Trump, Unveiling Space Force Flag, Touts What He Calls New 'Super-Duper Missile' (npr.org) 218
The Space Force, the newest military branch, now has an official flag. President Trump unveiled the flag at an Oval Office ceremony Friday where he also signed the 2020 Armed Forces Day Proclamation. NPR reports: The flag design comes from the seal of the Space Force, which was approved by the president in January. It sparked some Star Trek fan outrage for what some people have called its similarity to a logo in the science fiction franchise. According to the White House, the dark blue and white of the flag is meant to represent the "vast recesses of outer space" and includes a elliptical orbit with three large stars meant to symbolize the branch's purpose: "organizing, training and equipping" Space Force troopers, in the language of the Pentagon. The Space Force was created in part to protect strategic American space infrastructure, including communications, navigation and spy satellites, from adversaries such as Russia and China.
"As you know, China, Russia, perhaps others, started off a lot sooner than us," Trump said. "We should have started this a long time ago, but we've made up for it in spades. We have developed some of the most incredible weapons anyone's ever seen. And it's moving along very rapidly." Trump teased what he called a new weapon that could attack at such a high speed it would overwhelm an enemy's defenses. "We have, I call it the 'super-duper missile.' And I heard the other night [it's] 17 times faster than what they have right now," Trump said. It wasn't immediately clear what missile the president was describing, but the U.S. and other advanced powers are known to be developing new hypersonic weapons, designed to race at many times the speed of sound.
"As you know, China, Russia, perhaps others, started off a lot sooner than us," Trump said. "We should have started this a long time ago, but we've made up for it in spades. We have developed some of the most incredible weapons anyone's ever seen. And it's moving along very rapidly." Trump teased what he called a new weapon that could attack at such a high speed it would overwhelm an enemy's defenses. "We have, I call it the 'super-duper missile.' And I heard the other night [it's] 17 times faster than what they have right now," Trump said. It wasn't immediately clear what missile the president was describing, but the U.S. and other advanced powers are known to be developing new hypersonic weapons, designed to race at many times the speed of sound.
He talks too much (Score:5, Insightful)
Loose lips sink ships
Re: (Score:2)
I love it when he teases top secret information
Re:He talks too much (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worse than that. What he is describing sounds a lot like kinetic bombardment weapons - big lumps of metal rod placed in orbit, ready to be de-orbited upon the head of your enemy. So either he just admitted that the US is developing a weapon that would trigger an arms race of a kind not seen since the cold war, or he is vaguely recalling something he half-remembers seeing on TV one time and claiming he made it real.
Re: (Score:2)
Very insightful. Revealing plans for orbital kinetic bombardment weapons would be just like something that happened in the cold war: the Strategic Defence Initiative. An impractical proposal that causes the other side to waste breathtaking amounts of money trying to counter it. SDI was a better concept though. It was more truthy.
Rods from God is breathtakingly expensive, easy to track and disable, a PR nightmare, and really doesn't have any benefit except maybe allowing you to strike with less lead time, pr
Re: (Score:2)
and really doesn't have any benefit except maybe allowing you to strike with less lead time...
Uh, how about the benefit of being fucking AWESOME?!?!?
If I was president, within a year I'd be on a ship in the south pacific watching an orbital bombardment demonstration or heads would roll.
I mean seriously. Our current rambling turd pontificator spends all his time golfing. Golfing! He could have ordered a demonstration where he watched the Space Force try to deorbit a tungsten telephone pole and sink a destroyer with it. But instead he chose golf. And has to cheat at it to feel good.
FFS, what's the poi
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. It does indeed make for some awesome sci fi stories. On the other hand, the cost of launching a tungsten telephone pole into orbit buys a *lot* of hookers and blow.
What we need to do is convince Trump and US Space Force that the only way to make rods from god practical is to develop the infrastructure to manufacture them on the moon. Then we'd get something useful and awesome out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
FFS, what's the point of wanting to be president if you're just going to do the same boring shit you were doing before being president?
It also gets you a lot of television time and cult followers, which are great for feeding your ego.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking awesome. Practical has no bearing here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. Thank you sir. Someone assuming you're in your thirties when you're not means you're doing something right.
