Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
JetBuddy wrote:It could mean giant leaps in technology.
Tugger wrote:
The Air Force already has a good name and group for what has been the US military's connection to space: Space Command
Francoflier wrote:If he wants to spend money the US doesn't have on an ego-boosting space project, why doesn't he fund a moon research base?
That would give him the credit he so craves and be helpful to humankind as a whole...
seahawk wrote:They should get FN90 weapons, grey uniforms and a patch showing a pyramid and a circle.
Francoflier wrote:The last thing we need is to militarize and weaponize space.
TWA772LR wrote:Any military force in space should be run by the UN.
Dutchy wrote:Will not happen, even the Pentagon is against it. I think people are just shaking their heads and leave it at that.
, past attempts by military branches to introduce new uniforms, the product invariably looks closer to something The Evil Intergalactic Empire would field than Jedi Knight attire. Consider this 2006 picture of two airmen wearing the proposed Billy Mitchell heritage coat became an internet sensation after someone inserted Darth Vader into the photo.
“That’s the silliest thing in the world,” Rogers said during a Feb. 28 panel discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington. “It’s the Air Force. Air Force got blue uniforms? Make the space corps black. Everything else be the same, except instead of having wings you’ll have an orbit or something. I don’t care. Done. It’s over.”
JetBuddy wrote:Space is already weaponized and militarized.
Tugger wrote:Gotta love them space uniforms....
Francoflier wrote:JetBuddy wrote:Space is already weaponized and militarized.
The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.
Francoflier wrote:JetBuddy wrote:Space is already weaponized and militarized.
The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.
Francoflier wrote:JetBuddy wrote:Space is already weaponized and militarized.
The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.
Mortyman wrote:Francoflier wrote:JetBuddy wrote:Space is already weaponized and militarized.
The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.
Would surprise me immensly if the US don't already have something up there.
JetBuddy wrote:Francoflier wrote:JetBuddy wrote:Space is already weaponized and militarized.
The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.
Yes, as far as the public knows. But there are many reports and rumors about weapons in space, some more believable than others. It would really surprise me if the Chinese or Russians hadn't already put a weapon system of some sort in space, at least for testing purposes.. We know Soviet Union experimented with it during the Cold War. And probably the Americans as well.
DigitalSea wrote:More than likely he received a good piece of intelligence that China intends on creating a "Space Force" and he's just getting the ball rolling so that we can stay competitive. Same with the tariffs, a lot of the moves you will see from this administration is the US finally making the Pacific Pivot to contain China's rise. Always gotta look at the bigger picture.
DigitalSea wrote:More than likely he received a good piece of intelligence that China intends on creating a "Space Force" and he's just getting the ball rolling so that we can stay competitive. Same with the tariffs, a lot of the moves you will see from this administration is the US finally making the Pacific Pivot to contain China's rise. Always gotta look at the bigger picture.
Ozair wrote:I'm doubtful there is anything permanent up there but I would say the X-37 shows how the US could probably maintain a weaponized presence if they chose to.
TWA772LR wrote:The Soviets did mount a modified TU-22M tail gunner cannon on to an Almaz space station. I believe it managed to successfully destroy an old satellite in a test.
https://www.google.com/amp
AirlineCritic wrote:Indeed, the bigger picture
I think this particular administration seems more pr-savvy than intelligence-savvy. While developing and testing some space weapons might actually make military sense, if you are looking for rationale for the creation of these forces, you'll probably find it more in the area of how it will look to the public, and whether it can focus discussion on this action rather than some other issue.
boacvc10 wrote:I'm proposing a discussion on 45's push to create a U.S. Space Force. Whether it will happen is yet to be decided. What could it look like in organizational terms and resources? What capabilities woud it need to stand on its own if there was a will and a need to do so? How will it break apart components from other branches of the U.S. armed services?
And most importantly, what could its primary mission be?
LMP737 wrote:boacvc10 wrote:I'm proposing a discussion on 45's push to create a U.S. Space Force. Whether it will happen is yet to be decided. What could it look like in organizational terms and resources? What capabilities woud it need to stand on its own if there was a will and a need to do so? How will it break apart components from other branches of the U.S. armed services?
And most importantly, what could its primary mission be?
I have two thoughts on this. One, it's a shiny metal object being used to distract us. Two, how much would this boondoggle cost and where are you going to get the money for it? IMHO you either raise taxes or take it out of the three branches share of the DOD budget.
Francoflier wrote:Not that this is anything more than another publicity stunt/ego trip from a President who has, once again, absolutely no clue what he's on about and no serious or informed advisor on the subject. Just as everything else he comes up with, this is just whatever came off the top of his head and sounded cool to him.
Ozair wrote:In that context, I see some merit to the concept if it can break away from the current procurement quagmire. Not confident that will happen though.
LMP737 wrote:I have yet to hear anyone talk about how this is all going to be paid for.
Moose135 wrote:LMP737 wrote:I have yet to hear anyone talk about how this is all going to be paid for.
Mexico will pay for it, believe me!
neutrino wrote:Moose135 wrote:LMP737 wrote:I have yet to hear anyone talk about how this is all going to be paid for.
Mexico will pay for it, believe me!
I don't believe you.
The Martians will be the ones forced to pay.
JetBuddy wrote:I'm all for a Space Force and allocating more military resources to space. It could mean giant leaps in technology. Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will oversee the creation of the U.S. Space Force, so it's in good hands.
There's already an international ban on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in space. .
Ozair wrote:I may get shot for suggesting this but I don't think the idea of the service being funded by commercial sources is crazy. How about a small levy on every GPS device sold above a certain dollar threshold? That should provide sufficient capital and ongoing revenue to a service who may end up maintaining the navstar constellation anyway.
tommy1808 wrote:
You shoot at someone, hit, and according to the Space Liability Convention you get to pay for the damage you have caused.
Best regards
Thomas
JetBuddy wrote:tommy1808 wrote:
You shoot at someone, hit, and according to the Space Liability Convention you get to pay for the damage you have caused.
Best regards
Thomas
I have a suspicion that's not gonna happen in reality.
tommy1808 wrote:JetBuddy wrote:tommy1808 wrote:
You shoot at someone, hit, and according to the Space Liability Convention you get to pay for the damage you have caused.
Best regards
Thomas
I have a suspicion that's not gonna happen in reality.
In that case the country not paying will default, that happens when you have debts and don´t pay, and stop having an economy
best regards
Thomas
JetBuddy wrote:...the U.S. economy won't go bankrupt. They would not pay for the nuclear site either.
Ozair wrote:I may get shot for suggesting this but I don't think the idea of the service being funded by commercial sources is crazy. How about a small levy on every GPS device sold above a certain dollar threshold? That should provide sufficient capital and ongoing revenue to a service who may end up maintaining the navstar constellation anyway.
keesje wrote:Awesome ! Now only find the enemy justifying it.
tommy1808 wrote:Federal judges in the US have to apply US law in a way that doesn't violate international law.
tommy1808 wrote:This isn't about international institutions, this is about courts. Federal judges in the US have to apply US law in a way that doesn't violate international law. International law says the US has to pay. US government refuses to pay, and automatically defaults like Argentina. They where not bankrupt at that time either.
boacvc10 wrote:And most importantly, what could its primary mission be?