Should America's Next President Abolish the Space Force? (nymag.com) 330
An anonymous reader writes:
The U.S. military's Space Force branch celebrated its one-year anniversary Friday by announcing that its members would now be known as "guardians". But the name was not universally greeted with respect and appreciation. Gizmodo announced the news with a headline which read "Space Force Personnel Will Be Called 'Guardians' Because Sure, Whatever," in an article which jokingly asks how this will affect the other ranks of this branch of the military. "Does someone get promoted from Guardian to Sentinel to Space Paladin to Tython, The Secessionist King Of Mars or something?" (Their article also suggests other names the U.S. military could have considered — like "moon buddies" or "rocketeers" — even at one point proposing "starship troopers".)
Forbes wrote that "The mockery arrived instantly and in great rivers..." But there was an interesting observation from a British newspaper (which is in fact, named The Guardian). "As the Associated Press put it, delicately: 'President-elect Joe Biden has yet to reveal his plans for the space force in the next administration.'" In fact, New York magazine called the new name for members of Space Force the "strongest case yet for its demise," in an article headlined "Abolish the Space Force." ("Maybe 'stormtrooper' was too obvious...")
In an apparent bid to be taken more seriously, on Friday the Space Force also shared an official anniversary greeting they'd received from Lee Majors, the actor who'd played a cybernetically-enhanced Air Force colonel in the 1970s action series The Six Million Dollar Man (who, in later seasons, befriended Bigfoot and the alien community who'd brought him to earth).
But Mashable added sympathetically that "It's been a long year, though. If people want to draw some nerdy joy from a U.S. military branch inadvertently referencing comic books and video games, let them have their fun."
Forbes wrote that "The mockery arrived instantly and in great rivers..." But there was an interesting observation from a British newspaper (which is in fact, named The Guardian). "As the Associated Press put it, delicately: 'President-elect Joe Biden has yet to reveal his plans for the space force in the next administration.'" In fact, New York magazine called the new name for members of Space Force the "strongest case yet for its demise," in an article headlined "Abolish the Space Force." ("Maybe 'stormtrooper' was too obvious...")
In an apparent bid to be taken more seriously, on Friday the Space Force also shared an official anniversary greeting they'd received from Lee Majors, the actor who'd played a cybernetically-enhanced Air Force colonel in the 1970s action series The Six Million Dollar Man (who, in later seasons, befriended Bigfoot and the alien community who'd brought him to earth).
But Mashable added sympathetically that "It's been a long year, though. If people want to draw some nerdy joy from a U.S. military branch inadvertently referencing comic books and video games, let them have their fun."
Yup (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yup (Score:5, Funny)
"Space force" is the technique applied to get him into and out of a golf cart.
Space Force? Solution in search of a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Mod parent funny. But why propagate the dumb Subject?
Anyway, putting on my historian's hat, I'm not seeing any such historical justification for the Space Force. The Air Force was created based on a real need and with many years of military justification behind it. (However even now there are independent "air forces" within other branches of the American military.)
I'm pert' shure not even the Coast Guard was created as a political stunt. I would slightly miss the Coast Guard if it were abolished, but is there anyone who will miss (or notice) the end of the Space Force?
However the big reason is the money, as in why waste it?
Re: Space Force? Solution in search of a problem (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Trump is in for the next four years (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
... the most incompetent and corrupt President the United States has ever endured.
So far.
Re: (Score:3)
Now that the idea of "stealing" elections has been implanted in idiots' heads, the next time it will be much easier for the courts to rule in favour of the Republicans, and their supporters will cheer as democracy slips away.
Re:Trump is in for the next four years (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trump is in for the next four years (Score:5, Insightful)
I would vote for Trump just to piss people like you off.
Of course you would. That's how you wound up with a total Cockwomble running your country. Well done, I'm sure your Mother is proud of you.
The new administration is going end up making Trump look like a prodigal statesman.
The new administration is going to be run by a standard corporate Democrat, so it will be back to business as usual.
Of course the Republicans are going try to prevent Biden from doing the things he campaigned on, and was elected to do, because the Republicans have no interest in responsible governing, they want power and have no concern with the damage they do in getting it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And much more importantly, it would turn down the heat on the militarization of space.
