President Trump Officially Adds a New Branch to the U.S. Military: Space Force (bbc.com) 249
The BBC reports:
President Donald Trump has officially funded a Pentagon force focused on warfare in space -- the U.S. Space Force.
The new military service, the first in more than 70 years, falls under the U.S. Air Force.
The funding allocation was confirmed on Friday when the president signed the $738bn (£567bn) annual U.S. military budget. The launch of the Space Force will be funded by an initial $40m for its first year.
Those figures indicate that Space Force will now receive $1 out of every $18,450 in the U.S. military budget -- or .0054 percent. Here's what that looks like as a pie chart.
Newsweek's report includes the president's remarks at the signing ceremony: "That is something really incredible. It's a big moment. That's a big moment, and we're all here for it. Space. Going to be a lot of things happening in space."
The president added: "Because space is the world's newest warfighting domain. Amid grave threats to our national security, American superiority in space is absolutely vital. And we're leading, but we're not leading by enough. But very shortly, we'll be leading by a lot."
As noted by the BBC, the department's mission is not intended to blast troops into space, but will focus on protecting American assets like satellites from hostile attacks. The creation of the Space Force comes as China and Russia are increasingly focusing on the skies above, it noted. The Space Force website says responsibilities include "developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power."
In response to the news, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tweeted "Starfleet begins."
The new military service, the first in more than 70 years, falls under the U.S. Air Force.
The funding allocation was confirmed on Friday when the president signed the $738bn (£567bn) annual U.S. military budget. The launch of the Space Force will be funded by an initial $40m for its first year.
Those figures indicate that Space Force will now receive $1 out of every $18,450 in the U.S. military budget -- or .0054 percent. Here's what that looks like as a pie chart.
Newsweek's report includes the president's remarks at the signing ceremony: "That is something really incredible. It's a big moment. That's a big moment, and we're all here for it. Space. Going to be a lot of things happening in space."
The president added: "Because space is the world's newest warfighting domain. Amid grave threats to our national security, American superiority in space is absolutely vital. And we're leading, but we're not leading by enough. But very shortly, we'll be leading by a lot."
As noted by the BBC, the department's mission is not intended to blast troops into space, but will focus on protecting American assets like satellites from hostile attacks. The creation of the Space Force comes as China and Russia are increasingly focusing on the skies above, it noted. The Space Force website says responsibilities include "developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power."
In response to the news, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tweeted "Starfleet begins."
Protecting us from illegal aliens? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
That is awesome! Now Trump can really stop illegal aliens from entering out country!
Well, not for this story, but he just got all his requested Wall funding through congress without so much as a peep. Apparently that's not worthy of coverage in the media anymore....
Re:Protecting us from illegal aliens? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is awesome! Now Trump can really stop illegal aliens from entering out country!
Well, not for this story, but he just got all his requested Wall funding through congress without so much as a peep. Apparently that's not worthy of coverage in the media anymore....
Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for it?
Re:Protecting us from illegal aliens? (Score:5, Informative)
That is awesome! Now Trump can really stop illegal aliens from entering out country!
Well, not for this story, but he just got all his requested Wall funding through congress without so much as a peep. Apparently that's not worthy of coverage in the media anymore....
Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for it?
Shhhh! You'll upset the people in the red hats -- you know, the ones who haven't "read the transcript" [twitter.com] (The Daily Show: "Jordan Klepper Fingers the Pulse on Impeachment" Full Clip [youtube.com])
Re: (Score:3)
So tariffs and trade deals don't exist?
Never has it been more appropriate to ask what all of this has to do with the price of eggs in China.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm just curious.. What on earth does his impeachment have to do with anything if he wins the 2020 election? If he's re-elected, doesn't that say something about the voter's views on the impeachment idea?
If he's re-elected, There is zero chance the Democrats can actually *remove* him from office because there is zero chance they can get 2/3rds of the Senate to vote for that, much less get a super majority in the Senate before he's term limited out. Unless he commits an overt crime that is so reprehensible
Re: Protecting us from illegal aliens? (Score:4, Interesting)
...things are going really well by every objective measure (stock market, unemployment rate, better trade deals, no new wars, ISIS destroyed, etc.).
Apart from that pesky measure called "deficit". Anybody can make a country run well if they ignore that one.
How low have we sunk when "no new wars" is considered a good presidency?
