Congressmen Propose a New Military Branch: The 'US Space Corps' (gizmodo.com)

If the name "sounds cool" by rdelsambuco · 2017-07-09 08:23 · Score: 5, Funny

what more justification is really needed?

--
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.

Re:If the name "sounds cool" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:35 · Score: 0

Apparently the many million milliard billion billiard trillion trilliard dollars needed for creating a military branch are free.
Sure, go ahead.
Re: If the name "sounds cool" by dougdonovan · 2017-07-09 08:41 · Score: 1

heather, you work for President Trump now. if its in the best interest of the US citizen, hes all for it and thats why hes the President.
Re:If the name "sounds cool" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:43 · Score: 0

Agreed also this is my idea I have been promised general rank in the space cadet scadron when this goes by my 3 letter agency boss where I work in senilicon valley for 55K
-creimer
There are two kinds of people on Slashdot. Which one are you? https://www.cdreimer.com/slash...
Re:If the name "sounds cool" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:47 · Score: 0

I got bitcoin. Where are my cock eggs?
Re:If the name "sounds cool" by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-07-09 08:56 · Score: 1

I haven't read "Space Cadet" by Robert A. Heinlein in decades. Should be required reading for the next generation.
Re: If the name "sounds cool" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:58 · Score: 2, Funny

Being called a space cadet might no longer be an insult.
Re: If the name "sounds cool" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:24 · Score: 0

So no Space Marines then. Dissapointing.
Re:If the name "sounds cool" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:36 · Score: 0

To receive eggcoins you need a valid cockchain address like:
1gR3atb1gfatfagg0738cdre159e2
Re: If the name "sounds cool" by Bahamut_Omega · 2017-07-09 14:41 · Score: 1

Well this could wind up looking like Macross with the UN Spacy. All we need now are out of town aliens that can be beaten with and by culture.
Just one of those possible outcomes that could be argued about having been fiction before reality. Then again, aren't we living it when Akira and The Simpsons are showing coincidental outcomes that happened to go from an artist's muse to global views.
Re: If the name "sounds cool" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 15:59 · Score: 0

Do you know how hard it's going to be to turn the Pentagon into the Hexagon?
Re: If the name "sounds cool" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 05:55 · Score: 0

LOL still posting affiliate links to books you haven't read.
Mods please. Blatant spam.
Re:If the name "sounds cool" by eric_harris_76 · 2017-07-10 13:00 · Score: 1

That's why I support Net Neutrality, even though I don't know what it is, who is to be punished for doing what, how violators are to be caught, how selective prosecution is to be avoided, what it wasn't needed in the past, and why it is suddenly necessary now.
And of course, anything that is "for the children".

--
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.

Of course we should do this. It's obvious by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-09 08:24 · Score: 5, Funny

We should do this right after we re-organize the Navy to be in charge of space cruisers and space carriers. After all how will we get our fighting men to board and annihilate the space vessels of our enemies if they don't have an adequate mode of transportation. The Air Force should focus on more important things like developing anti-teleportation technology which we know those Commie Russians and Chinese are working on right now. Because all these things are way more pressing than any other military problems we have right now.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:24 · Score: 0

Before all this the US should really, really quit and exit and evacuate for the UN, the sole obstacle against this militarization of space. All the UN money can then be invested on heavier bureaucracy in all levels of the US government. Look, anybody should find a lack of faith on the power of PowerPoint organizational charts disturbing.
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:33 · Score: 0

>>Because all these things are way more pressing than any other military problems we have right now.
That's cute. Obama actually did it, he called it "Pivot to the Pacific". So in the same fashion, creating a new military space branch would be a "Pivot to Space".
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by rossz · 2017-07-09 12:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

The budget for the military is renewed every two years, so it isn't unconstitutional. As for the air force, while I tend to be a strict constitutionalist, I accept that referring to "the army and navy" is equal to saying "the military", which would include the air force and possibly, in the future, a space force.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 13:12 · Score: 0

"The stupidity of this congress is beyond belief."
Behind every stupidity of this Congress proudly stands a corrupt Republican, in this case Representative Mike Rogers, R-Alabama. (It used not to be the case that "Corrupt Republican" was an oxymoron. No longer.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rogers_(Alabama_politician)
"More seriously, the army and Air Force are unconstitutional , so we should not compound our violation of this foundational document."
You raise an interesting point, at least as far as the Army goes. The "Founders", (Not the "Founding Fathers". The "Founding Fathers" originally were the Franciscans who founded the California Missions. As far as the US goes, there was only one "Founding Father"- Washington.), had a deep distrust of Standing Armies, thus the Second _and_ Third Amendments to the Constitution. Except for the permanent Navy, which was provided for, every Branch of the Military should have been subject to a Constitutional Amendment authorizing their creation for a period lasting more than two years:
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 14:16 · Score: 0

...while I tend to be a strict constitutionalist, I accept that referring to "the army and navy" is equal to saying "the military"...
Oh, a strict Constitutionalist? Tell me, in your opinion, does "well regulated militia" mean any/every Tom, Dick, and mentally unstable Harry should be able to buy an Uzi without some kind of basic background check?
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 14:23 · Score: 0

As long as they don't post as AC
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by fermion · 2017-07-09 15:19 · Score: 1

So you are saying that you would be ok promising someone five years of pay, then cutting them off after two if the congress says that funding has changed. Otherwise we are funding the army for five years.
In any case, I hope you don't depend on having a real job where you depend on the money so, as you have asserted is fair, you won't be harmed if they fire you on friday and refuse to pay you for the week.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 16:14 · Score: 1