Although, since the word "truthy" dates back to 1800, and in the form I used it to political discourse in 2005, I'm not sure your age-related assumption really has much merit. Since the word and concept has been used by some of the great recent thinkers also calls into question your implied intellectual assumptions.
Oh well, at least you spelled all your words correctly and put your comma in the ri
Re: (Score:2)
Kinetic bombardment weapons may have occasional tactical use, but seem far to destabilizing. They are probably indistinguishable from orbital nuclear weapons. They are a variant of what I though counted as the "worst idea of the 90s" : using old ICBMs to launch conventional warheads for tactical use.
Re:He talks too much (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that it gives you an excellent first-strike capability: You can wipe out every one of an opposing countries command centers and military bases in ten minutes, and there's no way to defend against it. From a military perspective, great. From a political perspective, not so much, because it results in lots of smaller countries fearing just how easily the US could defeat them with minimal losses, and their response is to make sure they have second strike capability: Ideally nuclear weapons concealed somewhere safe, but failing that just having enough conventional weapons spread out too far to destroy and with orders for vengeance. The result is that everyone is afraid to start a war, because they all know that no-one is going to win it.
It's a dangerous road, because all it takes is one technical fault, over-confident politician or miscommunication to start a nuclear war. Russia and the US had a couple of uncomfortably close calls.
Re: (Score:2)
So sure, you're definitely right that we don't hold anything approaching nuclear hegemony over the planet- but in the same vein, nobody is gonna launch nukes at us to stop us from destroying just about anywhere outside of the first world that we want.
REÉEEEEEEEÌEEEE reeee reeeëeeeee (Score:2, Insightful)
~BeauHD~
pig squealer extraordinaire
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The US doesn't have such weapons, but if they are intending to build some - which Trump may have implied - then you can bet that China and Russia will want to put their own ones up as well. There are probably generals in both countries discussing right now if they should start more actively seeking that goal, with the intention of getting their weapons up before the American ones.
Re: He talks too much (Score:4, Informative)
Re: He talks too much (Score:4, Informative)
I couldn't find the whole video, but there's something about it here: Putin shows video of his 'invincible missile' hitting Florida. Here's why he would (and wouldn't) do that [deseret.com]
At first I thought it was this:
Putin Claims Russia Has Nuclear-tipped Underwater Drones and New Supersonic Weapon [haaretz.com]
There's a different video in that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What top-secret information? The Army and Navy publicly released images of their first boost-glide vehicle test back on March 20th. [thedrive.com]
Oh, by the way? Boost-glide weapons are just a fancy glider vehicle that is accelerated up to speed by a ballistic missile. Ballistic missile velocities are pretty well fucking established, having been around for about seventy fucking years at this point. So no, this isn't a shock and there's nothing "classified" about this, unless you think Russia has not a single analyst with
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I hate you assholes so much it hurts"
What does, your asshole? Stop voting Republican. That will help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ya, it was in tatters.
Re: (Score:2)
Another way of describing them is a warhead that someone had the bright idea to stick some fins on so it could maneuver a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate you assholes so much it hurts.
You need mental help if you hate someone simply because they are of an opposite political view than you.
Re: (Score:2)
If he's talking about a HGV, the only valid comparison is against a ballistic missile.
A) an HGV isn't a missile. It's an RV that sits upon a missile,
B) They're slower than a fucking conventional RV.
Come on. It's ok to admit the guy is a fucking moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Your TDS is hyper biggly, get therapy.
Re: (Score:2)
Bringing TDS, the ability to believe Trump, into this is silly.
Re:He talks too much (Score:4, Informative)
Ballistic missile velocities are pretty well fucking established, having been around for about seventy fucking years at this point.
Boost-glide designs are not. They're new, with the first military applications coming on line only now.
despite the Keyhole bird's capabilities having long since been revealed by the Hubble Space Telescope, which is very obviously a KH-11 series satellite that was repurposed
No, on several levels.
- the HST didn't reveal KH-11 capabilities. Its images of galaxies far, far away don't tell you much about what a KH can do imaging through the atmosphere, dealing with much faster movement (of the telescope wrt its target).
- no, the HST is not a repurposed KH. If it were, they wouldn't have messed up grinding the primary HST mirror because that error would have been caught long before.