Only if you've been ignoring natsec for decades (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the past several decades the national security apparatus of the United States has been experiencing a bit of a flashback to some earlier intra-service conflicts. There've been a series of studies conducted under presidents going back at least to Bush(41) which have recommended a separate entity be put in charge of national security related space ops, but no president before Trump pulled that trigger. Perhaps if Trump had not been elected, Hillary would have done it, or perhaps it would have sat there as a problem a little longer and then the next president would have, but it was inevitable and undoing it is a retrograde step.
Previous examples of intra-service conflicts include but are not limited to:
There was a push to have the US Navy be the sole air support for the Marines (given that the marines are a division of the Navy) but it was found that Navy pilots simply were insufficiently dedicated to ground support, Navy brass did not like to buy the sorts of aircraft and ordnance suited to those missions, and so forth. What seemed best for national security, and made most sense to accountants, actually was not due to a combination of Navy/Marine rivalry and different interests compartment along institutional lines which simply could not be overcome because human beings were involved. After the Marines got their own dedicated aviators (who while technically "naval aviators" are Marines and "brothers" to the men on the ground needing support), close air support missions for marines on the ground became far more successful and that seemingly duplicative set of naval aviators really WAS the best for getting the most combat effectiveness.
After WWII, the US Army had its aviators and also its rockets and missiles. The mindset of the leaders of the Army lead them to make poor choices about the systems they purchased and the quantities of them, with the results being bad for the aviators and the missile guys - Army generals simply were too oriented to trucks, jeeps, tanks, mines, howitzers, etc. It was not just missions and equipment - even things like promotions of servicemembers were being affected, and that added morale and retention issues. As a partial solution to these and other issues, the US Army Air Corps was separated out into the US Air Force, and the large strategic missiles were also moved there (Werner Vin Braun and his German team were working for the Army Ballistic Missile Agency back then, NOT the USAF before they were handed over the newly formed NASA), the Army was allowed to keep short-range tactical rockets.
The reason Space Force (or something like it) was inevitable is that we've had many years of conflicts between US Gov agencies who use space. Each military branch has its own ideas and priorities and each has a tendency to favor its own uses and priorities over those of its rivals. many reforms have been attempted, but human nature always kicks in. By creating a stand-alone branch and making it responsible for providing space services to the other branches, Space Force (by whatever name) can focus on the best systems and methods, and treat the other branches as a bunch of customers who each need to be satisfied. Rather than the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force (and other govt entities) creating overlapping, incompatible, systems under management by generals and admirals not completely focused on space, and congresses making space asset funding decisions in part influenced by intra-service rivalries and concerns over connections of the branches to various congressional districts, the Space Force can become expert at this niche without the distraction of other priorities. It will be able to combine the needs of its customers in its systems and operations in ways they could not do independently for competitive reasons.
It does not matter if you hate Trump and therefore think Space Force is awful and needs undoing, or you love Trump and think this thing is his best idea and you want its members in Starfleet uniforms... Space Force or something equivalent has bee
Re: Yup (Score:3)
Space Force started long before Trump. It wasnâ(TM)t his idea, only finalized during his presidency.
Re: (Score:3)
Arable land. China has a problem with ag output, especially with the heavy metal poisoning in their soil. It would be messy since the US is so heavily-armed on the ground, so it's questionable as to whether they would ever really attempt an invasion when they might be able to use soft power to gain access to a larger percentage of American agricultural output at lower prices.
Still, if the entire American military (including its nukes) went offline, it would be a hell of a win for China to snap up all that
Air Force already had "Space Command" (Score:5, Insightful)
...roll it back into that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah that's what I was thinking. It's too small a niche right now to be its own thing, and making it a part of the air force (which was working just fine) is the most logical approach. It only becomes necessary to have it as its own thing when it starts to need serious budgets, and right now (I'm not saying never, I'm saying right now) I don't see this needing that.
But but but... If we want our sci-fi future to come true, we need to roll it into the Navy so that we can have Admirals and Captains!
Re: (Score:3)
But but but... If we want our sci-fi future to come true, we need to roll it into the Navy so that we can have Admirals and Captains!
Ah, but what about space marines?