There are more guns than cars in the US, cars kill more people than guns. Oh, and well regulated militia is not a restricting clause. But all able bodied men (and now women) are a part of the unorganized militia. The national guard and army are dealt with in the main articles. Usually interpreted as 18-45. But the Hellar decision affirms the 2d be interpreted as the founders intended. And militia were the able bodies expected to show up with their personal weapon, suitable for military action. The SCOTUS prior to this affirmed restrictions on strictly hunting weapons was allowed. Short barreled shotguns remain banned as there was no defense before the SCOTUS and therefore it was not brought to the courts attention the military usefulness of short barreled shotguns. No one was there to mention trench warfare in the World War. Short barrel shotguns were used in tunnels in Vietnam. They are still in inventory in the military. So, you don't like the second. We gave a mechanism to change it. And it doesn't involve protesting you didn't get your way and rioting. Just amend it or repeal it. Go for it.
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-07-09 16:59 · Score: 2

There are more guns than cars in the US
Wouldn't car owners vs. gun owners be much more relevant? It's not like you can drive ten cars or fire ten guns at the same time.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-07-09 17:05 · Score: 1

It used not to be the case that "Corrupt Republican" was an oxymoron. No longer.
I'm sorry; as a non-native speaker, I'm confused by all those negatives. Are you saying that it wasn't an oxymoron but it is now?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 18:44 · Score: 0

Yeah. GP suffers from a little verbal diarrhea.

"Corrupt Republican" used to be an oxymoron. No longer.
is more correct.
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by codeButcher · 2017-07-09 21:14 · Score: 1

The Air Force should focus on more important things like developing anti-teleportation technology

Already done. Version 2016 of [the] technology is about as anti-teleportation as you would want.
Can't vouch for future versions though. Like MS did with Word and Mozilla does with Firefox, this feature may be dropped from a future edition. (I'm actually hoping that will happen before my retirement age, because my commute is slowly draining all the life out of me.)

--
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Theaetetus · 2017-07-10 01:25 · Score: 1

So you are saying that you would be ok promising someone five years of pay, then cutting them off after two if the congress says that funding has changed. Otherwise we are funding the army for five years.
You're begging the question.

In any case, I hope you don't depend on having a real job where you depend on the money so, as you have asserted is fair, you won't be harmed if they fire you on friday and refuse to pay you for the week.
There's a significant difference between "I promise to pay you for the next five years" and "I'm not paying you for the work you already did last week.
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by iggymanz · 2017-07-10 04:05 · Score: 1

What nonsense you spew. All branches of the armed forces are considered constitutional by Supreme Court. Air Force created as Army AIr Force, Marines and Coast Guard from Navy.
Space is already militarized, satellite killer weapons tested by all major powers and military satellites are there
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by k6mfw · 2017-07-10 04:55 · Score: 1

When you mentioned Navy, I was thinking how we view our manned space program is extension of the Air Force. OK except that paradigm are airplanes not mobile much of the time, and their missions are very direct. Where ships are mobile almost all the time, cruising the seas. Airplanes are short occupancy time, ships are occupied months at a time. So we want spaceships but modeling them after airplane paradigm makes them short duration (Apollo, Shuttle, Orion, Dragon, etc). We should think of having something like ISS that goes someplace instead of circles, this would be the transit vehicle to go to Mars but nobody wants to talk about that because just too expensive. OK easy to write about airplanes vs ships paradigms, just saying.
Getting back to topic, what we really need is the Space Patrol, the concept is over 60 years old. Many are concerned about NEO, we also have to think of space pirates, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

--
mfwright@batnet.com
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-10 05:01 · Score: 1

Realistically if there was ever a true Space Corps it would have to be it's own agency as traveling in space is much different than either aeronautical or naval missions. Naval operations will be closer to Space Corps and the dynamics of it is closer to submarine warfare than flying or surface ships. Historically it was part of the Air Force as it required getting through the atmosphere first which is under Air Force expertise.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by torkus · 2017-07-10 05:40 · Score: 1

That's more job security that most people have.

--
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 05:43 · Score: 0

There are more guns than cars in the US
Wouldn't car owners vs. gun owners be much more relevant? It's not like you can drive ten cars or fire ten guns at the same time.
Challenge accepted.
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 05:56 · Score: 0

Hold my beer...
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious by tmjva · 2017-07-10 06:42 · Score: 1

Probably only because cars depreciate faster.

--
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by tmjva · 2017-07-10 06:45 · Score: 1

As far as Navy, will anime become truth and raise the Yamato in space?

--
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Jesus+H+Rolle · 2017-07-10 07:51 · Score: 1

No.
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by suutar · 2017-07-10 08:13 · Score: 1

It's in the contract that the contract may change at the whim of congress (section 9: "I understand that I cannot change these laws but that Congress may change these laws, or pass new laws, at any time that may affect this agreement, and that I will be subject to those laws and any changes they make to this agreement." and particularly 9b: "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document"). I wouldn't be happy about promising someone a 5 year job and then having to cut them off early, but if they knew about the possibility up front, chose to accept it, and had meaningful other options they could have gone with, I wouldn't feel that I'd done something immoral.
Re: Of course we should do this. It's obvious by suutar · 2017-07-10 08:15 · Score: 1

But if we last long enough someone will eventually built a replica of the Yamato in space, just because.
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Agripa · 2017-07-10 09:09 · Score: 1

Oh, a strict Constitutionalist? Tell me, in your opinion, does "well regulated militia" mean any/every Tom, Dick, and mentally unstable Harry should be able to buy an Uzi without some kind of basic background check?
The subordinate clause *expands* what is protected. It means weapons suitable for a militia are protected (see US versus Miller) which includes machine guns, short barreled rifles, pistols with stocks, sawed off shotguns, many "destructive devices" as BATFE likes to define them, dirks, swords, knives, any arms that an infantryman would normally carry, and any arms that a law enforcement officer could carry including tasers and clubs. It also includes all magazine sizes whether fixed or removable, body armor, bayonets, bayonet mounts, and barrel shrouds which are also inexplicably known as "that thing which goes up".
Compromise is not possible; BATFE and various disingenuous politicians have poisoned that well.
Re:Of course we should do this. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 21:54 · Score: 0

Captain Obvious agrees!

the real reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:26 · Score: 0

The real reason is that sometimes you just have to take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. Sometimes it's the only way to be sure.