"ISIS destroyed"? Nope.
Re: Protecting us from illegal aliens? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the Constitution the power of the purse belongs to Congress.
The problem is that neither party wants to make the hard, politically unpalatable choices.
Re: (Score:3)
Apart from that pesky measure called "deficit".
Which is a valid concern, but one you only care about when the other team has the presidency.
How low have we sunk when "no new wars" is considered a good presidency?
Pretty far, but it's still accurate.
"ISIS destroyed"? Nope.
Right, they've only suffered a "massive loss of territory".
Re: Protecting us from illegal aliens? (Score:3)
It's called late teen abortion.
Habitual lying is mental illness. (Score:2, Informative)
Less than a strong Series B.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This would be in addition to what the Air Force already spends on these kinds of projects. The Air Force is already extensively involved in space militarization, so a chunk of their existing budget goes towards it. That's what the X-37B is all about. This is just some kind of organizational change, probably to better spell out who has to answer to two, and better track how money flows for "space related" spending so it can be accounted for.
Re: (Score:2)
It's mostly a cover to bring authority over advanced space technology under Trump's jurisdiction as Commander in Chief but they do need to spend some time planning. China has a hundred year plan for military domination in space, and they are currently working on plans for military destroyers in orbit. This is all open source, but some of it is in Mandarin so you have to listen to the experts in American-China relations to get the benefits of material that's not in the mainstream press. The funding should c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's a fucking moron and this is just a token to make him feel like he accomplished something.
Re: (Score:2)
And after 4 years the Dems will be able to say "we were really tough on this guy. Yeah he's still in office, but we DID impeach him. All those other pressing issues? We can get to them now. "
Token or not, Trump is going to have a long list of real and questionable accomplishments to point to. The other guys will have 4 years of outrage to brag about. Trump understands the Dems better than they understand themselves and they allow themselves to be played.
The preceding is
Re: (Score:2)
The types of positions this would need to do anything useful are probably more expensive than the $97K that Silicon Valley startups pay out because
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Come to think of it, I don't know how much money any of my neighbors make, nor do I care how much they could potentially be making. You seem to know an awful lot about your neighbor. Are you going through his mail or fucking his wife or something like that? Occam's razor suggests you're p
Re: (Score:2)
It's only kind of a new branch (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still going to be attached to the chair force, and the people who are in it are just the people who have been doing the same jobs over there.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying that this is a token to make Trump think he did something? Because that's correct.
Meanwhile... (Score:2, Informative)
Trump's chubby best buddy with the "beautiful letter" is testing ICBMs that can reach the US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/1... [nytimes.com]
Everything this impeached degenerate touches turns to shit.
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one ignoring the vote - Nancy Pelosi is. Her (or rather Schiff/Nadler/Pelosi's) choice of judicial committee witnesses - who vocifierously supported the impeachment of President Trump - is the one stating here that he's not impeached. So I guess either the good Harvard Law School professor, Noah Feldman, is correct, and the President is NOT impeached, or he's wrong.
But if he's wrong, doesn't that bring into question the rest of his testimony about impeachment?
Re: (Score:2)
The legal principle of "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"?
In other, simpler, words for you: If a witness proves themselves false in one case, they are not considered a credible witness for anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
PS: President Trump is not impeached [washingtontimes.com].
I've seen that line of logic pop up this week and IMHO it's absolutely lame-arsed.
It's like saying that even though the police have a signed warrant for your arrest, you're not really in trouble with the law until they actually come knocking on your door.
The House voted to impeach the president. The president has been impeached. But do you really think that these articles of impeachment will *not* be delivered to the Senate? They will be delivered and the president will still be just as impeached as he i
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, and the Constitutional scholars agree that impeachment is a process, not a milestone, and it hasn't been reached yet. One of the ones who got published in Bloomberg actually testified against Trump in the hearings; same with Dershowitz as far as loyalties, but you should read their articles yourself.
The House voted to appoint managers to bring articles of impeachment to the Senate but, under Sixth Amendment rules if Trump cannot defend himself he isn't impeached. A second question is whether the vot
Re: (Score:2)
under Sixth Amendment rules if Trump cannot defend himself he isn't impeached.
Since when was an impeachment a criminal trial?
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Informative)
The Constitution literally says "high crimes and misdemeanors." We use the word "felonies" today. Both are crimes.