Might have been premature, and needed in 20 years (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite possibly what would have been best would have been to create the space branch twenty years from now, in 2040. Trump might have been 20 years too early. With the cost of space flight falling and number of countries with launch capabilities increasing, it's going to be needed at some point. Right now something like 16 countries have space agencies and either can launch or intend to do so in the next several years, so it'll be "game on" in space before I die.
Just as a starting point for reasoning about it, let's estimate it's about 20 years too soon. Maybe it's less, maybe more, but 20 is as good a guess as any. We then need to ask this question:
Is it better to merge Space Force back into Air Force for 20 years, then undo that 20 years from now, or is it better to just grow Space Force at the proper rate over the next 20 years?
In order to answer that question, I'd need to see the costs of each. I don't know how much it would cost to merge it back in, then split it apart again 20 years from now. If anyone here has gone over the documents with the various cost projections, I'd be curious to see what the numbers are.
What I would NOT do is force each US family to pay $250 each for a project that has the sole purpose of annoying some dude who uses to be president. Dude is gone, families have important things to do with their money, like fixing their car that broke down, and paying their rent. Annoying somebody who used to be oresident is not the most important thing they need to do with their money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What I would NOT do is force each US family to pay $250 each for a project that has the sole purpose of annoying some dude who uses to be president. Dude is gone, families have important things to do with their money, like fixing their car that broke down, and paying their rent. Annoying somebody who used to be oresident is not the most important thing they need to do with their money.
What US families do with $250 of their money has been completely and totally decoupled from what the government spends for 40 years now, especially this part (the military). Thank you President Reagan.
Re:Might have been premature, and needed in 20 yea (Score:4, Interesting)
Quite possibly what would have been best would have been to create the space branch twenty years from now, in 2040. Trump might have been 20 years too early. With the cost of space flight falling and number of countries with launch capabilities increasing, it's going to be needed at some point. Right now something like 16 countries have space agencies and either can launch or intend to do so in the next several years, so it'll be "game on" in space before I die.
Just as a starting point for reasoning about it, let's estimate it's about 20 years too soon. Maybe it's less, maybe more, but 20 is as good a guess as any. We then need to ask this question:
Is it better to merge Space Force back into Air Force for 20 years, then undo that 20 years from now, or is it better to just grow Space Force at the proper rate over the next 20 years?
In order to answer that question, I'd need to see the costs of each. I don't know how much it would cost to merge it back in, then split it apart again 20 years from now. If anyone here has gone over the documents with the various cost projections, I'd be curious to see what the numbers are.
What I would NOT do is force each US family to pay $250 each for a project that has the sole purpose of annoying some dude who uses to be president. Dude is gone, families have important things to do with their money, like fixing their car that broke down, and paying their rent. Annoying somebody who used to be oresident is not the most important thing they need to do with their money.
I can see a few reasons to fold it back into the Air Force.
1) There's not a lot of military stuff to do in space right now. The biggest thing is space flight, which is kinda like normal flight, except higher. Making a separate agency means constant turf wars over what counts as Space Force vs Air Force.
2) Take one of the potentially significant roles for Space Force, defending against missile launches. Well missiles start on the ground, go up into space, then sometimes back down to earth. Which missiles are Air Force's problem vs Space Force's problem? How is that decision made? How is the hand-off made?
3) Space Force's role isn't well defined right now which means requirements may change drastically. Maybe they've got it all wrong. It's easier for the Air Force to tear down then rebuild a Space Division than it is for the Space Force to rebuild itself.
4) Because Space Force has no real purpose right now it has no real budget, but when a need does arise it's going to need money. Politically, it's a lot easier to ask the Air Force to re-allocate a chunk of its budget to space than ask the Air Force to surrender a chunk of its budget to a rival agency.
5) Historically, armed forces grew into separate entities when they grew large and distinct enough to warrant a separate agency. Not because some doofus is trying to weasel his way into the history books.
Of course, they've been doing something for a year, hopefully more than coming up with "guardians". So it may make sense to leave it separate and see what happens.
Re:Air Force already had "Space Command" (Score:4, Insightful)
But there's no air in space.
Re:Air Force already had "Space Command" (Score:5, Insightful)
But there's no air in space.
Irrelevant. Air and space are right next to each other, and any demarcation between them (such as the Kármán Line) is arbitrary. Before Trump, the Air Force mission included both and managed them quite well.