Okay, so... by ewanm89 · 2017-07-09 08:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is this basically proposing to rename Air Force Space Command into its own full branch?

Re:Okay, so... by ColdWetDog · 2017-07-09 08:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Somebody really wants to be a 'Space Cadet'.
Actually, it sounds like somebody wants their own budget.
All wars are resource wars.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Okay, so... by ShanghaiBill · 2017-07-09 08:44 · Score: 1

Is this basically proposing to rename Air Force Space Command into its own full branch?
Yes, but with a lot more money spent on bureaucratic and political overhead.
Re:Okay, so... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:40 · Score: 0

SUBTITLE A—MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF SPACE PROGRAMS
Section 1601—Establishment of Space Corps in the Department of the Air Force

This section would authorize the creation of a Space Corps within the
Department of the Air Force and require the Secretary of the Air Force to certify its establishment by January 1, 2019. The Space Corps would be led by the Chief of Staff of the Space Corps and would be composed of such offices and officials determined appropriate by the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Space Corps. This section would further provide that the Chief of Staff of the Space Corps would be appointed for a term of 6 years, be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and would report directly to the Secretary of the Air Force, as a co-equal of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

Section 1602—Establishment of Subordinate Unified Command of the United States Strategic Command

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish United
States Space Command as a subordinate unified command under United States Strategic Command not later than January 1, 2019. This section would also require the commander of such command to hold a four-star rank and be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The commander would exercise command of joint space activities or missions, and the United States Space Command would be jointly staffed.
Re:Okay, so... by Woldscum · 2017-07-09 11:32 · Score: 1

USAF + NSA/CIA + Navy + NASA/NOAA = Anything in orbit or going into orbit.
Re:Okay, so... by blindseer · 2017-07-09 11:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, it sounds like somebody wants their own budget.
That's what I thought too.

All wars are resource wars.
And Earth orbit is a resource. The USA will want to have the means to assure that resource is available. Not just available militarily but commercially, since a strong military is necessary for a strong economy, and vice versa.
One idea that has crossed my mind every so often is the idea of something like a Coast Guard for space. The US Navy and the Coast Guard have overlapping roles, and similar structure, but the Coast Guard is regarded as much as a police force as a military one. There's rules in US law and international law on the separation of a military force and a police force. For example, having Navy officers board a foreign flagged ship can be considered an act of war but Coast Guard officers doing the same would be a matter of law enforcement.
Is it really a military force we want in this role? Or should it be more of a law enforcement force?
If this is about protecting a resource, keeping the orbits above the USA clear of threats like the Coast Guard patrols the shores to do the same, then this might be the wrong way to go about this. In time though, as orbit becomes more accessible to non-government entities, I suspect both a military and police force with space borne capability will be needed.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Re:Okay, so... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:51 · Score: 0

It's proposing to militarize space, eventually under the control of the national space council through the secretary of the air-force, as opposed to NASA, so that they can be under the command of industry and current whitehouse appointees rather than something somehow-more-reasonable like the military.
It's not so much the beginnings of a move towards "USNC" as much as "PTMC"
Re:Okay, so... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 12:20 · Score: 1

You had me right up to:

since a strong military is necessary for a strong economy, and vice versa.
this is the kind of bullshit that makes you all into warmongers and terrorists (yes to the other side you're just as much a terrorist as you think they are)
Re:Okay, so... by AHuxley · 2017-07-09 12:46 · Score: 1

Re "into its own full branch"
More a NSA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, NRO, CIA and Air Force in one.
Map the earth, allow US forces to communicate, spy, remove/alter other nations satellites, capture other nations satellites and bring them back to the USA for study.
Find an enemy satellite, alter it without them noticing. At a very critical time it gives false information.
Secure and keep the high ground. Detect tactical or theater systems, a radar that looks down from space 24/7.
Anything the NSA and CIA can do to a modem, server or network on earth they want to try from space too.
A US might not be able to get a human spy into another nation, but the USA will control all the satellites that nation tries to use or launch.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Okay, so... by rtb61 · 2017-07-09 13:08 · Score: 0

I would see it as a declaration of intent to put nuclear war heads in space over every country, so that they can be launched at moments notice, make your resources freely available and the slave labour to mine it or die. Pretty much the US government is finally starting to appreciate how much the rest dislikes and distrusts it, so the lies and false promise won't work any more, so straight up extortion will be the goal. I can readily see the US ending up on a global sanction list, no one wanting to supply the stuff to enable the US to enslave the world. Damn delusional fuckers you have in charge, worse than that North Korean git.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Okay, so... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 13:29 · Score: 0

Pretty much. Yes.
But it would provide a basis for the future structure of any US military in space. A structure with seperate management and seperate bugetary controls.
Re:Okay, so... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 13:36 · Score: 0

I would see it as a declaration of intent to [...]
Really... and how is the crack smoking going today?
Re:Okay, so... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 13:47 · Score: 0

You're from a fucking penal colony so shut up.
Re: Okay, so... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-07-09 17:06 · Score: 1

Time for the administratium atom to decay^H^H^H^H^Hreorganize?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Okay, so... by CaptQuark · 2017-07-09 18:32 · Score: 1

...remove/alter other nations satellites, capture other nations satellites and bring them back to the USA for study.
Find an enemy satellite, alter it without them noticing. At a very critical time it gives false information.
The Air Force is already tracking space junk down to the size of a walnut. You really think you can sneak a satellite out of orbit or physically modify it without the whole world knowing about it? It would be as obvious as a hot air balloon landing in Red Square, Tiananmen Square, or the National Mall.

