Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday February 21 2019, @02:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the to-infinity-and-beyond! dept.

President Donald Trump isn't giving up on his vision of creating a new Space Force within the US military, even if it has to start out small.

Speaking at the Brookings Institution Tuesday morning, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein confirmed reports that Trump will sign Space Policy Directive 4. "That will establish the Space Force... within the Department of the Air Force," Goldfein said.

Initially, the White House had sought to create a Space Force as a brand new branch of the military, equal in standing to the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. But the proposal ran into opposition from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, which must approve the creation of a new military branch.

With Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives, the White House appears to be pursuing a "plan B" that sets up a sort of miniature Space Force under the Air Force. Notably, the new entity maintains the Space Force name, and the directive that's awaiting the president's signature also keeps the goal of converting it into a full-fledged military branch at some point in the future. 

"I think the fact that we're having a national debate on space is really healthy," Goldfein said. "We're the best in the world in space and our adversaries know it. They've been studying us and they've been investing in ways to take away that capability in crisis or conflict... We as a nation cannot let that happen."


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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by khallow on Friday February 22 2019, @01:45PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 22 2019, @01:45PM (#805014) Journal

    taking away independent departments or actors and putting them all under one rigid hierarchy

    It's all executive branch so they never were independent departments.

    And militarization of space / placing more responsibilities regarding space to the military is, of itself, a bad end. Why don't we just cut the military's budget instead and give it to NASA with the express purpose of funding near earth object research?

    Because it's a prisoners' dilemma game. There's significant reward to having a military power advantage in space. None of us would require a military in the first place, if we all played nice with each other.

  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 22 2019, @03:00PM (1 child)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday February 22 2019, @03:00PM (#805050) Journal

    They certainly are independent departments across many branches of the armed services and civilian world, and independent departments within the same agency or branch of the services. The executive branch is not "a department." And there were some good reasons why each branch has its own space representation and activities. It shouldn't all be consolidated under the Air Force, nor to a separate branch of the military.

    Under that same logic, writ large, why do we have a Coast Guard? The Navy should be able to take care of every single function the Coasties do. Why do we have a Marine Corps? There's nothing they do that the Army can't take on. Differences in basic mission aside (which also occur with the various administrative entities we have now in space), there's also good organizational reason to keep their missions decentralized.

    And I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be military involvement in space activities, even though it would be nice to keep the strategic advantage we enjoy with treaties trying to keep space warfare from happening. (Even though it easily can now - what the satellite shootdowns prove). What I am arguing is that the military should justify any additional needs for space power based on their existing mission requirements, and that the activities should be kept as decentralized as possible. Not make one big "space force" that does everything and anything spacey. There are critics who agree with that view, and I was a little misleading in saying they haven't voiced their opinions. I'm just not sure they were heard under the rush to power and money.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 23 2019, @12:22AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 23 2019, @12:22AM (#805397) Journal

      They certainly are independent departments across many branches of the armed services and civilian world

      I just explained why that unfounded assertion is wrong.

      The executive branch is not "a department."

      It's a rigid hierarchy with the US President at top.

      Under that same logic, writ large, why do we have a Coast Guard? The Navy should be able to take care of every single function the Coasties do.

      Irrelevant. Everybody breaks down organizations into smaller subunits to do selected tasks. Even the most rigid hierarchies will have a division of labor between the flunkies and the elites at top.

      What I am arguing is that the military should justify any additional needs for space power based on their existing mission requirements

      Existing mission requirements necessarily include near future mission requirements.