Historically, the term "aerospace" has included both air and space and everything in between. I say put the Air Force and the Space Force back together again, call it the Aerospace Force, and have done with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Irrelevant. Air and space are right next to each other, and any demarcation between them (such as the Kármán Line) is arbitrary.
So are air and water, but don't let that interfere. The USAF Space Command was created back in '82, and has been growing ever since. The USAF (my former branch of the service) really doesn't need it's own and it was just the logical place to put the command back when it was tiny. I don't care if you want to call the Space Force something else, but it is going to be needed, and it might as well be now.
Re: (Score:3)
Air and space are right next to each other, and any demarcation between them (such as the Kármán Line) is arbitrary.
You go try to breathe space then, and see how that works out.
So if you're in air you can breathe, but if you're in space you can't?
Great, try taking a commercial flight with an unpressurized cabin and see how that works out.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I can't, because they fly in space. As you yourself noted, there's no meaningful demarcation.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't, because they fly in space. As you yourself noted, there's no meaningful demarcation.
Requiring a a precise demarcation before you make any distinction at all is stupid and will bog you down in nearly meaningless discussions. We can say that commercial airplanes travel through the air, and the ISS travels through space, even if we can't point at an exact line that distinguishes one from the other. Technically you could make the same distinction about land and sea: is the beach part of the ocean, or the land? What about the tides? Sometimes land is under water, and sometimes it's not. And the
Re: (Score:3)
If you tried breathing the air where most air force aircraft operate you'd probably appreciate his comment about the arbitrariness of the demarcation line more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds very Buck Rogers-ish.
Re:Air Force already had "Space Command" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Why the hell is everyone thinking about astronauts when talking about space forces? Space forces are about communication, intelligence, ballistic missiles and ABM defense. At this point human space flight is 100% irrelevant for the Space Force.
Re: (Score:3)
Creating the "Space Force" was a joke, it creates and entire command structure (thousands of management positions) for nothing.
Actually, the entire command structure already existed under the US Air Force Space Command. They just moved it all to its own branch of service. While a few hundred jobs will be created as part of the move, it won't be anything near "thousands". This split has been in the works since the 90's.
Re: (Score:2)
And there was the US Army Air Forces prior to the US Air Force. Yes, people mock the name, but in all honesty, it's a vitally important mission that has virtually little overlap with the existing armed forces.
Space Force is more than USAF Space Command (Score:5, Insightful)
...roll it back into that.
Space Force consolidated various similar agencies into one. Its more than USAF Space Command. And it removes redundancy and costs.
While under the command of the Department of the Air Force and currently staffed by people mostly transferring from the AF there is some debate among experts as to whether it really should operate more like the US Coast Guard than the AF:
https://spacenews.com/space-fo... [spacenews.com]
In any case, something centralized like Space Force is needed and will only grow more important with time.
"In a panel discussion at the International Space Development Conference here May 27, former government officials and other experts suggested a “Space Guard” could be a more effective tool in dealing with space security issues in an era where there are more countries, and more companies, operating in Earth orbit.
“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 transition team for the Trump administration. “We also have issues of how do we simply enforce compliance with laws we’re going to pass on on-orbit—and potentially beyond that—activities in space.”
A “Space Guard,” modeled on the U.S. Coast Guard, could be a solution to that issue. “To me, I think this is actually a much bigger problem than just talking about national security space,” said George Nield, the former associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration. “There is, today, no single department or agency that is charged with holistically managing U.S. interests in space.”"
Re: (Score:3)
It probably adds 10 times the cost with the additional command structure and cabinet level structure. It takes a lot of people to have a full command structure, 1000's of people who weren't needed when these disparate functions were under existing command structures.
It's not cheaper, it's much much more expensive. Middle management costs a fortune.
Re: (Score:2)
Army already had "Army Air Corps" ... roll it back to that.
US Constitution doesn't permit a standing Army - only a Navy ... roll it back to that.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not fond of the Space Force name, and well aware of the Space Command, the mission isn't really similar to that of the USAF, and will continue to grow over time as we and other nations continue to grow our presence in space. Rename it if you like, but it's still needed, and shouldn't be run by the USAF (my own former branch of the service).
