SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US lawmakers have drafted legislation proposing the formation of a new branch of the military called the Space Corps. This new space-orientated military service would join the five other branches of the United States Armed Forces and is intended to manage national security in space.
Last week, the House Armed Service Committee, led by Republican Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Democrat Jim Cooper, introduced the new legislation claiming that the current national security space systems in the United States are not capable of protecting the country's space assets.
"Not only are there developments by adversaries," says Mr Rogers and Mr Cooper in the committee release, "but we are imposing upon the national security space enterprise a crippling organizational and management structure and an acquisition system that has led to delays and cost-overruns."
Although the proposal establishes the US Space Corps as its own separate military service, it would still be operated from within the Department of the Air Force, in much the same way the US Marine Corps operates from within the Department of the Navy.
Will the space lasers make a 'pew, pew!' sound?
Also: Congressman Proposes A Military 'Space Corps'
As a point of discussion, how does this proposal fit in with the Outer Space Treaty of 1967? Wikipedia summarizes:
The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV). However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit and thus some highly destructive attack strategies such as kinetic bombardment are still potentially allowable. The treaty also states that the exploration of outer space shall be done to benefit all countries and that space shall be free for exploration and use by all the States.
The full text of the treaty is available at NASA.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday June 29 2017, @08:13AM (17 children)
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/339972-plans-for-space-corps-stand-after-amendment-to-defense-policy-bill-fails [thehill.com]
Most science fiction has the space corps as part of a navy, with naval ranks, terms and "culture".
Are spaceships ships, planes, or... rockets?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Thursday June 29 2017, @10:09AM (11 children)
The air-force command structure isn't organized for long-range missions and seniority* based promotions. If it's about near-orbit aerospace dog fights, bombing satellites and escorting large ships to orbit, the air-force can, should, and will do it. But if you're talking about escorting large fleets to remote colonies and the like while operating 40k style ships... That's either the Navy or a new corp modeled after the Navy.
They've gradually (and grudgingly) grown to handle long range bombings and transports (escort and operating) since you can't excuse a large force without doing something... But over the years, they've rejected practically everything else that would change their command structure:
1. The Army is operating their own helicopters and bombers to provide ground support: They wanted to distance themselves from the Army.
2. Navy's air-craft carriers: See No.1.
3. NASA: Long-range exploration doesn't get you promoted fast enough.
4. Radar stations: Too boring and seniority based promotions.
5. ICBMs: See No.4.
6. UAVs: Too many conflicting interests so the Army and Navy operate their own.
So it's only natural they don't want aerospace.
*Not to say they're a meritocracy or anything of the sorts... But it's not wrong to say their command does have a lot of real pilots as opposed to the amount of Navy and Army's officers that come from the rank & file.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Geezer on Thursday June 29 2017, @10:47AM (9 children)
I can't comment on the Army, but naval aviators are in fact a significant portion of the senior Navy command structure and have been since WW2. There is a natural diversity in the Navy officer corps, since the Army and Air Force do not operate a large submarine force in addition to other mission-specific specialties.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday June 29 2017, @11:42AM (5 children)
Yeah don't give them any ideas.
A friend of mine from school joined our navy's army's air force as one species or another of aircraft mechanic. I would not be surprised if there's some kind of classified Monitor/Merrimac river boat thats semi-submersible. Lets say you wanted to carry ammo upriver, I suppose if you trust there's no mines (and mining a river is unlikely for a variety of reasons) then some crewed semi-sub or barely submerged drone is unlikely to be blown up by fire from shore.
Also I was in the Army and people collect weird stories (me especially I guess) and our Army does have a larger naval force than some small countries. Well, really small countries, anyway. River boats captained by warrant officers mostly. I believe there's at least three independent units. Supposed to be one of the best postings/MOS out there in terms of coolness. Civilians think SF is the coolest or Delta or whatever, but from the inside the "cool" units/MOS with cool missions are usually something else. Imagine how cool it would be to serve on a riverboat...
