Congressmen Propose a New Military Branch: The 'US Space Corps' (gizmodo.com) 228
An anonymous reader quotes Gizmodo:
This week, the House Armed Services Committee voted 60 to 1 in favor of the creation of a new military branch to be called the United States Space Corps... The United States Space Corps would be the first new branch of the military since 1947, when the Air Force was formed. The current proposal would classify the USSC under the Air Force in a way that mirrors the Marines classification under the Navy. The Space Corps' chief of staff would be ranked as equal to the Air Force chief of staff and would report to the Secretary of the Air Force...
According to CNN, the Air Force's secretary and chief of staff are opposed to the plan. One reason is that we already have the Air Force Space Command and the military believes that the creation of the Space Corps would just cause more complications. Secretary Heather Wilson told reporters that "this will make it more complex, add more boxes to the organizational chart, and cost more money."
The bill charges the division of the military with providing "combat-ready space forces," though CNN adds "There are still plenty more congressional hoops for the Space Corps to jump through before it would become official. But, hey, at least the name sounds cool." And Gizmodo's reporter thoughtfully weighs the pro's and cons before concluding, "Yeah, this is probably stupid."
According to CNN, the Air Force's secretary and chief of staff are opposed to the plan. One reason is that we already have the Air Force Space Command and the military believes that the creation of the Space Corps would just cause more complications. Secretary Heather Wilson told reporters that "this will make it more complex, add more boxes to the organizational chart, and cost more money."
The bill charges the division of the military with providing "combat-ready space forces," though CNN adds "There are still plenty more congressional hoops for the Space Corps to jump through before it would become official. But, hey, at least the name sounds cool." And Gizmodo's reporter thoughtfully weighs the pro's and cons before concluding, "Yeah, this is probably stupid."
If the name "sounds cool" (Score:5, Funny)
Face Palm? (Score:2, Insightful)
I was going to say this was a major Face Palm, but then I saw it was CNN reporting it. So now I'm wondering if it's even true.
Re: Face Palm? (Score:3, Funny)
Major Face Palm? Has he signed up?
Re: (Score:2)
Major Face Palm? Has he signed up?
He's the first casualty...
Concussion.
Re: Face Palm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. General Truth is the first casualty of war and other things...
Re: Face Palm? (Score:2)
Re: If the name "sounds cool" (Score:2, Funny)
Being called a space cadet might no longer be an insult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we should do this. It's obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The Air Force should focus on more important things like developing anti-teleportation technology
Already done. Version 2016 of [the] technology is about as anti-teleportation as you would want.
Can't vouch for future versions though. Like MS did with Word and Mozilla does with Firefox, this feature may be dropped from a future edition. (I'm actually hoping that will happen before my retirement age, because my commute is slowly draining all the life out of me.)
Re: (Score:2)
When you mentioned Navy, I was thinking how we view our manned space program is extension of the Air Force. OK except that paradigm are airplanes not mobile much of the time, and their missions are very direct. Where ships are mobile almost all the time, cruising the seas. Airplanes are short occupancy time, ships are occupied months at a time. So we want spaceships but modeling them after airplane paradigm makes them short duration (Apollo, Shuttle, Orion, Dragon, etc). We should think of having something
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
The budget for the military is renewed every two years, so it isn't unconstitutional. As for the air force, while I tend to be a strict constitutionalist, I accept that referring to "the army and navy" is equal to saying "the military", which would include the air force and possibly, in the future, a space force.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, I hope you don't depend on having a real job where you depend on the money so, as you have asserted is fair, you won't be harmed if they fire you on friday and refuse to pay you for the week.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that you would be ok promising someone five years of pay, then cutting them off after two if the congress says that funding has changed. Otherwise we are funding the army for five years.
You're begging the question.
In any case, I hope you don't depend on having a real job where you depend on the money so, as you have asserted is fair, you won't be harmed if they fire you on friday and refuse to pay you for the week.
There's a significant difference between "I promise to pay you for the next five years" and "I'm not paying you for the work you already did last week.
Re: (Score:2)
That's more job security that most people have.
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious (Score:3)
There are more guns than cars in the US
Wouldn't car owners vs. gun owners be much more relevant? It's not like you can drive ten cars or fire ten guns at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
What nonsense you spew. All branches of the armed forces are considered constitutional by Supreme Court. Air Force created as Army AIr Force, Marines and Coast Guard from Navy.