---
Re:Okay, so... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 18:56 · Score: 1

Law enforcement is meaningless without getting every country's agreement on space legislation. Moreover, how do you measure and patrol the area of space that could be considered "ours"? (i.e. our orbit + a few million cubic kilometers around it)
Given the sheer difficulty of getting to space and surviving to begin with, I think we're a few thousand years too early to be legislating space or discussing military space ops. There isn't a legitimate reason to do it yet. If someone commits some shit down here and manages to get into space, I think the universe will take care of the rest. Their end will be cold, hungry, and lonely.
If the concern is organized crime, well... they're still having difficulty getting military-grade weapons from 50 years ago. Space tech and the investment -- in time, money, and space -- is far beyond their means.
If the concern is war, the Geneva Convention or other world-wide treaties can be amended to include orbital and spaceship weaponry bans or guidelines.
Re:Okay, so... by AHuxley · 2017-07-09 19:57 · Score: 1

Re ' It would be as obvious as a hot air balloon landing in Red Square"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"German aviator known for his ..... landing near Red Square in Moscow on 28 May 1987"

As for what can be done by the USA in space?
That is all about selling big ideas for funding in private, secret budget presentations.
More sats or a space plane doing what sats do does not sound special in 2017, so why not present the idea that the US can do things to other nations sats given enough money?
A big "truck" in orbit that can steal the nations orbiting spy platforms every mission and can return to earth with their best secrets? Thats a plan worth selling.
Big fancy new ideas win big budgets.
Re "sneak a satellite out of orbit or physically modify it without the whole world knowing about it?"
Once its funded and built who cares if it gets used or seen by other nations in action? Its all about the overtime, new space jobs in some states and party political mil contracts.
Like a stealth satellite it does not matter if it ever works or if other really low tech nations can see it. The building and contracts was the only important part. It keeps US bespoke hand crafting skills in use and funded every decade.
A plan to capture other nations satellites does sell well with nice bright graphics showing a US space craft getting near some evil nations big, evil spy sat and then totally winning :)
Like some movie plot political leaders recall seeing on the big screen in 1967.
Spend big on a good new animation, build the space craft and enjoy the over time.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Okay, so... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 03:41 · Score: 0

So he is american?
Re:Okay, so... by Delwin · 2017-07-10 05:11 · Score: 1

Actually if you dig into the proposal there's already a lot of duplicated bureaucracy all over the armed forces regarding space. This would pull them under a single umbrella and actually reduce bureaucracy.
Re:Okay, so... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 05:26 · Score: 0

military creates stability by enforcing a set of international conduct. Do you have economic stability and growth in unstable regions? How do you get stable regions?
Re:Okay, so... by torkus · 2017-07-10 05:54 · Score: 1

They're tracking things down to the size* of a walnut.
*Size - as observed by your viewing/tracking platform
Intentionally stealthy things aren't going to be the same. From a radar perspective, you could have a stealth jet up there and miss it entirely. There's still optical and thermal tracking, but this side of the arms race is in it's infancy.
Take a small object with state of the art stealth systems and a long term mission window (i.e. low delta-v isn't an issue) and I don't expect it would be very difficult to hide from the various tracking systems. Satellites don't currently (AFAIK) have the weight or energy budget to mount active scanning that would detect stealth objects approaching. Granted, a stealthed space drone would be actual cutting edge space technology ... you know, the things the USA used to be capable of like when they got some folks to the moon with far less computer power total than your smartwatch has today.
Someone remind me what the airforce mini-shuttle has been doing in space for years at a stretch again? /tinfoilhat

--
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Re:Okay, so... by mjwx · 2017-07-10 06:00 · Score: 1

Somebody really wants to be a 'Space Cadet'.
Ahem, I'm on the other side of the pond, we call them Space Midshipmen.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Okay, so... by tmjva · 2017-07-10 06:47 · Score: 1

They can board if they're invited. Lets say when it is time for high tea.

--
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Re:Okay, so... by CaptQuark · 2017-07-10 20:49 · Score: 1

You are correct in a very limited sense, but...

A "stealth jet" has a very small radar cross section (RCS) signature only from a very specific perspective and at very specific frequencies.

An 8-foot wooden 2x4 pointed directly at you only has an 8-inch cross section. From the side, that same 2x4 has a 384-inch cross section. As you probably know from studying WiFi signals, some frequencies are blocked by drywall and wooden framework, other frequencies pass right through it with minimal attenuation. This example isn't a perfect analogy, but it is enough to get you thinking about "stealth" limitations.

There is enough published information on stealth limitations that I don't need to expound on it more.

---

Moonraker by Nidi62 · 2017-07-09 08:28 · Score: 1

They better be equipped with EVA suits armed with blue lasers, otherwise it will never work

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil

Re:Moonraker by plopez · 2017-07-09 10:14 · Score: 1

The sharks have all the lasers.

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+

Face Palm? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was going to say this was a major Face Palm, but then I saw it was CNN reporting it. So now I'm wondering if it's even true.

