SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Washington Post has an editorial by Vice President Pence, asking Congress to pass our National Defense Authorization Act for, or of 2020. Which will create a 6th branch of the United States military, called the United States Space Force. It's going to be part of the Air Force, but, this one won't be in the air. It will be in space. And there's no air, there. An excerpt:
Under this proposal, the Space Force would be within the Air Force, similar to the placement of the Marine Corps within the Navy. More than any other organization, the Air Force has been at the vanguard of building the world’s best military space programs. So, creating the Space Force within the Air Force is the best way to minimize duplication of effort and eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Just as the Air Force began within the Army before becoming a separate military department, so too will this first step in establishing the Space Force pave the way for a separate military department in the future. The Space Force is the next and the natural evolution of U.S. supremacy in space.
Also at Chicago Tribune.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Sunday March 03 2019, @09:38PM (7 children)
"Or, in this technically inclined crowd, we can make an equally valid demand to eliminate things like "electrical engineer", and instead just educate all engineers to the exact same standard."
Let's run with that. Say your company designs some electromechanical device; could be a Roomba, could be an aircraft, whatever. Does it make sense to split your company up, to have one company for mechanical engineering, another company for electrical engineering, another company for sales and marketing, another for QC etc.? Or is it more efficient to have them all under one roof and a unified command structure working together? When designing a drive system, do you want the mechanical engineer working in isolation and emailing occasionally with the electrical engineer who's doing the same thing, or do you want them in the same room working together?
My father, now retired, is both a ME and an EE, and was often used as a lynch pin between ME teams and EE teams; for military projects early in his career, then for medical later. Our generals need to do the same thing. With a global battlefield you don't just have naval engagements or air engagements or land engagements anymore; you have mixed domain engagements. It seems obvious to me that the high levels of command need to be able to effectively, rapidly, and fluidly mix the forces of the various domains on demand.
Here, see if you disagree with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE [youtube.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03 2019, @10:10PM
This one - definitely yes. For tax avoidance. Register this company offshore, sell your product to it at cost, pay no taxes in the factory country. The offshore company markets and sells the product. Of course, you own both companies. Microsoft does [seattletimes.com] something like that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @10:41PM (4 children)
I'm listening to the video right now. I've paused it to start my comment.
What I hear the general describing is "combined arms". In the history of warfare, combined arms is a pretty new concept, in some ways. True, there were armies that integrated archery, cavalry, and infantry pretty effectively. But, combined arms didn't get real recognition until the advent of artillery and armor, and then, finally, aircraft. The general is merely describing combined arms, and incorporating "cyber" into it. For purposes of warfare on earth, "space" is just an incremental extension of "air". So - up to this point (12:34) there are no new concepts, or even ideas presented. Unpausing . . . pause again at 14:29. Sun Tzu very effectively covers the aspect of defeating an enemy's will, thus avoiding the need for an armed conflict. This Brown's description of pre-battle social media maneuvering fits right into that. Unpause . . . and at 15:30 we get to what is probably the biggest single development in modern day warfare. The SPEED of conflict. Consider the War of 1812. The Battle of New Orleans should never have been fought, because the war was over before the battle commenced. Stuff happened slowly 200 years ago. Travel and communications were limited to the speed of sailing ships, and travel by horseback. Radio and telegram were shocking developments in warfare - and what Brown is calling cyber is just as shocking. But, it isn't a new realm, as Brown is claiming. It is, after all, just communications, and the idea is to disrupt and to demoralize the enemy, all according to Sun Tzu's teachings.
Long paragraph, huh?
At 16:46, Brown is talking about a "revolutionary impact". Here, I do disagree with him. Shocking, perhaps, but I won't accept the term "revolutionary". All of the changes he is describing are just incremental expansions of already existing battlefronts. The speed at which those fronts develop is shocking, but again, not revolutionary. If there truly is a "revolutionary" aspect here, it is that an entire campaign might be decided without any physical human casualties - ESPECIALLY civilian casualties. Going back in . . .
At 18:40 Brown is describing what the Navy/Marine forces have had for 500 years or so. We've always been able to strike at sea, then ashore, reembark, and be prepared to strike ashore again the next morning, hundreds of miles away. Today, the speed at which we can move, the speed at which we can gather intel, would be shocking to commanders from 100 years ago - but still, it is mostly incremental gain. The increments might be geometric, but still, incremental. We have always been unpredictable, from a landsman's perspective. We have always been difficult for an enemy maritime commander to predict, as well.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 03 2019, @11:12PM (3 children)
Didn't mean to click "submit" yet.
At 19:59 Brown is talking about "empowering" people. Then he goes on to describe what he means. Well - I heard that same speech in - ohhh - 1976 I think it was. Soon after I was promoted to 3rd class petty officer I was introduced to the concept of delegating authority to the lowest level of competence. (But, remember - you can delegate authority, but you can never delegate RESPONSIBILITY!)
20:30 Brown is describing how fast things develop, and the commander can no longer actually command all the pieces. But - every geek and nerd on this site already knew that when they watched WarGames, in 1983, or whenever they watched it. Military commanders who were honest could and would admit the same thing a couple thousand years ago, which is why those commanders always encouraged individual initiative. (never mind the egocentric fools such as the not-a-real-general Custer)
21:55 Brown admits the obvious - this video is propaganda - surely it didn't take anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size this long to figure that out.