The constitution does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors" so it is your opinion that they are equivalent to felonies. And you also go against the founders that a crime needs to have been committed in order for an impeachment to occur.
Do these words seem familiar: "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Informative)
Nope.
They are not the same, nor do they have the same burden of proof. Historically, "high" referred to the fact that the impeached person held a public office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons. [constitution.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, a judge issues a warrant, not the police. The police have to first present a case to another body before they get that warrant. Hasn't happened yet, has it? Thus Feldman's position (the esteemed Harvard Law Professor, one of the chosen Three Witnesses of the Judicial Committee hearings) that the impeachment hasn't happened yet.
As far as not delivering it, I think Pelosi is in a pickle. If she does deliver it, the "case" as put together by her, Schiff, and Nadler will crumble as it's built no
Re: (Score:2)
Which is actually correct. If the police have a signed warrant for your arrest but the police refuse to pass it along to their officers, then for all intents and purposes, you haven't been arrested. If a law is not implemented, then it for all intents and purposes does not exist, which is a legal standard laws are held against. The House has to pass a bill to impeach the President, according to the rules, the Speaker then has to send the bill to the Senate - Pelosi is basically vetoing the impeachment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's being played by North Korea.
Probably thanks to policies by the previous administration.
You had perfectly good trade deals and Trump decided he didn't like them so he reneged on them. Nobody else in the World thinks the USA is trustworthy anymore.
By throwing entire ethnic groups under the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is certainly an idiot at times and assuredly a loose cannon at most all times, but are you really going to try to argue that there’s nothing he could get right? Are you in the Sith party or something?
Come out into the real world and join us. It isn’t always colorful, but we’ve at least got shades of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He's still the president, and given how the things are going, will keep being the president for more 4 years.
Trump won 2016 by appealing to a bunch of conservatives and moderate Republicans. But in doing so he just scraped over the line (electoral college 46th out of 58 elections, popular vote 47th out of 49 elections), and since then his support among moderates has been dropping as he only targets his core base. But that base only represents 30% to 40% of the population. So if he is going to win then the next 11 months he needs to win back all the people he pissed off. And Trump being Trump his actions are m
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, what trump does is not as relevant as what the dems will do.
And what they will do is to basically ignore everything people care about and appeal to the twitter fringe, handling the election to Trump on a silver plate.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, what trump does is not as relevant as what the dems will do.
So you are saying that Trump literally could shoot someone in 5th avenue? Because I'm getting the feeling that the tide is turning on him, and that has nothing to do with impeachment, but from trump being Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's possible to Trump to do something that will make him lose the election, but need to be something pretty darn horrible like a random murder or for some weird reason just starting to agree with bernie sanders on everything.
But it's very unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's very unlikely.
If there is one thing that Trump is, its that he is unpredictable
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If there is one thing that Trump is, its that he is unpredictable"
Only to people that aren't paying attention.
Frankly, he's the first president in my lifetime who is actually doing the things he promised on the campaign trail.
How's that wall coming along that Mexico is paying for. And hows is Hillary's prison cell set up?
Re: (Score:2)
The wall is coming along fine apparently and the investigations in 2016 are still ongoing.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird, because polls and approval ratings keep rising in favor of Trump. Trump has withstood not one but at least 6 major investigations from the House without as much as a criminal charge against him. Even Clinton couldn't avoid 2 criminal charges in a single investigation on far lesser (or so is claimed) behavior. People are getting kind of sick of hearing about accusations without any reliable witnesses or convictions.
And have you heard the Democratic candidates? They're clocking each other in the head o
Re: (Score:2)
You get that feeling because you are in an information bubble where your opinion predilections are reinforced. Your social (and especially tele-social) interactions are being filtered by your interest history. And so are people on the sides you disagree with.
The only remedy I can suggest at the moment can only increase your uncertainty: Follow two or three people who the idealogical group you disagree with consider to be eloquent supporters. This won't let you judge support levels, because it doesn't reveal
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats are terrified at the prospect of the defense calling witnesses to testify under oath so they refuse to go forward as is required by the constitution.
so.. how much convicting would be going on in the senate over Christmas break? Meanwhile the Democrats keep the impeachment story in the news (and the Republicans continue to shoot themselves in the foot).
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are sick of hearing about impeachment and just want to get it over with. There's a reason it's called a 24h news cycle - people lose interest on the topic.