Re: Face Palm? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:00 · Score: 3, Funny

Major Face Palm? Has he signed up?
Re:Face Palm? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 10:01 · Score: 0

I assume whoever the "1" is in "60-1" has been all over CNN being fellated for his bravery in standing up against Trump's new nazi astrostormtroopers.
Re: Face Palm? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:43 · Score: 0

CNN reported it, not Fox News, so rest assured that it is true.
Re:Face Palm? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:54 · Score: 0

> being fellated for his bravery
Do you know something about Rep. Tulsi Gabbard that no one else knows?
Re: Face Palm? by FatdogHaiku · 2017-07-09 12:54 · Score: 1

Major Face Palm? Has he signed up?
He's the first casualty...
Concussion.

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Re: Face Palm? by rickb928 · 2017-07-09 15:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wrong. General Truth is the first casualty of war and other things...

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re: Face Palm? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-07-09 16:52 · Score: 1

Wouldn't this be Star Fox News?

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by rsilvergun · 2017-07-09 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

If not we bloody damn well should. I'm not up on my physics here but I'm to understand that if you dropped a large metal object from space the damage would be pretty bad. Heck it might be worse than nukes. You could in theory get the destructive power of a nuke without the messy fallout. Imagine if you could wipe out a country and then just roll in and take the land day 1...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:42 · Score: 1

Treaties? Sure. We have lots of them. Do we keep treaties? Historically? But yes. The ultimate space weapon could be deployed from the moon. Whomever has control of the moon(as in..actually there), will control the Earth provided the human race survives that long.
Re: Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was under the impression we did, but with this current administration wanting to rip up anything done before it, I could see them wanting to "make America great" by getting into an outer space arms race. Large metal spikes that can travel at high rates of speed are all that would be needed to wipe out large cities. Look up Project Thor to see what was the next step in the US-USSR conflict had the nuclear weapons been ineffective.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:55 · Score: 1

Yes, but the treaties are specifically for weapons IN ORBIT. It would be legal, at least by the letter, to build a system that never makes a complete orbit, always de-orbiting a little bit and then boosting back. Both the US and Russia had plans for such weapon systems at several times.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:59 · Score: 0

... destructive power of a nuke ...

Unlike a nuke, the weapon's energy goes directly into the ground. I imagine it would be like a level 9.0 earthquake, with all buildings flattened and all infrastructure destroyed. Yes, all the victors get, is the land.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by JayK · 2017-07-09 08:59 · Score: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Brilliant_Pebbles

--
Chief Cartographer Olórin Press
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:00 · Score: 1

The Outer Space Treaty is only concerned with WMD's (nuclear, biological, chemical weapons). The kinetic bombardment weapons you speak of are/were deliberately left on the table (presumably because we already have them up there). Project Thor proposes launching tungsten rods from space. The Navy has these new railguns that I'm sure they've thought about putting into space as well.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by AmiMoJo · 2017-07-09 09:08 · Score: 1

Militarizing space any more than it already is with passive things like spy/comms/navigation satellites is a really, really bad idea. The last thing we want is an arms race to develop space weapons. The original fear was that nukes would be placed in orbit, but there is potentially far worse stuff.
If NASA is planning to capture an asteroid then the US needs to be careful about the potential military applications for dropping rocks on other countries, and not do anything to suggest it might be interested in doing so.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:17 · Score: 0

Yeah but you could use them to eliminate all those evil nazi racist fascist MRAs!
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Bruce+Perens · 2017-07-09 09:19 · Score: 1

We do have the UN Space Treaties. So far, the only military presence in space has been countries looking at other countries, which arguably doesn't violate the treaty. But hell, who wants weapons in space? It's difficult enough having demented heads of state given them.

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:23 · Score: 1

there are. most (but.. important part here... not all) 'militarization' of 'outer space' and celestial bodies is prohibited by them. the first of which (outer space treaty) dates back to before the moon landings... and yes. the u.s. is a party to that (an initial signatory.. and ratified, too). but we already know what our current administration thinks of global treaties.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Dracos · 2017-07-09 09:36 · Score: 4, Informative

Yep. This would almost certainly violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by thrich81 · 2017-07-09 10:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Here is some math comparing the energy of orbital speed vs nuclear weapons. First of all, think about it, if you are going to drop something from orbit, first you have to put it into orbit, which will take more energy to do than the ultimate energetic yield upon reentry (discounting the even more far fetched ideas of redirecting asteroids...). The Saturn V could put 140,000 kg into low earth orbit. So the total energy, kinetic and potential, of 140,000 kg in earth orbit is less than the fuel energy contained in a Saturn V. The Saturn V was big, but would be considered very small as the equivalent of a nuclear weapon (the launch spectators were only a few miles away, in the open).
Now for the math. At the speed of low earth orbit (7.8 km/s) the kinetic energy of 1 kg is 6.1E7 joules (1/2 mv^2). The conversion from nuclear yield in kilotons to joules is 1 kt = 4.184E12 joules. So to equal a small nuke (using the approximate yield of the first one at Trinity) with a yield of 20 kt would require about 2.8E6 kg in low earth orbit to dissipate all of its kinetic energy as destructive yield (that's 2800 metric tons). I've ignored the potential energy of the mass in orbit as it is much smaller than the kinetic energy (about 2E6 joules/kg). The mass of the ISS is 420 metric tons. Not many nukes are as small as 20 kt anymore. I'd guess that the operational ones are closer to 500 kt, though operation weapons with yields of a few megatons (2000 to 3000 kt and up) have been fielded in the past and maybe still are. So now we are talking orbital masses of around 70,000 metric tons to equal one typical nuke. There is a LOT of energy in a nuclear weapon.
So dropping things from orbit does not create city flattening yields or big earthquakes, cracks in the earth, etc.
Anyone can feel free to check my math, I did it in a hurry. I got all my starting numbers from Wikipedia.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 10:29 · Score: 0

I'm not up on my physics here but I'm to understand that if you dropped a large metal object from space the damage would be pretty bad. Heck it might be worse than nukes.
To catch you up on your physics: any energy held by a large metal object falling from space must have been provided by putting it into orbit in the first place. Or, to put it another way: if you want an orbital kinetic weapon with the power of a hundred-kilotonne nuke, you need a hundred-thousand-tonne rocket to put it into orbit in the first place. (More or less. Rocket fuel is more energy-dense than explosives, but rockets are less efficient than bombs.)