- no, the NRO didn't donate KH-11 mirrors. It donated mirrors that were made for the FIA project, which was cancelled before any satellites were launched.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, he just whines....constantly....incessantly...."Nobody's seen the trouble I've seen...."
Re: (Score:2)
If it's true... No leader will base their defence strategies on what Trump says in public. It could be the new missile barely reaches the speed of other nations and Trump's public speeches ARE America's defence strategy and Trump is the new weapon. He does scare half of America.
Re: (Score:2)
17x faster (Score:3, Informative)
If someone other than trump had said this then I might have thought there's a chance of it being true.
Some speeds for reference.
Speed of sound through air 767mph
Bullets 1704 mph
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles 15600 mph
Earth escape velocity 25000mph
The speed electrons travel through a circuit 0.0022 mph
The speed that new bullshit leaves the region know as Donald Trump, near infinite.
The Speed of the library of congress, 514,000 mph
There's a diagram on the following page that show how many false or misleading claims Donald Trump makes per week and month, should he be in the Guinness book of records? He lies so much it's laugh out loud funny but sad and scary at the same time. I fail to understand how anyone can take him seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so nothing you wrote there contradicts the claim. A missile going 17x faster than something we already have. Done. Doesn't even have to reach orbital velocity. What's your point again? Trump lies? Oh, he also can't keep a secret. Don't forget that one.
Re: (Score:3)
Typical LEO speed is around 28,000 kilometres per hour.
Lets go for a nice sedate mach 3 capable missile - thats slow for an Russian R-77 air to air missile, but lets do it anyway. That missile can travel at 3,700 kilometres per hour.
17 times 3,700 is 62,900.
A missile capable of going 17 times faster than the a slow R-77 would be going well over twice the speed necessary for LEO. In fact, its 50% more than the Earths escape velocity from the surface.
Now, lets talk about the S-400, which has missiles which
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a cruise missile, so my money is on 17 times faster than a tomahawk.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of the Tomahawk, that would mean in the vicinity of Mach 15-20, or around 1/3 of GP's values, which is smack in the bounds of hypersonic missile territory and not sufficient for LEO, so it actually sounds like the numbers might make sense. It's also arou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thats slow for an Russian R-77 air to air missile, but lets do it anyway. That missile can travel at 3,700 kilometres per hour.
Is that the average or top speed? Most AAMs to my understanding have this feature that after the boost phase, they rely on inertia and have a limited budget for maneuvering when approaching the target. So the advertised numbers, especially ranges, may be quite misleading in combat situations.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a ballistic missile launched reentry vehicle that skips across the atmosphere making it immune to standard midcourse defense systems, but more vulnerable to conventional interception.
It's basically a slower warhead that has a more chaotic route.
The 17x number is referring to its velocity during reentry, which put in the context of a standard RV- it's around half as fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Please be specific. 25000 / 17 is slower than a bullet. Mach 17 is slower than escape velocity, which is Mach 32. We have no information about what it's faster than, but it's probably a space based weapon, basically you could drop rocks from orbit and get that kind of speed. This isn't outside the realm of possibility. He's probably lying, but he doesn't know what 17 means either. Just something he heard from a general.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is lying sack of shit.
Re:17x faster (Score:4, Funny)
(speed of light in air / speed of sound in air)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just what happens when technologies advance... new ways to do all the things we've done before advance with it.
Missing my physics... (Score:2)
You might check this paper:
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/s... [itu.int]
Re: (Score:2)
25000 / 17 is slower than a bullet.
That depends on the bullet, doesn't it?
Re:17x faster (Score:5, Interesting)
A quick calculation shows this fake missile would have a speed of over 65,000 mph. At that speed it would take less than 2 seconds to go from Washington, D.C. to Moscow.
So yeah, spoken like the true two year old he is. Super-duper?
Re: (Score:2)
Calculation was a bit too quick, it'd take 5 minutes-ish at 65000mph
Re: (Score:2)
Calculation was a bit too quick, it'd take 5 minutes-ish at 65000mph
That isn't correct either. I carried the decimal too far. It is less than 2 minutes. 2,077 miles / 65,000 mph = 1 minute 55 seconds
Re: (Score:2)
Google is telling me it's about 4800 miles Washington DC to Moscow.
