Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday May 09 2018, @06:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the zapp-brannigan dept.

Former NASA astronaut, test pilot, and retired USAF Colonel Terry Virts is itching for a U.S. Space Force:

During my 30 plus years in the Air Force I had the privilege of serving as a pilot for my entire active duty career, with 16 of those years in Air Force Space Command as an astronaut. And I can say unequivocally that the air and space domains are completely different and independent of each other.

[...] If space is a separate domain, worthy of its own uniformed service, what exactly should it comprise, and what would it look like? Today, not only does the Air Force have its own space component, but so does the Army and Navy as well as other government agencies. I propose combining all "title 10" (i.e. combat related forces, as opposed to "title 50" intelligence gathering forces) assets that leave the atmosphere, or return from space, in a newly formed "Space Force," reporting directly to the secretary of Defense.

[...] I believe making this change will actually save money, as duplication is eliminated. It will also improve the quality of support that the joint force commander has at his disposal, as the joint-force space component commander will be entirely focused on providing space domain support to the joint fight, and not on pleasing an Air Force (or Navy or Army) chain of command that may have conflicting priorities.

[...] The time for a new uniformed service, the Space Force, is now. America deserves the most modern, efficient, and innovative military possible, and this will be a critical element in keeping us many steps ahead of our enemies.

Previously: The United States Space Corps Wants You...
Congressional Panel Puts Plans for a US Space Corps in 2018 Defense Budget


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 09 2018, @07:20PM (4 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday May 09 2018, @07:20PM (#677576) Journal

    I'd argue that tungsten rods dropped from orbit are basically weapons of mass destruction...

    But you would lose that argument.
    Tungsten rods, or cement training bombs, can punch through a single roof, maybe kill an entire "wedding party".
    But that does not make them a weapon of mass destruction.

    WMD has specific meaning.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 09 2018, @08:19PM (1 child)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 09 2018, @08:19PM (#677597)

    So I suppose biological and chemical weapons aren't WMDs because they don't explode or catch on fire. Nice.

    To quote that one Avengers movie, "I recognize that the council has made a decision, but given that it’s a stupid-ass decision, I’ve elected to ignore it."

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 10 2018, @03:15PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday May 10 2018, @03:15PM (#677903)

      Come to think of it, that line is rather apropos because it had to do with nuking NYC.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 09 2018, @11:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 09 2018, @11:37PM (#677665)

    Not so fast. Wikipedia says: "As the rod would approach Earth it would necessarily lose most of the velocity, but the remaining energy would cause considerable damage. Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb."

    Pretty sure something with the yield of a nuclear bomb can correctly be called a WMD.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 10 2018, @01:48AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 10 2018, @01:48AM (#677702) Journal

    Speed and mass would determine how massive the destruction is. The asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs used the same principles, after all. A two ton steel bar accelerated on a rail gun to hypersonic speeds before gravity adds it's energy is going to cause a LOT of damage when it strikes the Pentagon. The airliner that struck the Pentagon was far more massive than that, but it was only moving at maybe 300 to 400 mph - probably slower since it was on a landing-like approach.

    One of the attractions of kinetic weapons launched from a space platform is, it would be pretty easy to tailor each shot to the desired results. Eventually, 50 or 100 ton shots will be possible - maybe even larger.

    The question is, do we want to destroy an office complex, or do we want to destroy the entire city block, the entire neighborhood, or do we want to make the city disappear? All possible with enough mass and speed.