Imagine if you could wipe out a country and then just roll in and take the land day 1...
The US can already do this. They don't, because it involves a lot of civilian casualties. Why do you think they would change their mind if they had a less controllable weapon?
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by BeerCat · 2017-07-09 10:35 · Score: 4, Informative

The Saturn V could also put around 31,000kg into high orbit (high enough to go for lunar orbit) (combined launch mass of Lunar Module and Command Module), at a velocity of 11 km/s. Kinetic Energy of 1kg at escape velocity is around 6E7 joules (though my back of an envelope calculations could be out).
Enough to be scary for those on the ground, but there, as you point out, easier ways to achieve the same aim.
Though kinetic weapons conveniently don't violate any existing treaties (Outer Space, Non-proliferation, SALT, START etc)

--
"She's furniture with a pulse"
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Sarten-X · 2017-07-09 10:43 · Score: 1

Gee... with numbers like that, it'd seem that it'd be practical to use nuclear bombs as propulsion to get all that energy into making a payload orbit the planet. It'd probably work well on paper, but you can be sure nobody would want to deal with the complexities of cleaning up after a bomb-based liftoff.
Somebody designing such a thing would be a good sanity check on your math.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re: Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:00 · Score: 0

And some of them are probably deployed in orbit. I mean the "rods from space".
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by apoc.famine · 2017-07-09 11:32 · Score: 1

What you're describing are Rods from God. Long considered a potential weapon, and not prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty or SALT II.

--
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by thrich81 · 2017-07-09 11:45 · Score: 1

Darn, you're right and my number for orbital KE is to high by a factor of 2 (forgot to do the multiply by 1/2). I did that math about 4 times... My overestimate makes the comparison between orbital energy and nuclear energy even more lopsided in favor of the nukes.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by burtosis · 2017-07-09 12:15 · Score: 1

Here is some math comparing the energy of orbital speed vs nuclear weapons. First of all, think about it, if you are going to drop something from orbit, first you have to put it into orbit, which will take more energy to do than the ultimate energetic yield upon reentry (discounting the even more far fetched ideas of redirecting asteroids...).
Not necessarily. The solar system is full of massive objects including asteroids containing cubic miles of metal and easily dwarfing 70Mtons. You would only need a small amount of thrust to park it in orbit if you had a decade or so and didn't mind the safety implications of using the earth to aerodynamically brake it. Or better yet, if impact time was less of a concern and you had a few months to a few years, you could just impact it directly into the earth. You can get back billions or more times the amount of energy as you put into thrust since you are just nudging its orbit slightly, it's already extremely massive and energetic from the reference frame of inside our gravity well.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by blindseer · 2017-07-09 12:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

I saw nothing to imply this space force would be in command of orbital weapons. It'd be a large and relatively independent force within the Air Force that specialized in space based military resources. That could just mean that they manage the communications, navigation, and weather satellites for the Air Force and other branches.
Also, I think you are about 40 years too late to complain about an arms race to develop space weapons. And that's being rather conservative. really. It's probably more like 60 or 70 years.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by blindseer · 2017-07-09 12:22 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm not so sure. The Wikipedia summary of the treaty does say that conventional weapons are allowed, only what they deem weapons of mass destruction would be prohibited.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2017-07-09 12:54 · Score: 1

There is an Outer Space Treaty that prohibits "weapons of mass destruction" in space. So, no nukes. However, kinetic bombardment weapons have been in development for some time now. The current "testing platforms" are terrestrial tungsten rod rail gun designs for the Navy and Air Force. Theoretically, the slugs used in these could be used from orbit too. /.'s favorite defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton apparently discussed some KEP stuff at their 2017 Directed Energy Summit; but that website is (of course) lacking any real information on that (or any, really) subject.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by AHuxley · 2017-07-09 12:57 · Score: 1

It will be within the law of not been a weapon in any classic legal way of thinking or discovery. A slight reworking of the satellite thats of interest to the USA so it fails.
Locating, tracking, capture and recovery back to the USA of any other nations new spy satellites.
No damage to property, no creation of lots of smaller parts due to impact or anything like that during peace time.
The interesting satellite just fails to ever work and then disappears as a usable system for that nation. Nothing interesting seen from earth or new smaller parts floating off it to show any unexpected changes.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by youngone · 2017-07-09 13:00 · Score: 1

Yes, the US has signed a Space Treaty.
Of course the whole point of this is not to actually put any airmen into space to protect the US or anything like that.
The point is to get a budget and some power for someone.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by HeckRuler · 2017-07-09 18:21 · Score: 1

And it's a really really bad idea because of the Kessler Syndrome. If powers start knocking birds out of the sky in a panic or in self-defense then the debris could cause a chain reaction which would lock humanity inside planet earth and deny EVERYONE access to space for the foreseeable future.
Admittedly, that sort of attempt at removing WMD capabilities is the sort where the world ends shortly after one way or another. But still.
And I think it's an open secret that all the major powers have anti-spying laser tech that they've tested out. Razzle-dazzle is so much better than a kinetic kill vehicle that irreversibly pollutes low earth orbit.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 19:07 · Score: 0

A giant rod of tungsten is not my idea of "minor" destruction.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 19:17 · Score: 0