Space is already militarized, satellite killer weapons tested by all major powers and military satellites are there
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious (Score:2)
It used not to be the case that "Corrupt Republican" was an oxymoron. No longer.
I'm sorry; as a non-native speaker, I'm confused by all those negatives. Are you saying that it wasn't an oxymoron but it is now?
Okay, so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this basically proposing to rename Air Force Space Command into its own full branch?
Re:Okay, so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody really wants to be a 'Space Cadet'.
Actually, it sounds like somebody wants their own budget.
All wars are resource wars.
Re:Okay, so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it sounds like somebody wants their own budget.
That's what I thought too.
All wars are resource wars.
And Earth orbit is a resource. The USA will want to have the means to assure that resource is available. Not just available militarily but commercially, since a strong military is necessary for a strong economy, and vice versa.
One idea that has crossed my mind every so often is the idea of something like a Coast Guard for space. The US Navy and the Coast Guard have overlapping roles, and similar structure, but the Coast Guard is regarded as much as a police force as a military one. There's rules in US law and international law on the separation of a military force and a police force. For example, having Navy officers board a foreign flagged ship can be considered an act of war but Coast Guard officers doing the same would be a matter of law enforcement.
Is it really a military force we want in this role? Or should it be more of a law enforcement force?
If this is about protecting a resource, keeping the orbits above the USA clear of threats like the Coast Guard patrols the shores to do the same, then this might be the wrong way to go about this. In time though, as orbit becomes more accessible to non-government entities, I suspect both a military and police force with space borne capability will be needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody really wants to be a 'Space Cadet'.
Ahem, I'm on the other side of the pond, we call them Space Midshipmen.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this basically proposing to rename Air Force Space Command into its own full branch?
Yes, but with a lot more money spent on bureaucratic and political overhead.
Re: Okay, so... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New Motto (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
USAF + NSA/CIA + Navy + NASA/NOAA = Anything in orbit or going into orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
More a NSA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, NRO, CIA and Air Force in one.
Map the earth, allow US forces to communicate, spy, remove/alter other nations satellites, capture other nations satellites and bring them back to the USA for study.
Find an enemy satellite, alter it without them noticing. At a very critical time it gives false information.
Secure and keep the high ground. Detect tactical or theater systems, a radar that looks down from space 24/7.
Anything th
Re: (Score:2)
...remove/alter other nations satellites, capture other nations satellites and bring them back to the USA for study.
Find an enemy satellite, alter it without them noticing. At a very critical time it gives false information.
The Air Force is already tracking space junk down to the size of a walnut. You really think you can sneak a satellite out of orbit or physically modify it without the whole world knowing about it? It would be as obvious as a hot air balloon landing in Red Square, Tiananmen Square, or the National Mall.
---
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"German aviator known for his
As for what can be done by the USA in space?
That is all about selling big ideas for funding in private, secret budget presentations.
More sats or a space plane doing what sats do does not sound special in 2017, so why not present the idea that the US can do things to other nations sats given enough money?
A big "t
Re: (Score:2)
They're tracking things down to the size* of a walnut.
*Size - as observed by your viewing/tracking platform
Intentionally stealthy things aren't going to be the same. From a radar perspective, you could have a stealth jet up there and miss it entirely. There's still optical and thermal tracking, but this side of the arms race is in it's infancy.
Take a small object with state of the art stealth systems and a long term mission window (i.e. low delta-v isn't an issue) and I don't expect it would be very diffi
Moonraker (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sharks have all the lasers.
Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? (Score:2, Insightful)
I was under the impression we did, but with this current administration wanting to rip up anything done before it, I could see them wanting to "make America great" by getting into an outer space arms race. Large metal spikes that can travel at high rates of speed are all that would be needed to wipe out large cities. Look up Project Thor to see what was the next step in the US-USSR conflict had the nuclear weapons been ineffective.
Re: (Score:2)
Militarizing space any more than it already is with passive things like spy/comms/navigation satellites is a really, really bad idea. The last thing we want is an arms race to develop space weapons. The original fear was that nukes would be placed in orbit, but there is potentially far worse stuff.