Re: (Score:2)
Over the pole?
k.
Re: 17x faster (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So yeah, spoken like the true two year old he is. Super-duper?
"I know words. I have the best words." Indeed.
Re: thank you for LoC! (Score:2)
You're the best!
Re: (Score:2)
Good, I derived the LOC metric from our solar systems speed going around with the galaxy, but I'm sure you already knew that since you're way smarter than me. A US powered by Trump could no doubt go anywhere very fast.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, 17 times faster than what?
Currently, the standard long-range weapon in the US inventory is the Tomahawk cruise missile, which flies at Mach 0.75. 17 times faster than that gets you Mach 12. The US has several [popularmechanics.com] weapons in this speed range in development.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with ICBMs is that everyone assumes they carry a nuclear payload and will respond in kind. On the other end of the scale we have cruise missiles - which have become increasingly vulnerable to missile defence systems.
So there's been a lot of research going into missiles that aren't ballistic but are much faster than the current generation of cruise missiles. The US isn't the first to field these either: Russia has at least one system in production and there are suspicions the Chinese have hyperso
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with ICBMs is that everyone assumes they carry a nuclear payload
No one has hypersonic missiles deployed right now, but they have exactly the same problem. If the missile is very long range and can evade all defences then it is every bit as dangerous whether it flies mostly ballistically or mostly with lift.
People will put nukes in anything. The Russians made nuclear torpedoes and the Americans made nuclear bazooka. Do you really think neither will develop a "secret" nuclear payload for whatever
Re: (Score:2)
Cruise missiles aren't fine. They do carry nuclear warheads, and are designed to be fired from close off the coast by subs and terrain follow to avoid known air defence systems. If you fired some into Russia or China you might well get nuked in response.
Conventional-warhead cruise missiles are okay for blowing up stuff in non-nuclear countries because they're only moderately expensive, and they're sneaky so they can take out mobile targets. Ballistic missiles are very expensive, and they're not the least bi
Re: (Score:2)
No one has hypersonic missiles deployed right now
This is an HGV. Russia has an operational deployed HGV (If Putin is to be believed- the Avangard)
but they have exactly the same problem.
They do indeed, because HGVs sit upon an ICBM.
If the missile is very long range and can evade all defences then it is every bit as dangerous whether it flies mostly ballistically or mostly with lift.
Keep in mind it flies considerably slower than standard midcourse stage ballistics- which we can shoot down.
This is a different kind of threat, but not necessarily a more difficult one.
Re: (Score:2)
I am truly shocked Wikipedia allows such a page to exist.
I'm no fan of Trump, but Wikipedia openly hosting partisan content is a sure-fire way to bring it into political crossfire, which ultimately threatens its very existence. *Every* politician lies through their teeth constantly, and I don't see pages like this for any others.
They should leave hit lists like this to Vox and stick to stuff encyclopedias are supposed to be covering.
Re:17x faster (Score:4, Insightful)
No, most politicians don't lie/mislead/deceive/be wrong roughly ten times a day.
It would be flat out censorship to remove that wikipedia page, is that what you want, censorship? A quick search for Obama lies shows no similar behaviour, Trump is a compulsive liar, an overt liar and a bad liar. Or to put it another way he constantly makes shit up all day long, other politicians aren't quite that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, fuck Wikipedia and their facts that make your guy look like the fucking incompetent moron he is. They should have a page with all the degrees he got from all of the universities he went to, all the trophies from his sports wins, the crowns from his pageant wins, and the speedos from his body-building competitions.
Look, if you're a private swindler and even if you're a reality TV star, you can lie and bullshit and make shit up all you want. When you voluntarily choose to enter politics, you're voluntee
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be a new Kessel Run record? (Score:2)
Could you translate that parsecs for me?
Han Solo claimed that his Millennium Falcon "made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs". A parsec is a unit of distance, not time. Solo was not referring directly to his ship's speed when he made this claim.
See: https://www.wired.com/2013/02/... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, he did the run in under 12 parsecs because he took a different route - around the 'Maw black hole cluster'.
A parsec is 19 170 000 000 000 miles, so just divide any speed mentioning miles by that number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's typical Trump listening to only part of what he's being told and then spouting what his brain thinks about it without actually asking questions to people who could correct him on a misunderstanding before he says something publicly about it and makes himself look like a complete moron.