Yes, keep impeachment in the news (Score:2)
Meanwhile the Democrats keep the impeachment story in the news.
The result of keeping impeachment in the news so far:
(1) Support for impeachment down.
(2) Support for Trump up.
Yeah, really brilliant idea to continue down that path.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that McConnell has stated that he won't actually hold a trial. Instead, he will hold a sham in which no witnesses will be called and the jury have already made up their minds. McConnell has clearly stated that he intends to violate his oath of office because his loyalty to the current President is more important to
McConnel says they will listen to House evidence (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that McConnell has stated that he won't actually hold a trial.
Wrong. What he has said is that the evidence to be considered is the evidence presented by the House.
Instead, he will hold a sham in which no witnesses will be called and the jury have already made up their minds.
Nope. What he is doing is not giving the Democrats a second attempt at investigation after they bungled their first. That Democrats will have to live with the farse they performed in the House.
McConnell has clearly stated that he intends to violate his oath of office
Nope. The House charges, in other words it acts as the prosecutor and presents the evidence. The Senate tries, in other words it acts as the jury, listening to the prosecutor's evidence and making a decision. That is e
Re:McConnel says they will listen to House evidenc (Score:5, Informative)
If there are no witnesses, what evidence?
McConnell has already stated what the outcome will be:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
and that he is coordinating with the Whitehouse:
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
In other words, McConnell has clearly stated that he won't act as an impartial juror. This is a clear violation of his oath.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution says nothing about the Senate being impartial... or being a jury at all!
Oh, by the way - There are four Democrat Senators running for President, each one of whom has already publicly stated they intend to convict Trump.
Is that 'impartial' enough for you?
Did you think that when the Democrats in the House declared "Impeachment is a political process!" that it would apply only to the House? Nope. A political process in the House produces a political process in the Senate. The House Republic
Re: (Score:2)
If there are no witnesses, what evidence?
There are witnesses, the transcripts for all testimony from the House investigations is the evidence.
McConnell has already stated what the outcome will be
Nope, all he states is that the outcome rests upon the strength of the case that the House makes. A case that has not yet been made. You confuse a pragmatic opinion with prejudgement, two very different things. His actual statement expresses an expectation based on the known public info which is not necessarily the entirety of the case that the House could make. After all we still have not heard of all the s
Re: (Score:2)
"Denial" ain't just a river in Egypt.
I provided a citation that has a direct quote, yet you continue to deny it. Wow.
Get a clue. Perhaps you should expand your news sources beyond Fox News. It might be a revelation.
I’m doing my part! (Score:5, Funny)
Will service guarantee citizenship?
Re: (Score:2)
This is for all you new people. I have only one rule. Everybody fights, no one quits. If you don't do your job, I'll kill you myself! - Jean Rasczak
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I’m doing my part!
Will service guarantee citizenship?
It's funny because that movie was actually about a brutal fascist world which is exactly what the current president is pushing us toward.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like some countries are using either Idiocracy and/or Starship Troopers as templates on how to run things. Scary stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain how it is fascist?
It is very a militar themed government, after all you have to serve to be able to vote or run for government, but i don't remember any instance of any particular group of people getting hunted down or being oppressed.
Disenfranchising 4-F would hurt the disabled (Score:2)
[In a particular work of fiction,] you have to serve to be able to vote or run for government, but i don't remember any instance of any particular group of people getting hunted down or being oppressed.
Disenfranchisement of those unfit for military service (classification 4-F) [wikipedia.org] would discriminate against people with disabilities. In particular, it would appear to disqualify previous well-respected Presidents of the United States who may have been 4-F, such as Franklin Roosevelt for polio complications or Thomas Jefferson for what some now believe to have been mild autism. Or would a more militaristic society manage to find roles for people with disabilities in the armed forces?
Re: (Score:3)
Disenfranchisement of those unfit for military service (classification 4-F) would discriminate against people with disabilities.
The movie and the book are only somewhat related, but if you take the book as canon, no, it would not.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain how it is fascist?