If NASA is planning to capture an asteroid then the US needs to be careful about the potential military applications for dropping rocks on other countries, and not do anything to suggest it might be interested in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw nothing to imply this space force would be in command of orbital weapons. It'd be a large and relatively independent force within the Air Force that specialized in space based military resources. That could just mean that they manage the communications, navigation, and weather satellites for the Air Force and other branches.
Also, I think you are about 40 years too late to complain about an arms race to develop space weapons. And that's being rather conservative. really. It's probably more like 60
Re: (Score:2)
And it's a really really bad idea because of the Kessler Syndrome. [wikipedia.org] If powers start knocking birds out of the sky in a panic or in self-defense then the debris could cause a chain reaction which would lock humanity inside planet earth and deny EVERYONE access to space for the foreseeable future.
Admittedly, that sort of attempt at removing WMD capabilities is the sort where the world ends shortly after one way or another. But still.
And I think it's an open secret that all the major powers have anti-spying las
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. This would almost certainly violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty [wikipedia.org].
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not so sure. The Wikipedia summary of the treaty does say that conventional weapons are allowed, only what they deem weapons of mass destruction would be prohibited.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is some math comparing the energy of orbital speed vs nuclear weapons. First of all, think about it, if you are going to drop something from orbit, first you have to put it into orbit, which will take more energy to do than the ultimate energetic yield upon reentry (discounting the even more far fetched ideas of redirecting asteroids...). The Saturn V could put 140,000 kg into low earth orbit. So the total energy, kinetic and potential, of 140,000 kg in earth orbit is less than the fuel energy contained in a Saturn V. The Saturn V was big, but would be considered very small as the equivalent of a nuclear weapon (the launch spectators were only a few miles away, in the open).
Now for the math. At the speed of low earth orbit (7.8 km/s) the kinetic energy of 1 kg is 6.1E7 joules (1/2 mv^2). The conversion from nuclear yield in kilotons to joules is 1 kt = 4.184E12 joules. So to equal a small nuke (using the approximate yield of the first one at Trinity) with a yield of 20 kt would require about 2.8E6 kg in low earth orbit to dissipate all of its kinetic energy as destructive yield (that's 2800 metric tons). I've ignored the potential energy of the mass in orbit as it is much smaller than the kinetic energy (about 2E6 joules/kg). The mass of the ISS is 420 metric tons. Not many nukes are as small as 20 kt anymore. I'd guess that the operational ones are closer to 500 kt, though operation weapons with yields of a few megatons (2000 to 3000 kt and up) have been fielded in the past and maybe still are. So now we are talking orbital masses of around 70,000 metric tons to equal one typical nuke. There is a LOT of energy in a nuclear weapon.
So dropping things from orbit does not create city flattening yields or big earthquakes, cracks in the earth, etc.
Anyone can feel free to check my math, I did it in a hurry. I got all my starting numbers from Wikipedia.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? (Score:5, Informative)
The Saturn V could also put around 31,000kg into high orbit (high enough to go for lunar orbit) (combined launch mass of Lunar Module and Command Module), at a velocity of 11 km/s. Kinetic Energy of 1kg at escape velocity is around 6E7 joules (though my back of an envelope calculations could be out).
Enough to be scary for those on the ground, but there, as you point out, easier ways to achieve the same aim.
Though kinetic weapons conveniently don't violate any existing treaties (Outer Space, Non-proliferation, SALT, START etc)
Re: (Score:2)
Darn, you're right and my number for orbital KE is to high by a factor of 2 (forgot to do the multiply by 1/2). I did that math about 4 times... My overestimate makes the comparison between orbital energy and nuclear energy even more lopsided in favor of the nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee... with numbers like that, it'd seem that it'd be practical to use nuclear bombs as propulsion to get all that energy into making a payload orbit the planet. It'd probably work well on paper, but you can be sure nobody would want to deal with the complexities of cleaning up after a bomb-based liftoff.
Somebody designing such a thing [wikipedia.org] would be a good sanity check on your math [xkcd.com].
True but I think your missing the real benefit (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing are Rods from God [wikipedia.org]. Long considered a potential weapon, and not prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty or SALT II.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is some math comparing the energy of orbital speed vs nuclear weapons. First of all, think about it, if you are going to drop something from orbit, first you have to put it into orbit, which will take more energy to do than the ultimate energetic yield upon reentry (discounting the even more far fetched ideas of redirecting asteroids...).
