Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday March 03 2019, @06:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the Space-Force-or-Space-Farce? dept.

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.


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This discussion has been archived.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 bzipitidoo on Monday March 04 2019, @01:58PM (2 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday March 04 2019, @01:58PM (#809769) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 04 2019, @02:58PM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 04 2019, @02:58PM (#809780) Journal

    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

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday March 04 2019, @06:50PM (#809912) Journal

      > 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.