The director of it explained it in the DVD commentary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
In his DVD commentary, Verhoeven stated his intentions clearly: the film's message is that "War makes fascists of us all". He evoked Nazi Germany's fashion, iconography, and propaganda because he saw it as a natural evolution of the United States after World War II, and especially after the Korean War. "I've heard this film nicknamed All Quiet on the Final Frontier", he said, "which is actually not far from the truth." Edward Neumeier broadly concurs, although he sees a satire on human history rather than solely the United States.[6] Verhoeven says his satirical use of irony and hyperbole is "playing with fascism or fascist imagery to point out certain aspects of American society... of course, the movie is about 'Let's all go to war and let's all die.'"[14]
Re: I’m doing my part! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure reads like you haven't done an intellectually honest analysis of his actions.
Fascists are anti-capitalist to the core. They believed in state control.
It seems you haven't been paying attention to his actions. The exclusion of AWS from government contracts comes to mind. You can't corrupt a government overnight, it takes years. He's been making great inroad in that regard.
Re: I’m doing my part! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This, precisely. A thousand times over.
Amazon already made a government cloud, and it sucks. It's a slow, unreliable, limited POS. It runs 3 to 5 years behind the public cloud, and it gets worse every day.
Microsoft should get a chance, because it's almost impossible for them to screw it up any worse. And there is always the chance an Azure cloud might actually work! I wouldn't count on it, but there's a better chance of that than the government AWS ever being anything but suck.
Bloat Projections (Score:2)
Even if a Democrat unseats Trump in the 2020 election, I doubt they'd undo this even as much as they dislike Trump. We saw the same thing with the ACA where despite all of the pissing and moaning from Republicans during the Obama years, they didn't remove it when they had every ability to do so. I'd like a moratorium on starting new government agencies. If you want a new on
Re: (Score:2)
Space is expensive. There is no real practice method of protecting assets. We also have treaties that limit what anyone can do in space.
This is a mistake because, for the time being, diplomacy is what will keep us safe and productive.
Re: Bloat Projections (Score:2)
Obligatory Simpsons (Score:2)
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots." - The Simpsons, 2014
No where else for the war machine to go (Score:5, Insightful)
After militarizing the entire face of the Earth, where else is the US war machine to go but up?
Re: (Score:2)
And then those idiots will see a friendly first contact as an enemy to destroy, which will in turn mean the end of the human race.
Re: No where else for the war machine to go (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's time we got our Mole Brigade!
This is one of the worst things he's done (Score:3)
There are treaties specifically against doing so. I'm sure it's debatable whether we're violating those treaties by doing this, but we're certainly violating the intent.
Anyway, 2020's just around the corner. I'd like to think there's nobody here on
Re: (Score:2)
This really hasn't done anything. All he's done is rename some parts of the air force as the space force. The air force has already militarized space. Trump has just put his name on the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to interrupt your panicked ranting, but you are completely off-topic here.
This bill does nothing but re-arrange space assets that already exist to all belong to one branch of the military. Right now, the Army flies some, the Air Force flies some, the NRO flies some, the NSA flies some, the CIA flies some, and so on. After this, the Space Force will fly them.
Whee. That's it.
There are no "treaty violations", by letter or intent. This is not a horrible thing. There is no need to be worried, and ther
No treaties? (Score:3)
You'll notice the two examples I gave are literally impossible with current tech. Sure, it's a photo op for Trump now. A rather silly one. But what about 50 years from now? 100 years from now?
Another question, why did we sign treaties to preclude the militarization of space if the science wasn't there? To draw a line that must not be crossed.
You're underestimating the importance of formalizing warfare in space. It's normalizing. We should be horrified at the prospect, ju
Space has always been militarized (Score:2)
Space was not supposed to be militarized.
The only thing that is prohibited is putting weapons of mass destruction into orbit. Weapons of mass destruction are allowed to pass through space on a ballistic course, ie ICBMs. Spaceships are allowed to be armed. Military reconnaissance and espionage is allowed. Military targeting systems are allowed, ie GPS.
There are treaties specifically against doing so. I'm sure it's debatable ...
No, its not, neither in actual wording nor intent.
who doesn't understand why a Space Force is a horrible thing.
Perhaps if you knew what Space Force is it might be helpful. It is combining the existing space assets and responsibilities spread around numerous se
And perhaps if you understood (Score:2)
We had aerial balloons before an air force. We kept building out that air force until we routinely kill civilians with drones and nobody cares outside of a few guys on YouTube.
Also the treaties cover a lot more than that [slashdot.org].