Not necessarily. The solar system is full of massive objects including asteroids containing cubic miles of metal and easily dwarfing 70Mtons. You would only need a small amount of thrust to park it in orbit if you had a decade or so and didn't mind the safety implications of using the earth to aerodynamically brake it. Or better yet, if impact time was less of a concern and you had a few months to a few years, you could just impact it directly into the earth. You can get back billions or more times the
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference being, today it's possible to put objects into LEO which would be deorbited to bombard the planet.
It's not currently possible to alter sizable asteroid orbits in any useful manner, much less so accurately that you can either park them on earth orbit or target them at a very specific place. IIRC NASA plans to *attempt* to *slightly* modify the orbit of an asteroid in the fairly near future.
Furthermore, unless one country has total control of this capability it's just as easy to send somet
Re: (Score:2)
You can grow the list (Score:3)
There is an Outer Space Treaty that prohibits "weapons of mass destruction" in space. So, no nukes. However, kinetic bombardment weapons have been in development for some time now.
A powerful enough kinetic bombardment system IS a WMD. Just because nukes, biological, and chemical weapons are currently considered WMDs doesn't mean we can't add to the list. When you can get nuclear level yields by dropping an asteroid on a city you'll have a pretty hard time arguing that it isn't a WMD.
Re: (Score:2)
Locating, tracking, capture and recovery back to the USA of any other nations new spy satellites.
No damage to property, no creation of lots of smaller parts due to impact or anything like that during peace time.
The interesting satellite just fails to ever work and then disappears as a usable system for that nation. Nothing inte
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the whole point of this is not to actually put any airmen into space to protect the US or anything like that.
The point is to get a budget and some power for someone.
Controlling the Earth via the Moon? (Score:2)
The ultimate space weapon could be deployed from the moon.
What weapon? Why would you need the moon to deploy it? One can deploy hugely destructive civilization ending weapons from near earth orbit without needing to go to the trouble of going to the moon.
Whomever has control of the moon(as in..actually there), will control the Earth provided the human race survives that long.
That sentence doesn't make much sense. How exactly do you figure someone on the moon (a place with no food, little water, no atmosphere, and no economy) is going to control earth? By threatening with WMDs? We already have that situation in case you forgot. Do you think people on Earth couldn't shoot those on
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think people on Earth couldn't shoot those on the moon just as easily as the reverse? I think you've been reading too much science fiction.
I was about to disagree with you based on the depth of the gravity well on earth vs. the moon but in reality it would probably be more efficient (in a large scale) to go to the moon, build projectiles, then move them to earth orbit since that transfer requires much less energy. Then you use the PE of earth's gravity to bring your projectiles down.
But for smaller scales, it's far more efficient to just go to earth orbit and drop things back down. Not that it's especially efficient anyway of course. It jus
Energy efficiency (Score:2)
I was about to disagree with you based on the depth of the gravity well on earth vs. the moon but in reality it would probably be more efficient (in a large scale) to go to the moon, build projectiles, then move them to earth orbit since that transfer requires much less energy.
We don't have to involve the moon at all to have more than enough firepower to destroy earth. I fail to see how the efficiency the orbital mechanics would be significant in a shooting war when the warheads coming from Earth are more than adequate to wipe out civilization already without any of the bother of building a moon base. While the same missile shot from the moon could reach earth a bit faster and require less energy, it wouldn't get to earth quick enough to prevent a retaliatory launch so no tacti
Re: (Score:2)
Start on the moon, the gravity well is negligible in comparison. Granted, you need to lift your factory into place first.
I don't think any of it is especially efficient, but the big advantage isn't the 100kt+ nuke equivalent. It's the .1-10kt range with focus on the smaller side. The largest conventional bomb (FOAB) is about 0.044kt or 44 tonne equivalent. Being able to attack with multiple, high-accuracy, non-nuclear 0.1kt weapons in a short span is...a considerable advantage. And that without needing
Space Corp Directives! (Score:4, Funny)
Does this mean we can finally have Space Corp Directives?
Space Corp Directive 34124. 'No officer with false teeth should attempt oral sex in zero gravity.'
