Quote from: RonM on 08/14/2018 05:27 amWell, I guess a fantasy explanation fits the Space Force. It's just as ridiculous.What I just described is literally what General Keith Alexander did with USCYBERCOM in late 2010. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines (yes, the Marines had their own) cyber forces were integrated. In just about everyone's opinion it was stupid for the Army to have been involved with cyber in the first place, that opened the door for the Navy, the Air Force wanted in too... and let's not talk about the Marines, eh? The Air Force should never have been involved in space in the first place, it was stupid.
Well, I guess a fantasy explanation fits the Space Force. It's just as ridiculous.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 08/09/2018 10:45 pmTrump’s PAC wants to know which Space Force logo you like best... https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/9/17672118/trump-space-force-logo-branding-military-branch"Mars Awaits" in logo in the lower right-hand corner? Really?Between this, Sec. Mattis's initial opposition, and the fact that "Space Force" apparently goes over well as a chant at recent Trump rallies (maybe it's the new "Lock her up!"), I have a hard time avoiding the suspicion that space force is just a political stunt, albeit potentially a very costly one.
Trump’s PAC wants to know which Space Force logo you like best... https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/9/17672118/trump-space-force-logo-branding-military-branch
Why would it be costly? They would do the same thing as before but under a new name.
Here is a blog in favor of it:https://defenceindepth.co/2017/06/24/space-warfare-in-the-pentagon-in-support-of-an-independent-space-corps/
So, we should have created Space Force back in the late 1950s? That's ridiculous.
Quote from: RonM on 08/14/2018 02:55 pmSo, we should have created Space Force back in the late 1950s? That's ridiculous.Why? The military use of space was drastically delayed precisely because the Army didn't know what to do with von Braun's team, and the Navy's rockets were junk. Sputnik never would have been such an embarrassment if the US had been serious about space policy from the beginning.
Why? The military use of space was drastically delayed precisely because the Army didn't know what to do with von Braun's team, and the Navy's rockets were junk. Sputnik never would have been such an embarrassment if the US had been serious about space policy from the beginning.
Not true. The Air Force started WS-117L in 1955. Corona/Discoverer, MIDAS and SAMOS (WS-117L) were all in work before Sputnik. Vanguard existed only so that it could prove freedom of space. von Braun's team over taken by Convair, Martin, Douglas and STL's efforts.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/14/2018 03:04 amWhy would it be costly? They would do the same thing as before but under a new name. Duplication, for one thing. No doubt all of the other armed services will retain space commands of some sort, just as, 70 years after the creation of the US Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Navy's army (Marine Corps) have their own air forces.And each new bureaucracy has its own overhead and basic needs. Human organizations tend to try to preserve themselves, expand their perks and their influence in ways that have little to do with the reasons for which they were created.The major argument I've heard for a space force is that the Air Force tends to favor air and aircraft to the detriment of space. If the existing bureaucracy isn't functioning correctly, maybe it would be better to try to fix it than to create another bureaucracy, which will no doubt eventually exhibit its own dysfunctions.
Fortunately the British didn't think that way before creating the RAF in 1916. The resulting organization probably made the difference for success during the Battle of Britain.
1918, actually. What is the evidence that the Battle of Britain would have turned out differently had the UK's air power not been a separate armed service? I've seen the argument that a space force makes sense, because it's just like creating an air force out of the Army Air Forces. But that's facile without evidence that the air force's separation has been a good thing.
Quote from: Elvis in Space on 08/16/2018 12:15 amFortunately the British didn't think that way before creating the RAF in 1916. The resulting organization probably made the difference for success during the Battle of Britain.1918, actually. What is the evidence that the Battle of Britain would have turned out differently had the UK's air power not been a separate armed service? I've seen the argument that a space force makes sense, because it's just like creating an air force out of the Army Air Forces. But that's facile without evidence that the air force's separation has been a good thing.
Quote from: Proponent on 08/16/2018 02:04 am1918, actually. What is the evidence that the Battle of Britain would have turned out differently had the UK's air power not been a separate armed service? I've seen the argument that a space force makes sense, because it's just like creating an air force out of the Army Air Forces. But that's facile without evidence that the air force's separation has been a good thing.The the state of the US air forces up until Pearl Harbor is pretty good evidence.
If the point is to suggest that the dismal performance of America's air defenses on 7 December 1941 was due in significant measure to the lack of an independent air force
Quote from: Proponent on 08/17/2018 03:18 amIf the point is to suggest that the dismal performance of America's air defenses on 7 December 1941 was due in significant measure to the lack of an independent air forceSigh. The point was to refer to the well known historical failure of the US to take air superiority seriously until after Pearl Harbor.
Quote from: clongton on 06/18/2018 09:40 pmListen to what he says and then extract the obvious intent, not the specific wording, and one will have a good idea of where anything he says is headed. In other words, automatic literal interpretations are ill advised. That will be the outcome of this directive as well.Agreed. And on that note, it's worth pointing out that the directive Trump signed today speaks nothing of the Space Force; it is solely about space traffic and debris management.
Listen to what he says and then extract the obvious intent, not the specific wording, and one will have a good idea of where anything he says is headed. In other words, automatic literal interpretations are ill advised. That will be the outcome of this directive as well.
The US then quickly developed an appreciation for air superiority and achieved it -- without creating and independent air force..
Quote from: Proponent on 08/18/2018 01:47 pmThe US then quickly developed an appreciation for air superiority and achieved it -- without creating and independent air force..Hardly! US air superiority didn't become a certainty until the mid to late 50's.