Fuck, it's like you're arguing for the premise of a game called Solar 2, where you play as an asteroid and become a planet (and grow into a life-bearing planet) by absorbing asteroids.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 22:47 · Score: 0

So what - we wait until the aliens show up? - By then it will be too late...
Space weapons need to be developed now - the issue will be to have sufficient safeguards to keep them from being used for other purposes.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 01:04 · Score: 0

Half a tonne of sand or metal grit packed around some high explosive let off in retrograde orbit, and North Korea could cause some serious damage. Sounds like a perfectly asymettric play for them... take out everybody else's spy satellites and destroy the world economy if you threaten the regime.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 05:23 · Score: 0

Is your math calculated based on free falling (no extra force involved)? Would it be different if there is a push (extra force) to get the object drop faster?
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 05:36 · Score: 0

...really bad idea. The last thing we want is an arms race to develop space weapons.
Why? An arms race is what got us into orbit in the first place. And then you go on to say that the military should have no interest (or feign a lack of interest) in new, more powerful weaponry. You aren't making any sense. Could you elaborate on how you arrived at the conclusion: weapons development within the military = bad.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by torkus · 2017-07-10 06:19 · Score: 1

The big difference being, today it's possible to put objects into LEO which would be deorbited to bombard the planet.
It's not currently possible to alter sizable asteroid orbits in any useful manner, much less so accurately that you can either park them on earth orbit or target them at a very specific place. IIRC NASA plans to *attempt* to *slightly* modify the orbit of an asteroid in the fairly near future.
Furthermore, unless one country has total control of this capability it's just as easy to send something else up and re-target that asteroid as long as it's reasonably far away unless you actively defend it. Or, by the same measure, if you park one in orbit then you have to defend it because anyone else could de-orbit it on YOUR head.
Realistically, an asteroid is never going to be a tactical weapon until technology is so far advanced that there's little point in using one. The resources that would go into acquiring, aiming, and defending one far exceed any conceivable gain (or cost to achieve the same goal via more conventional means). At best, they are a doomsday weapon for a species.

--
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 06:35 · Score: 0

Yeah, but remember, if an object dropped from space hits the Taco Bell target, we all get free tacos!
Re:Didn't we have treaties against space weapons? by torkus · 2017-07-10 07:01 · Score: 1

Start on the moon, the gravity well is negligible in comparison. Granted, you need to lift your factory into place first.
I don't think any of it is especially efficient, but the big advantage isn't the 100kt+ nuke equivalent. It's the .1-10kt range with focus on the smaller side. The largest conventional bomb (FOAB) is about 0.044kt or 44 tonne equivalent. Being able to attack with multiple, high-accuracy, non-nuclear 0.1kt weapons in a short span is...a considerable advantage. And that without needing (currently non-existent) super huge bombers which would be subject to interception, overflight rules, fueling, etc. makes it even more so.
While space based weapons are undoubtedly going to be more vulnerable in the short to medium term, the number of countries capable of attacking them is small. When compared to the near-invulnerability of the 'missle' once launched it's an intriguing platform to say the least.
Oddly enough, if SpaceX truly lowers the launch costs as much as they predict these types of weapons become reasonably practical from a cost standpoint even. I'm sure some politician will find a way to make them cost even more though.

--
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.

This is what I've been waiting for my whole life by Nicolas+Cage · 2017-07-09 08:35 · Score: 0

I hope I'm not too old to enlist...

Stuck On Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:35 · Score: 0

And what spacecraft will these fine men and women be using to head into space? Unless the Russians or the Chinese give them a lift they will be stuck on Earth

Space Corp Directives! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:37 · Score: 4, Funny

Does this mean we can finally have Space Corp Directives?
Space Corp Directive 34124. 'No officer with false teeth should attempt oral sex in zero gravity.'

youve got to keep that ball rolling. by nimbius · 2017-07-09 08:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

disclosure: american here.
for those readers outside the states who wonder why we're engaged in perpetual war, its the impetus of an unstoppable machine. our Department of Defense is funded to the tune of more than 500 billion dollars. it employs close to three million people. This doesnt count the literal millions of people whom are employed as military contractors, providing everything from catering to private security and transportation (our troops fly commercial aircraft frequently.)

we helped ourselves to the war chest during WW2 to get out of a crippling depression fueled by unregulated credit markets. Then the paranoia of a generation led us to stumble into central america, the middle east, and southeast asia. Now, the US military is too big to do anything but sustain, or get bigger.

rolling back the defense budget is not an option in a nation that makes nothing anymore. So, we pick our battles and fight the wars we have an overwhelming supremacy in waging. we fight for profit and to a lesser extent ideology, not defense, so its rare to see us in a country that doesnt at least have an exploitable natural resource or strategic value internationally. we pick the countries we can win, the enemies we can paint as a binary good/evil on the nightly news, and we place an emphasis on maintaining the illusion that our conquests have something to do with our moral turpitude and just nature.

It doesnt matter if space is a pointless vacuum, it only matters that it represents an opportunity for profit and sustained funding. Senators voting for this nonsense are keenly aware it means jobs and income for people in their states even tangentially affiliated with the defense department. Not having a war/employed warforce means a more urgent requirement to address things like income inequality, unemployment, healthcare, drug abuse, homelessness, and things that do not make a profit.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.

Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:04 · Score: 0

May as well dump that money intohttps://science.slashdot.org/story/17/07/09/2018206/congressmen-propose-a-new-military-branch-the-us-space-corps# space then. Perhaps we can expand humanity beyond the planet.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:19 · Score: 0

we helped ourselves to the war chest during WW2 to get out of a crippling depression fueled by unregulated credit markets.