It is fairly obvious to me that they probably told him something like "it goes 17 times the speed of sound", and that they also probably mentioned it's "far faster than what they have". His brain somehow merged the tw
Re: (Score:2)
There is a book on golf and Trump. I heard the author give a talk and answer questions. One time, Trump hosts Lee Travino, former professional golfer, and Trump is shepherding him around like trophy to his pals. Every time he introduces Travino, he claims he shot some odd number under par. The number under keep getting larger the more pals Trump runs into. Lee said, I had to leave before I set a course record.
I'm guessing the alleged president heard talk of a missile. He corners the Joint Chiefs and asks ab
Re: (Score:2)
They're these:
Ruski version [wikipedia.org]
'Murican version [armscontrol.org]
They are in fact launched up on ballistic missiles, they simply don't follow through on a purely ballistic trajectory- the RV is injected into the atmosphere before then, and it skips across the atmosphere (at about half the speed of a standard ballistic)
Yep. Soooo quick (Score:5, Funny)
They have developed ultra amazing new super duper missiles in just a couple of months of Space Force operation. This could never have been done without Space Force, definitely wasn't an existing multi-year program, and is all thanks to Trump.
All hail Trump!
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The space force is not new. He just renamed an existing branch of the Air Force.
Re: (Score:2)
The space force is not new.
No shit. I thought Slashdot was smart enough that I wouldn't need to write *warning sarcasm alert* at the front of every one of my posts. Space Force is a vanity project by a president desperate to be remembered for something other than being a despicable human being.
Re:Yep. Soooo quick (Score:5, Insightful)
Presidential competency scale: how often do you think about something the president has said or done?
If it is...
Once a week -- marginally competent.
Once a month -- solidly competent.
Who's the president, again? -- great.
Starting a new fashion? (Score:3)
It would seem that Trump is going down the BFR route and prefers ones that he can better relate to. What can we expect next? The "kerpow!" bomb or the "splat" anti-tank munition?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, how about The Willie.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck Republicans (Score:3, Funny)
Like clockwork (Score:5, Informative)
It's always fun watching the shitheads who don't follow defense-related topics showing up for their two-minutes-wank.
The fastest existing conventional standoff strike weapon the US military has at present (range > 100 nautical miles) is either the JASSM, JASSM-ER or Tomahawk, all of which are subsonic missiles making about 480 knots at best. Hypersonic weapons fall into two categories - air-breathing designs that utilize scramjets (which are very hard to engineer,) or ballistic missiles tipped with a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle, which are relatively straightforward - the US tested one in March. [thedrive.com] The Virginia-class Block III submarines substituted the traditional Tomahawk-sized VLS launching tubes for a single, larger tube which can either hold multiple Tomahawks in a rack (like the converted Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, which inspired them,) or can hold a single, larger missile - such as a boost-glide ballistic hyper-sonic weapon.
Given the political issues about basing land-based IRBMs in Asia to deter China, [thediplomat.com] and the decades-old Prompt Global Strike program - [wikipedia.org] with the stated goal of striking targets anywhere in the world in one hour or less, which is half the time a Tomahawk takes to reach half its potential range - it is abundantly clear to anyone who's paid attention to defense topics that this hyper-sonic boost-glide weapon is intended to be a functional Tomahawk replacement for time-critical targets requiring a conventional warhead.
The speed of the Tomahawk is 480 knots. Multiply by 17 and that is 8,160 knots, or about Mach 12.2, which sounds just about right for a smaller, shorter-ranged boost-glide hypersonic weapon that would fit into a VPM tube. The United States, unlike Russia and China, does not currently operate a conventional ballistic weapon larger than an SRBM. Thus, the only possible point of comparison that any briefing officer would make to illustrate the utility of the new HGV would be to a sub-sonic weapon like Tomahawk or JASSM. The point here is that every shit-flinging simian in this thread who jumps to thermonuclear-tipped ICBMS for the "fastest missile" and then giddily extrapolates to speeds of electrons as they stroke off to Orange Man Bad reveal nothing more than their own ignorance and inability - or unwillingness - to apply the briefest brush of critical thinking skills. Kindly shut the fuck up and leave discussion of military matters to people who actually expend the minimal effort to keep up with developments in the field.