Mocking Journos are irrelevant (Score:4, Funny)
Journalists mock it? Who cares.
Do you want the USAF doing this stuff? They're busy protecting the US from its enemies.
The Space Force is concerned with protecting the Earth from Aliens. That needs to be its own department. Oh, and they're also concerned, strategically, with preserving the high ground/eye in the sky capabilities. The USAF does that too, but their birds can't get that high.
Re:Mocking Journos are irrelevant (Score:4, Funny)
The Space Force is concerned with protecting the Earth from Aliens.
[*facepalm*] This got modded "Insightful?"
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a lot of trouble to try to keep aliens out of our country from space. I thought the wall took care of that.
Ohhh. You mean imaginary beings from outer space. I can take care of that problem with a sparkler.
Re: (Score:2)
[*facepalm*] This got modded "Insightful?"
Yeah, they seem to be doing a good job, seen any aliens recently?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, do you want to face the dangerous possibility that ALF might land in your backyard, eat your cat and then tell you corny "bit I kid" jokes for years? The only thing standing between you and the dark future is the Space Force!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean he ate your baby goat and said "Bite I kid"? (Grammar Yoda broken?)
Re:Mocking Journos are irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mocking Journos are irrelevant (Score:5, Funny)
The aliens will happily build it. The sphere isn't to keep them out.
Absolutely not! (Score:2)
Almost every science fiction about space I've seen had spaceships with guns in it. It would be irresponsible to ignore this fact. One cannot simply go into space and not bring guns.
Too late (Score:2)
No, he shouldn't (Score:5, Insightful)
As Betteridge's Law would suggest, no he shouldn't.
While I don't think it's big enough to justify the expense of separating it into its own branch, Space Force isn't a completely idiotic idea. The US military definitely does have interests in space and it's not a bad idea to have space explicitly considered on its own right at the highest levels of the DoD. I would have argued against the cost and complexity of separating it from the USAF, but that's water under the bridge.
Basically, it's worthwhile to have a Space Force, just not enough to bother with creating one. Now that that's already done, it makes sense to keep it.
And, honestly, while I rolled my eyes at the "guardian" name as much as anyone... it's actually not a bad idea. The biggest potential problem with the USSF is that its leadership may begin to think that they need to build offensive capability in space, and while that may eventually be necessary we'd really like to avoid going down that path if at all possible. Naming all of the personnel "guardians" should help to establish a more watchful and defensive mindset in the force. That's not nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't think it's big enough to justify the expense of separating it into its own branch, Space Force isn't a completely idiotic idea.
The USA military always did have interests in space. Space Force does nothing new except stroke the President's ego as wanting to be someone who actually created something.
The first part of your sentence is absolute key. Forget own department, if you want to burn through tax payer money as efficiently as possible create an entire new military branch.
Republican fiscal responsibility at its finest. I'm honestly surprised at this point there's not a United States Department of Plants for Office Decorations, th
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
While I don't think it's big enough to justify the expense of separating it into its own branch, Space Force isn't a completely idiotic idea.
The USA military always did have interests in space. Space Force does nothing new except stroke the President's ego as wanting to be someone who actually created something.
Sure. But it makes no sense to spend money just to deny him that ego boost. I mean, it would feel good, but it would be fiscally irresponsible. Worse, it would be a continuation of Trump's childishness. He reversed many of Obama's actions for no better reason other than to deny Obama the legacy. Not that I care about Obama's legacy -- hell, being compared to the presidents who bookended him is already going to make him look great, history will treat Obama well -- but let's not turn it into a norm that each
Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with what you're saying, with a small modification: we shouldn't be the first nation to militarize space.
The fact is we are not the first.
Re: (Score:2)
No orbital weapons that we know of. I wouldn't be surprised if there is something classified up there which would qualify as a weapon.
Re: (Score:3)
The last thing we should be doing is encouraging the militarization of space. Yes, I'm aware we've done plenty, but at least we don't have orbital weapons yet.
I think this is the rationale behind naming them "guardians", to help instill an institutional mindset of watchful defense. I thought the name was stupid when I first heard it, but I can see how it serves a useful purpose, specifically to help keep them from thinking like "warriors" or "warfighters", labels that are widely-used in the Army, Navy and Air Force. Perhaps we should also rename the organization the United States Space Guard. We really want them thinking more like the Coast Guard. Perhaps, like t
They do have a legitimate mission. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Physics is unforgiving on this subject.
