there are no takebacks. A commander committing a fleet to a given orbit is like an artilleryman firing a shell. The useful part of his control ends when the burn finishes.

17:49After that, inertia and gravity write the script for him. Now, let us zoom to the asteroid belt, because this is one of the places people like to imagine battles happening. The popular picture is a dense maze of tumbling rocks with ships weaving between them like fighter pilots in a canyon. The reality is almost the opposite. The average asteroid is far from its neighbors. If you stood on one and wanted to see the next one with your naked eye, you probably could not. The belt is mostly empty. Yet by the time of our first interplanetary war, the belt, or at least parts of it,

18:20will be full of people. Belt settlements will probably not be little domes perched on borders, but deep, fortified habitats carved inside rock, with cylindrical habitats rotating inside, shared by kilometers of regolith. Only the ports, solar arrays, power receivers, and radiators will stick out from the surface, likely with the ability to retract, or with redundant copies of them that could do so, rising up if the original ones were destroyed. In terms of layout, think of ant colonies with airports around the skyscrapers. Those exposed systems are the lifelines,

18:52power, heat rejection, communications, docking, all run through them. If a conflict erupts in the belt, the first targets would not be the buried habitats, but the equipment tying them to the wider economy. Knock out a solar farm, and a habitat goes on rations. Punch holes in their radiators, and you create a heat stroke scenario, powered by their own reactors. Severed tethers, or beam powered systems, and the local industry begins to shut down. It is a quiet, terrifying way to fight. A single strike could doom 100,000 people to die slowly,

19:24if no one rushes to repair it. Moreover, blowing the habitat to smithereens is not just monstrous, it is also stupid. You are accruing for the enemy, and the fragments become death traps to everyone else in that region, including your own ships and allies. If your tactics leave everyone else ducking lethal shrapnel for decades, your reputation as the villain of this piece would now be firmly established. Now, sometimes that is useful. After all, the persuasiveness of your argument is proportional to how much firepower you have to argue your case.

19:57That is the first rule of warfare, after all. But having everyone terrified of you comes with new problems. So, rather than annihilation, belt warfare is likely to focus on strangulation. You intercept ore shipments, reroute or block tanker convoys, hack refinery robotics, jam power beams, and lean on your opponent's lifelines until local leaders or their allies decide enough is enough. It is not glorious. It is accounting with guns. Planets, ironically, are even worse targets for brute force bombardment.

20:30Dropping rocks on Earth or Mars makes for exciting special effects. That's a terrible strategy. A planet is big, layered, and hard to truly kill. Cities are easy targets. Civilizations are not. Surface damage can be extreme. But as long as armies can hide underground or under oceans, bombardment is more likely to harden resistance than crush it. Technology might make this even worse. They might easily be to have several large bunkers with stasis or cryo equipment in it that their civilian population can be frozen in to help them stay safe

21:02and limit the supplies they are using until the conflict is over. The deeper they dig, the longer your war becomes, which is exactly the opposite of what you want. That's why the First Rule of Warfare is to keep your wars short and few. You can scorch a planet, but a scorched planet is a terrible prize. If you reduce your enemy to rubble, you inherit rubble. All of this might sound grim, and in many ways it is, but the very fragility of space habitats argues in favor of caution.

21:33If everything is a potential weapon, everything is also a shared vulnerability. Thus the First Rule of Warfare, try not to lose while winning. When we talk about war in space, durability and logistics matter more than anything else. You're not just building something powerful. You're building something that has to keep working, far from supply lines, under constant strain, and with very little margin for error. If you enjoy seeing how real machines are designed to survive harsh conditions like that, check out Real Engineering, which breaks down the design choices between everything from aircraft to power systems,

22:06and why reliability is often more important than raw performance. And that same idea applies on a planetary scale. In my exclusive Surviving a New Ice Age, we explore how civilizations hold together when resources tighten, conditions worsen, and reliability becomes everything. Nebula is where every episode of SFA premieres early and ad-free, alongside years of monthly exclusives and content from hundreds of creators. Right now, Nebula is offering 40% off lifetime access, which is $300 for permanent access to everything on the platform. Or you can use my link or the QR code to get 50% off an annual plan.

22:38That's just $30 for a whole year. So, what does the first true interplanetary war most likely look like in practice? Well, it probably does not start with a famous declaration of war or a single volley of missiles. It starts small. A mining accident someone swears with sabotage. A convoy that never arrives. A system glitch no one believes is accidental. Then something fires. And suddenly, everyone is in the game. In the end, the first interplanetary war, if it ever comes,

23:08will teach us something uncomfortable but useful. That a solar system full of fragile habitats is too small for stupid wars. And that brings us to the most important first rule of warfare. Pick your battles wisely. In a cosmos where every human life depends on a few centimeters of metal and plastic between themselves and the vacuum, the smartest battle is the one you never start. And there's an cercation.

23:50And you're not sure what you're watching. You don't know what you're saying. We'll be right back.