23:00 "the ability to thrive in ambiguity and chaos" Brown has just paraphrased Marine Corps doctrine.
27:15 The real gem of this video. The final takeaway. Let me rewind and listen to that again. "The biggest threat right now is division. They're gonna find the division within our society and they're going to try to amplify it."
FFS, that our politics today. Or, let me be more specific - that's our Progressives today. That is our DNC in their ongoing attacks on our president.
Final analysis of the video? It's political. I'm hearing a repeat of all the arguments within the Army Air Corps, justifying the creation of a separate force from the Army. And, it doesn't wash with me.
Politics. Someone, somewhere, thinks that they can end up as top dog, if all the forces are combined. There are no truly convincing arguments here.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday March 04 2019, @01:58PM (2 children)
Why are wars fought? You said the Battle of New Orleans (in 1815) was unnecessary, fought only because the slow communications of the time were not up to quickly delivering the news that the war was over.
But a whole lot more war and fighting than that is unnecessary. For instance, the American Civil War was stupid and unnecessary on a lot of levels. The South first tried a "velvet divorce", tried to make an agreement to split the nation, without war, but with the threat of force backing the demands for a split. The North refused to accept such proposals, and so the South made good on the threat to use force. Then the way the aftermath of the initial battles (in particular, First Bull Run) were handled seemed more calculated to inflict maximum humiliation than hold the door open for an agreement and a quick end to hostilities. The North was put in a position where they could not back down without the whole world seeing them as a bunch of wimps and incompetents. It was supposed to be an easy war because the South was so greatly outnumbered, but the quick dash to the Southern capital that so many thought might be more of a parade, with no real fighting, didn't turn out that way. Afterwards, people just had to drag questions about the North's manhood into the disagreement, mock the North, wouldn't keep things respectful. Maybe by then it was too late for any other course, and no matter how respectful the South was (short of yielding the issue), the North had to show the world they were for real and could fight, lest foreign powers start getting certain ideas.
One of the best ways to get ahead is simply to watch from the sidelines while others beat the crap out of each other. That's pretty much how WWI was for the US. One of the craziest things about going to war over the assassination of the Archduke was that he wasn't much liked, by anyone, not even by his uncle, the Emperor! War could have still been avoided, but due to his advanced age, the Emperor pretty much had to delegate the official response to a younger generation, who proved to be a bunch of hotheads, making demands that the Emperor thought extreme, perhaps too extreme. Yet he went along with it. And then, the Kaiser in particular was downright eager to get into a war.
WWII is another one in which the weaker side started the hostilities, questions about the stronger side's resolve and gumption were thrown around, and ultimately the war was fully joined and the weaker side went on to lose.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 04 2019, @02:58PM (1 child)
Why are wars fought? It often seems to be a form of population control. Except - the wrong gender suffers the losses. Someone is going to mock that, someone else is going to say it's sexist, but a nation's fertility rate has almost nothing to do with the number of men available. It all depends on the number of women able and willing to procreate.
Your weaker side/stronger side bit at the last?
Retrace the events of WW2. Make just a couple changes. Japan never attacks the US, and Germany never attacks the Soviet. Both were terrible blunders, on the part of the Axis. Then, imagine that the Nazi's were more successful in keeping the fate of the Jews secret. The history of the world might be very, very different. The Axis wasn't all that terribly weak, after all. Without the British Empire's influence in the region, the Ottoman may have even reconstituted itself - but if not, the Middle East would still look very different than it does today. And, much of that would have allied itself with the Axis. I don't think many of us in the Western World would have liked history very much, if the Axis hadn't blundered so badly. The idea gives white supremacists big woodies though.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday March 04 2019, @06:50PM
> seems to be a form of population control.
Bingo.
> Except - the wrong gender suffers the losses.
Oh no, in simplistic the "it's a man's world" view, that's the correct gender.
In that view, when it comes to children. women go for quality, men more for quantity. Life is precious vs life is cheap. This divergence in attitudes makes sense from a biological point of view. In patriarchal societies, life can fall into a pattern of constant war to bleed off the overpopulation. If wars are being won, then the young have room to expand. If not, then the young men are dead and have no need of room, and the young women will not make trouble, whether they go on to live out childless lives, emigrate, join a harem, or whatever. Win or lose, overpopulation problem solved, for that generation.
This is what the US is up against in Afghanistan. And I think at a visceral level, Republicans understand this better than Democrats do. But, many would rather play too, than try to stop that game, or simply stay out. Some even want to bring on the Clash of Civilizations. This internal disagreement along with others about the objectives in Afghanistan makes it hard to accomplish much there. 17 years and counting, and it's still not over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @07:27AM
Depends. If the customer is US Government, then ultimately having those functions distributed amongst several Congressiinal districts is...important. Even Amazon...er
... Blue Origin figured that one out.
I bet BO & ULA get the new EELV contract. ULA because... and BO because Congress will ultimately be happier with it's footprint in the long run. Would love to see more Falcon Heavy launches... but probably not going to be fo DOD or NRO.