Space weaponized in 1944 (Score:2)
And perhaps if you understood the process of normalization that naming those assets means you'd have the proper level of apprehension. We had aerial balloons before an air force. We kept building out that air force until we routinely kill civilians with drones and nobody cares outside of a few guys on YouTube. Also the treaties cover a lot more than that [slashdot.org].
Space was weaponized in 1944 when the German V2 rockets bombed Britain, no normalization necessary, spaceflight started as a wartime attack. Your link confirm my statement that the only prohibition is on weapons of mass destruction. The only things that comes close, but still fails, if the use of the moon and other celestial bodies for peaceful purposes. Space Force's mission would be compatible with that, just as the Coast Guard's management, regulatory and enforcement powers related to maritime law are co
Re: This is one of the worst things he's done (Score:2)
It's just as bad when Obama does it (Score:2)
That said, Trump's president. This is his thing, and I've laid out my reasons for opposing them, which would be present regardless of who did them. The difference is that Trump has the insanity to actually implement things like this without any regard to the long term consequences. So he's the one that gets my rage and fury.
Starship troopers (Score:2)
Co-ed shower scene. Where do I enlist?
Think of the Plutonians! (Score:4, Funny)
This space force couldn't come soon enough for Pluto. We're already down to 8 planets. How many more will we lose?
MaPPA! Make Pluto a Planet Again!
Re: (Score:2)
This space force couldn't come soon enough for Pluto. We're already down to 8 planets. How many more will we lose?
MaPPA! Make Pluto a Planet Again!
Fake news! But I think we should send Trump to lead the expedition to find the REAL 9th planet. It's out there somewhere, but the Ukrainians have been hiding it!
By the way, my prediction is that this "space force" will go away soon. No real justification unless it creates its own by pushing other countries into "attacking" space. The only real candidates to attack space are the Russians and the Chinese, and neither of them is stupid enough to it (or rich enough to afford it). Ergo the next president will er
Interesting Actions From an Interesting Man (Score:2)
It takes an epic level of arrogance and narcissism to say that we're "leading" in space superiority when our space organization can't even get astronauts into space anymore without sending them on rockets built and operated by another country. If space superiority was so damn important, then why did Trump's fellow Republicans cut NASA's budget down to almost nothing years ago?
Re: Interesting Actions From an Interesting Man (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
our space organization can't even get astronauts into space anymore ... If space superiority was so damn important, then why did Trump's fellow Republicans cut NASA's budget
Because this is about putting control of US government satellites under one command, rather than having them spread over several different agencies?
This is mostly about monitoring and protecting the weather, spy, GPS and communication satellites that every branch of the armed forces depends upon. Hacking, for example, has been a growing concern.
$40 million? That's not enough to do anything serious, although I guess that's the point. This is more about a narcissistic sociopath trying to build a personal legacy using our tax dollars rather than trying to build a legitimate agency to tackle specific goals.
Trump: Follows through on fairly minor reorganization that's been suggested by different groups since the 80s.
Organgtool: He's a narcissistic sociopath! And how
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct. He's an NYC liberal that was a Democrat for most of his life.
Space force name (Score:2)
Meh doesn't really pop, how about
Department of Earth and Related Planets
I think that would really be the cornerstone of Trumps legacy.
Space Cadets? (Score:3)
New branch slogan (Score:2)
"In Space Force, no one can hear you scream."
(Presumably about wasting money, but that's just a guess.)
Here we go (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Starfleet was a peaceful scientific body dedicated to exploration."
Only on paper. What good is the knowledge gained from exploration if you are dead, assimilated or under the thumb of a hostile neighbor?
Terran Empire (Score:2)
It's quite possible that we're the ones in the "bad" mirror universe.
Re: Terran Empire (Score:2)
What NASA, FAA, etc say about Space Force (Score:3)
The documents trump submitted when he proposed this space force read more like a "Space coast guard" a force to rescue spacecraft in the increasing possibility of a accident leaving space tourists stranded. jokes are fun but with the increase of privatized space missions and space tourism a way to rescue them will become necessary in the future.
Not just rescue, but monitoring compliance with treaties and regulations. Again like Coast Guard enforcement of maritime regulations and law. Here's an article with actual NASA, FAA and other industry professionals discussing it.
"I think it’s important for us to realize that we have not simply force projection in question, or defensive capabilities against aggression,” said Greg Autry, a professor at the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business who served on the NASA tran