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
America is an empire. If America didn't have it's empire level military someone else would by vying for that position. Blunt and honest fact, Europe's welfare states and the rest of the world's healthcare systems are subsidized by American citizens. Whether that will continue for much longer is to be seen. It will be a glorious day when the ungrateful socialists of the world realize that their freebies weren't free lunches.
Here's an honest question for fools like yourself. Which boot would you rather be lic
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, the old "I'm doing it because I'm protecting everyone else from the other guy who WOULD do it" argument...
America's war-mongering is going to bite it in the ass. Our infrastructure is failing. Schools aren't delivering. Job markets suck. We're honestly debating whether people deserve a right to medical treatment. Our country allowed corporations to profit from incarceration. Unemployment numbers are deliberately mismeasured. Corruption is everywhere. People detest our country *because* of that war monge
Re: (Score:2)
Europe's welfare states and the rest of the world's healthcare systems are subsidized by American citizens.
Proof please- jingoism is no substitute for facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe's welfare states and the rest of the world's healthcare systems are subsidized by American citizens.
Proof please- jingoism is no substitute for facts.
For your laziness:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=America+s... [lmgtfy.com]
Eisenhower questioned the Military Industrial Comp (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
disclosure: american here.
I am an American as well, but with a different perspective.
our Department of Defense is funded to the tune of more than 500 billion dollars.
Our GDP is almost 18 trillion dollars.
It employs close to three million people.
That's 1% of our population.
This doesnt count the literal millions of people whom are employed as military contractors
One. Literally one million. A quick search shows that adding up the top 9 contracters [businessinsider.com] is under 900,000 people, and a large portion of each of those companies actually sits outside the defense industry. For simplicity, let's round up to a nice single million. That's not even enough to bump our percentage beyond statistical error.
providing everything from catering to private security and transportation (our troops fly commercial aircraft frequently.)
Their contracts are included in the DoD's budget. Our tro
Re: (Score:2)
Then the paranoia of a generation led us to stumble into central america, the middle east, and southeast asia.
To be fair, the paranoia was mostly warranted. During World War II, the Soviet bloc also recovered well from their own economic troubles, and their economies had led to political expansion that cut off emerging markets for the United States. The Soviet Union also gained a significant amount of territory in Europe through the war, and they maintained exclusive control, apparently fueling the Soviet economy at the West's expense.
Warranted as in the commies were indeed trying to spread their ideology to the rest of the world. And warranted as in they really did send a bunch of spies into the USA.
But the actions in South America during the Red Scare were atrocities that destabilized the entire region and had a MASSIVE net negative impact. We didn't have to fight the communists, they're system was fucked up and it collapsed. The entire reason we had the cold war and all those proxy wars was because we thought our system was better.
Re: (Score:3)
Our GDP is almost 18 trillion dollars.
And our debt is nearly equal to that. And we are adding to that debt at a rate of approximately the entire budget of the US military EVERY YEAR. Basically we are borrowing the entire cost of the US military every single year which we then have to repay with interest. You think there isn't an opportunity cost that arises from that? Just because the US has a large GDP doesn't mean it is infinite or that we can't outspend our means.
One. Literally one million. A quick search shows that adding up the top 9 contracters is under 900,000 people, and a large portion of each of those companies actually sits outside the defense industry.
You have to add in the supply chain f
Re: (Score:2)
Perspective is an interesting thing. GDP vs federal budget.
$600b out of $18t is only about 3%. But...
Out of the $3.8t federal budget in 2015, $600b or 16% was spent on the military.
If you look at discretionary spending (i.e. exclude social security, unemployment, healthcare, debt interest etc.) then it's $600b out $1.1t or about 54%.
So more than HALF the money our government has to spend on whatever they think would best improve our country goes to the military. Mind you, I fully believe that number is g
Re: (Score:2)
Your cynicism aside.
So, we pick our battles and fight the wars we have an overwhelming supremacy in waging.
When would you ever want to fight a war where you are against an equal or superior enemy? It is actually the smart thing to do and if you look at any strategist worth their salt they will say the same thing... Pick your battles and only fight when you know you have an advantage. Every strategy and tactic is about creating and keeping an advantage over the enemy.