Re: Like clockwork (Score:2, Troll)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I understand the sweat of your furious... information gathering... may have obscured your vision, but the fact that everyone else caught, and that you missed, was that Trump said it was 17x f
Re:Like clockwork (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to get the "right" President. Some sort of smooth talking lifetime bureaucrat who can make us feel safe and comfortable!
Doesn't need to be smooth talking. Just needs to not constantly tell lies.
It's got a ring to it! (Score:2)
Super Duper Missile?
The successor to the following:
1. The original: "It just went bang"
2. "The big belly"
3. "Things that make you go boom"
4. New Coke
5. Pointy Boom Thang
6. Saddammite
7. Radationator
8. Neutroniunite
9. The Great Water Heater Explosion
10. Fertilized!
Re: (Score:3)
Earth Shattering Kaboom Missile
Fast nukes kill civilizations (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also absolutely no need for them. Even with MAD (the name says it all), you only need to be sure enough of your missiles reach the other side, "fast" is not needed. What "fast" does is that it massively amplifies the risk of errors having catastrophic effects by reducing or eliminating time for analysis and human interaction. The cold war had several events where this whole completely insane system very nearly exterminated human civilization due to technology behaving in a faulty way or due to human error (training-tape forgotten in the productive system and then played...) The only reason we are still here is that the humans in the loop had time to find out what was actually happening and to stop the lethal response.
Personally, I think everybody pushing for a fast nuclear capability should treated like an extreme threat to all of humanity and should directly be shot like a rabid animal.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think they will not have a nuclear warhead capability? Are you completely stupid?
wasn't space supposed to be... (Score:2)
Trump doesn't understand weapons system either (Score:4, Insightful)
the "military weapons experts" and trump fluffers can complain all they want but
Trump is an idiot. This is the insight of the command in chief of the armed forces:
We have, I call it the 'super-duper missile.' And I heard the other night [it's] 17 times faster than what they have right now
And if you think he understands what his "amazing" Generals are telling him you are just being completely ridiculous.
Trump is about Trump. Complain all you want about misinformed comments about military weapons systems, but WTF is he doing even talking about this now ? Why is he not talking about his national plan to test and trace ? He's not because he's trying to change the subject.
Finally, this is the internet. People making stupid comments about things with minimal to no understanding of them is par for the course. i have seen, in these very hallowed halls of slashdot, calm, informative responses to those comments. But heaven help you if you made a dumb comment and insult Trump at the same time, then you get a shit ton of the the faux outrage.
Trump is a fucking idiot but a genius manipulator of people that kind find the worst, most ethically challenged people in the world. EVERYTHING he says should be assumed to be a ruse or a con or an effort to deflect and embellish his own status. Just because he might say something that makes sense every once in a while does not change that. He's bringing this shit up now as a distraction. He couldn't fucking care less what our military capabilities are and absolutely does not understand them other than in the context of how he can use it to his advantage.
Next up (Score:2)
It's Official (Score:2)
We have officially jumped the shark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So your defense of the flag's appearance revolves around referencing late 70's pixel art?
Also, while I certainly except contrary opinions on aesthetics as such views are so relative to the individual, there is something wrong with you if you can't acknowledge the fact that our flag was either consciously or unconsciously based on the Federation flag from Star Trek. https://images.app.goo.gl/kpLY... [app.goo.gl]
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's your lack of historical knowledge. The stylized delta has been used by the US army air force and air force for longer than Star Trek has existed.
The Star Trek delta symbol was actually inspired by the NASA crest (https://history.nasa.gov/monograph56.pdf), which is apparently also an in-canon fact (https://ca.startrek.com/article/starfleet-insignia-explained).
Re: (Score:2)
No, the similarity quite blatantly goes well beyond the stylized delta. ...And yes I know my history on the subject jackass.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? They basically pasted the crest onto a rectangle, just like all the other service flags. If you mean that the crest is silly looking, several existing US military organizations would like to have a word with you out back:
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fa... [af.mil]
https://www.afspc.af.mil/About... [af.mil]
In fact, the space force crest is basically a slightly modified air force space command (created 1982) crest ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ). Which makes sense, since the "space force" *is* the space command.