Nooooo (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Star Trek wasn't that stupid (Score:2)
They knew to use Naval ranks due to their use of starships/spaceships.
Reference. [fandom.com]
Re: (Score:2)
An Air Force Member is called "Airman"
Therefore, a Space Command member should be called "Spaceman".
Re: (Score:2)
A Navy member is called "Seaman". An Air Force Member is called "Airman" Therefore, a Space Command member should be called "Spaceman".
So WTF did those idiots go with "Guardians" then??
Accidentally proactive (Score:2)
Space concerns are already transcending multiple area. Simply, GPS for example is required for Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and even civilian duties. And that is just the beginning.
Making sure all the communication and information infrastructure stays in place is a big concern. I think we should keep Space Force even though it had been formed a few years too early to mature.
Keep it. (Score:3)
The Space force took over duties from the Air Force, Army and Navy. Those duties are still smallish - not really enough to need a separate military arm yet.
But they are growing. Once we have already done the work of combining them into a single force, better to keep it and let it improve.
But I would have simply used the word Suit (as in spacesuit), instead of Guardian.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling someone a "suit" is often a insult, so I'm not sure that would have been better.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are growing.
Citation Needed. And it better be a pretty fucking huge one to justify the insane waste of taxpayer money that is separating this out into a completely new military branch.
Read the mission statement (Score:4, Informative)
The USSF is a military service that organizes, trains, and equips space forces in order to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force. USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Congress has the power to create a branch of the armed services and Congress has the power to disband a branch of the armed services. It seems the President created Space Force via tweet and political rally announcement, without the usual planning and deliberation that the creation of a branch of the military would require. Then Congress had to authorize the new branch of the military without any consideration on whether the mission cannot be covered just as effectively by other branches of the armed service and our intelligence service.
As a tax payer, and 12-year military veteran, I would say we spend way too much on our military and could have a just-as-effective national defense for far less money. There is a major disconnect between the wars and threats we actually face and the potential threats the Government is spending its money on. In OIF, for example, we needed better body armor, better armored vehicles, more helicopters, etc. The military dragged its feet on what we actually needed, until public pressure made them change course. The top brass, politicians and industrial lobbyists would have rather spent that money on stealth aircraft, space systems, etc.; all things that have little benefit for the grunt on the ground.
First determine what it should do (Score:2)
What is the purpose of this government boondoggle? What is it's mission?
These are the same questions people should have asked about the Department of Homeland Security because as we regularly see, no one knows what it does except spend our tax dollars for the sake of spending tax dollars.
Presidential Overreach??? (Score:2)
The next president abolish Space Force? It hardly seems like his place to do that. I really don't see why it shouldn't be up to Netflix to decide. I, for one, am looking forward to season 2, and hope our next president (or our first autocrat, should it end up that way) just leaves it alone.
Yes (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
As stupid as having different branches for land, sea and air?
Stupid names aside.... (Score:5, Insightful)
...it is indisputably true that the US *needs* a Space Command (or whatever the fuck you want to call it).
The idea that we're not going to actually establish a military presence in what is literally the high frontier because some people think the NAMES ARE SILLY would be fully as dumb as the names themselves.
Eye on the ball, people.
Re:Stupid names aside.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But need it for what? So far there's been essentially no role for manned military activity in space, so the Space Force's job has been monitoring satellites, looking for any suspicious activity, and probably managing whatever secret anti-sat weapons the US denies having. Important work, sure... and work that was done by the air force.
What space-force? (Score:2)
It's a piece of paper, just put it in the shredder.
Re: (Score:2)
Reconvert them into... (Score:2)
can't decide without a cost-benefit analysis (Score:2)
Unfortunately I don't have all the facts about the costs or the benefits of the Space Force. I must defer to those Slashdot mavens who are fully equipped with facts and figures. But where have they gone? I see lots of opinions, few relevant facts.
Trump made it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While Major Politican bickers over it... (Score:2)
...General Common F. Sense knows this incredibly idiotic and politically charged question, won't fucking matter in the end.