I suppose its not as ridiculous of a situation as it could be, when you consider the entire military has organic trucks, rifles, computers... Nobody's ever proposed "The Truck Force".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Thursday June 29 2017, @01:29PM (3 children)
Actually, most British and ex-British colonies', as well as other forces have a separate logistics corps\branch:
Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics_Branch [wikipedia.org]
England: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Logistic_Corps [wikipedia.org]
Australia: Strategic Logistics Branch
India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_Service_Corps [wikipedia.org]
Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics_Corps [wikipedia.org]
China(PRC): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_Support_Department_of_the_Central_Military_Commission [wikipedia.org] (before 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_General_Logistics_Department) [wikipedia.org]
I think it's the same for France and Russia but haven't looked to hard. Often enough, these organs are administrative branches as well and are responsible for issuing salaries, handling procurements and keeping inventories. Each military distribute authorities differently. But, at the very least, roll calls are supervised by a separate officer that's stationed at the base so a field commander won't refuse sending injured man back to hospitals* or report casualties as still alive to keep receiving rations. Naturally, this extends to vehicles, fuel and parts which is why many armies combine those two functions into one branch.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday June 29 2017, @02:30PM
The US Army has the logistics branch. AKA the wheel of shame.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Informative) by EvilSS on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:12PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @07:49PM
USTRANSCOM coordinates requests that go through the DoD but there's no direct chain of command to the actual forces. That's is, if a USTRANSCOM officer says "take a right" to an Army truck driver while his direct officer tells him to "take a left", he takes a left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @04:47PM
> Imagine how cool it would be to serve on a riverboat...
FFC already imagined that for us, just watch "Apocalypse Now", the long version is highly recommended,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Now_Redux [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday June 29 2017, @02:28PM
Haven't seen a snorkeling tank then?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @02:29PM (1 child)
Considering at least 70%* of major offensive naval operations in last few decades have been air-craft carrier bombardments, just a fair portion, let alone a significant portion, would be 70% pilots. Obviously, this is impossible in practice seeing how pilots have no clue how to drive those boats... Still, naval aviators are no way near significantly represented in the command structure as they should be based on their contributions.
*Ass-pulled guesstimate based on how many carriers are out there as opposed to gun-ships and what nots. Unless, of course, the navy been busy sinking enemy boats with torpedoes and cannons in some unknown war...
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Thursday June 29 2017, @06:48PM
Senior aviators do get a little ship-driving experience. CVN's are always captained by aviators.
While the airedales have done *most* of the hot war fighting since WW2, the sheer relative size of the surface and submarine forces ensures an eclectic mixture.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:35PM
It really seems to me that the Air Force is just a relic of the Cold War, and based on the ridiculous and obsolete idea of eliminating the Navy altogether and just using nuclear-tipped ICBMs for warfare. A while back, the US really did try to mostly eliminate the Navy, because the doctrine was that a big Navy wasn't needed thanks to long-range bombers and ICBMs. Then the Korean War happened and that doctrine was proven wrong and stupid.
IMO, the Air Force should just be eliminated as a separate branch, and folded back into the Army as it once was. No other nation has a separate "air force"; it's just part of their army. There's too much need for close air support in today's military engagements on land, so it really should be all part of the same branch for efficiency.
I also think the Marines should be eliminated as a separate branch, and folded entirely into the Navy. Marines having their own ships (and mini aircraft carriers!) is just ridiculous; that's the job of a "navy".
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday June 29 2017, @10:56AM (3 children)
Air Force has the X-37B [wikipedia.org].
If a single-stage-to-orbit spaceplane [wikipedia.org] gets built, I couldn't see the Navy using it for anything relevant.
Air Force will have their Space Corps around for a while until such time that the Space Corps is no longer a gimmick (decades or even a century), and then it will spin off into its own branch... of the UN world government aaaaarrrrgggghhh!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @12:24PM (2 children)
I was hoping they were building an X-303 [wikia.com].
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Thursday June 29 2017, @12:57PM (1 child)
I'd prefer the BC-304 with the Asgard beam weapons and a fully loaded ZPM.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @01:17PM
Gotta walk before you run... there aren't replicators on the way, are there?
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday June 29 2017, @02:23PM