Do you want to throw away your soldiers lives because you have some obscure notion of a "gentlemen's war"? That is how you lose
At least it isn't "Space Cadets" (Score:2)
Man this congress has to end (Score:2)
Well if they form their tax polices after the fantasies of someone who never got over their teenage fantasies [wikipedia.org] of how the world should work then why not their space exploration policy?
Stargate? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the russians let them keep it. It's under loan from them.
political trial balloon (Score:2)
Stupid (Score:2)
Expenditures on defense are already obscene and need to be cut in half. After they manage that then and only then should be we begin talking about space.
Space Corps:They Will Fight And They Will Win! * (Score:5, Funny)
We don't want to be first to do this (Score:4, Insightful)
The existing Space Command is a good framework for staying aware of whatever weaponization other countries might be contemplating in space before any such weaponization actually occurs. If we pre-emptively declare a Space Corps into existence, everyone else will consider it an escalation and want one too. This wouldn't even make military sense, let alone diplomatic sense.
Remember that we proved the worth of air power all through WW II without needing to create an Air Force until 1947.
citizen (Score:3)
OK ... (Score:2)
who didn't arm their spaceship? [youtube.com]
More stupidity (Score:2)
Army space command
https://www.army.mil/info/orga... [army.mil]
Navy space command
http://www.navy.mil/local/spaw... [navy.mil]
Coast Guard Space command
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/... [dodlive.mil]
But it's DoD and DHS. The two worst US Government Departments. They are never held accountable.
A bold move ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The United States Space Corps would be the first new branch of the military since 1947, when the Air Force was formed
People should also ask: what the hell is the point? Since the USA has no "space" assets that need defending, nor has the ability to hold territory against foes and can't even claim rights to anything that might be in orbit.
But I suppose that if you want to provoke all the other world powers, who have much more advanced capabilities, into militarising space then go right ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Among other things, the "much more advanced capabilities" of those other world powers does not include the currently operational launch vehicle with the largest payload mass to orbit -- that would be the Delta IV Heavy, made in USA. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy-lift_launch_vehicle)
Mobile Infantry (Score:2)
Fleet does the flying, MI does the dying.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things I love about that movie is it relentlessly trolls fascism, by the end all the "good" or "moral" people die or fail to make the cut in service to the meatgrinder society they live in, the "naturally selected" citizens are vapid, good looking shells of people.
Rico, basically a dumb jock meathead. Carmen is a vapid flirt that cares only for her career, Carl is a proto elitist with an almost mengele like ethos. ...I need to get around to reading the books.
Re: (Score:2)
I need to get around to reading the books
You'll find a bit of contrast: Heinlein wasn't trolling. In fact, Verhoeven trolled Heinlein.
Colonisation (Score:2)
I guess since we do not have a World Unified Government then the question is who will own Mars and its resources once we do get there?
The nation who is capable to conquer it and provide 'security' for the colonists/mining companies will be the Owner of such colonies or at least charge a massive fee for providing that security. Kind of a racketeering business in space.
The way it seems we have done all the fighting we can do here on Earth now we are getting ready for Battlefield Mars.
The mineral wealth on Mar
Here is whats really going on (Score:2)
They'll need an official march (Score:2)
Would be more appropriate under the Navy (Score:2)
Let us firs create US Cyber Corps (Score:2)
Gizmodo? Seriously? (Score:2)
You're quoting Gizmodo? A Gawker site that posts one useful, non-partisan story for every ten anti-Trump stories? "Gizmodo reporter draws conclusion before thoughtfully attempting to deflect criticism of his obvious bias." FTFY
You had the chance, you bungled it (Score:2)
Umm, money? (Score:2)
You guys are doing it again. Does your country have the money for this? Do you intend to throw more of your taxes to your military?
The article mentions China's space-oriented weapons. China has money. China has your money.
Maybe you should, as a country, find some money before opting for what must be the most expensive military faction ever considered?
The 'US Space Corps'? (Score:2)
What do you mean? The Galactic Empire or the Peacekeepers?
Starship Troopers (Score:2)
I think what's happened is Drumpf watched Starship Troopers and got scared of space bugs...
We already have the Marine Space Corps (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, sarcasm evident, but anyone who thinks the DMZ is peaceful hasn't been there. There are guns there, and once in a while, firefights.
Here's my DMZ selfie [perens.com].
Re: (Score:2)