Like the last century or two, human warmongering for the sake of Greed and employment, will be carried into space. Avoiding this is like avoiding human ignorance. Impossible. The American President can rename it to the Fluffy Treehouse Corps, with colorful rainbow rankings for all he (or she) wants. The rest of the militarized world will respond in kind, and send up their militariz
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate welfare (Score:2)
I don't oppose welfare programs in general, but I think they work better when helping people in need that the market doesn't serve. This one distracts engineers from work that could help society more. Ending it would probably help the country and humanity more than keeping it.
make it a part of the marines (Score:2)
Keep it (Score:2)
In 2018 SpaceX launched it's first Starlink satellite, now they have almost 900 in orbit. The days of a few rich countries with deep pockets launching a small number of satellites is over. Large corporations, and medium power countries will soon be launching and operating their own fleets of satellites. Space is the new frontier, the ultimate high ground, and it's about to get very crowded. It's not enough for space command to be a USAF side show, not any more. It's too important and different. The differe
Turn the moon into a "Death Star" (Score:2)
Short answer: YES (Score:2)
Long answer: Oh Hells yes.
weaponized satellites ? (Score:2)
From The Atlantic today:
"Early in 2020, Russia positioned one of its satellites dangerously close to an American satellite and then instructed it to execute a series of provocative and unsafe maneuvers. This summer, that satellite backed away, released a target, and then conducted a weapons test, firing a projectile at that target. This raw display of space combat power was carefully designed as an act of intimidation, right out of the 1950s Soviet playbook."
Perhaps there is justification for the Space Forc
While i understand the "i hate trump party" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why I wanted "Space Force" to be formally named the "Space Guard", with responsibilities similar to the US Coast Guard.
"Guardians of the High Frontier" for quite a while (Score:5, Informative)
"But Mashable added sympathetically that "It's been a long year, though. If people want to draw some nerdy joy from a U.S. military branch inadvertently referencing comic books and video games, let them have their fun.""
Space Force says: "Guardians is a name with a long history in space operations, tracing back to the original command motto of Air Force Space Command in 1983, “Guardians of the High Frontier.”"
And some idjits are complaining that the Space Force has copied something from the comics just like the Space Force copied the Star Trek logo. But the Air Force was first, and Star Trek _intentionally_ copied THEIR logo from the Air Force.
There's nothing wrong with "guardians" for Space Force people. I even wanted it called "Space Guard" and I wanted them to have missions that are an analogue to the Coast Guard. Maintenance of navigational aids. Search and rescue. Removal of hazards to navigation. Law enforcement. Just like the Coast Guard does near the coast.
And the Space Force's biggest challenge will be guarding the Earth against stray space rocks rather than aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
What a moron. Guess we need the ESP force too.
It has been tried. [wikipedia.org]
Yes, it's a film, but it's based on a true story.
Re: Space Farce (Score:2)
Great movie, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Many countries have done just that. They have an "armed forces." That way you don't need to fight over whether you're in charge of all the airplanes, or just the ones that land on the ground, and nobody has to pretend their helicopters are horses.
Cavalry is a role, a function (Score:2)
Many countries have done just that. They have an "armed forces." That way you don't need to fight over whether you're in charge of all the airplanes, or just the ones that land on the ground, ...
That's just semantics. Roles necessitate distinct equipping, training, operations, tactics and culture. You will still have separate groups and you will still have some umbrella organization over them. Whether you call that umbrella "armed forces", "pentagon", "joint chiefs", etc hardly matters. In China they have the People's Liberation Army which has a group called the People's Liberation Army Navy. Its just semantics, do you think the PLAN are trained and act like sailors or soldiers?
... and nobody has to pretend their helicopters are horses
Cavalry is a role,
DoN = USN + USMC, DoAF = USAF + USSF (Score:3)
Marines aren't completely spun off, afaik they are still officially a department of the Navy.
The "Department of the Navy" is a civilian agency in the government. Two separate armed services are under the control of this civilian agency. The United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps.
Similarly the civilian agency "Department of the Air Force" has two separate armed services that it controls. The United States Air Force and the United States Space Force.
Re: (Score:2)
Its straight from the mind of a retarded manchild. An international laughing stock.
A broken watch is right twice a day. It is only a fool who assumes ideas are good or bad based only upon their source.