Actually, the U.S involvement in WWII was totally funded by the public. That's why we had to take heroes off the front lines to hawk war bonds in the states.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:44 · Score: 0

Putting aside hyperbole.
1. Great no weapons in space. Who among the world leaders here actually followed that treaty (see iron sky). treaties are only as good as the signers.
2. USA already has military assets in space. They don't go "bang bang bang" but they see , communicate, and skitter around for 2 years doing 'things" X-37.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 10:49 · Score: 0

No comment on the rest of the post, but this part is incorrect.
"rolling back the defense budget is not an option in a nation that makes nothing anymore."
See the Industry Size section of the link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:37 · Score: 0

so its rare to see us in a country that doesn't at least have an exploitable natural resource
Everyone says this but I don't get it...
Everyone says "we're in Iraq for the oil". We didn't steal their oil, and they didn't hand it over in gratitude when the war as over. So what good does the oil do us if it stays in their hands? How is this "blood for oil" shit supposed to work?
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by DatbeDank · 2017-07-09 11:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

America is an empire. If America didn't have it's empire level military someone else would by vying for that position. Blunt and honest fact, Europe's welfare states and the rest of the world's healthcare systems are subsidized by American citizens. Whether that will continue for much longer is to be seen. It will be a glorious day when the ungrateful socialists of the world realize that their freebies weren't free lunches.
Here's an honest question for fools like yourself. Which boot would you rather be licking?
America
China
Russia
I'll take my chances with America. Maybe when the rest of the world descends into an oppresive Islamic state that's enslaving women and killing LGBTs, people will recall the good 'ol days when America silently protected them and their ungrateful selves.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 12:28 · Score: 0

as long as the Americans and there giant egos are gone i'll be happy
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 12:32 · Score: 0

I can't believe all these ungrateful people, after all people love having 'whats best for them' forced upon them by foreign states.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Sarten-X · 2017-07-09 12:35 · Score: 2, Informative

disclosure: american here.
I am an American as well, but with a different perspective.

our Department of Defense is funded to the tune of more than 500 billion dollars.
Our GDP is almost 18 trillion dollars.

It employs close to three million people.
That's 1% of our population.

This doesnt count the literal millions of people whom are employed as military contractors
One. Literally one million. A quick search shows that adding up the top 9 contracters is under 900,000 people, and a large portion of each of those companies actually sits outside the defense industry. For simplicity, let's round up to a nice single million. That's not even enough to bump our percentage beyond statistical error.

providing everything from catering to private security and transportation (our troops fly commercial aircraft frequently.)
Their contracts are included in the DoD's budget. Our troops fly with paid tickets, most often coming out of that DoD budget as well.

we helped ourselves to the war chest during WW2 to get out of a crippling depression fueled by unregulated credit markets.
That's a nice story that resonates well with today's economic fears, but it's only partly true. When the stock (not credit) market crashed, it triggered a period of deflation. That in turn led to a drastic cut in spending, including the spending on new credit. Then Europe started to default on its credit that we had extended during World War I, and due to political instability, did not have much hope for recovering. That froze the credit market, as well. That would probably have not been so bad, except that a century of bad agricultural practices had crippled the Great Plains farmland, and a series of droughts decimated the recovery efforts.
When World War II began, the economic recovery was well underway, with the GDP back up to pre-1929 levels, but confidence was still low (much as it still is today after the 2007 recession). While the war brought us a huge new market for defense technology, it didn't bring much funding. Instead, the massive bond program led to what was essentially a crowdfunded war effort. In a curious turn, the war bonds effectively boosted the consumer confidence, because they offered a future income as well as inspiring patriotism.

Then the paranoia of a generation led us to stumble into central america, the middle east, and southeast asia.
To be fair, the paranoia was mostly warranted. During World War II, the Soviet bloc also recovered well from their own economic troubles, and their economies had led to political expansion that cut off emerging markets for the United States. The Soviet Union also gained a significant amount of territory in Europe through the war, and they maintained exclusive control, apparently fueling the Soviet economy at the West's expense.

Now, the US military is too big to do anything but sustain, or get bigger.
Or it could actually get smaller, as its budget did after 2010. It's ramping up again, but slowly.

rolling back the defense budget is not an option in a nation that makes nothing anymore.
Again, our GDP is almost 18 trillion dollars. That's a lot of "nothing" we make. Our defense budget is only about 3.3% of that. For supporting 1% of the population, it's a little disproportionate, but not unreasonable.

So, we pick our battles and fight the wars we have an overwhelming supremacy in waging.
Again, in the interest of honesty, there are very few places where we don't have an overwhelming supremacy. We have nukes, if we chose to use them. Of course, nukes are bad. So is carpet-bombing. So is a fu

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 12:39 · Score: 0

If profiting involves eventually fighting then this venture is still fucked
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by HeckRuler · 2017-07-09 18:34 · Score: 1

Then the paranoia of a generation led us to stumble into central america, the middle east, and southeast asia.
To be fair, the paranoia was mostly warranted. During World War II, the Soviet bloc also recovered well from their own economic troubles, and their economies had led to political expansion that cut off emerging markets for the United States. The Soviet Union also gained a significant amount of territory in Europe through the war, and they maintained exclusive control, apparently fueling the Soviet economy at the West's expense.
Warranted as in the commies were indeed trying to spread their ideology to the rest of the world. And warranted as in they really did send a bunch of spies into the USA.
But the actions in South America during the Red Scare were atrocities that destabilized the entire region and had a MASSIVE net negative impact. We didn't have to fight the communists, they're system was fucked up and it collapsed. The entire reason we had the cold war and all those proxy wars was because we thought our system was better. It was. But if we thought it was so much better, why did we kill so many people out of fear that their system was going to take over?
No, I don't think it's fair to say their paranoia was warranted to the point where fucking over a continent was justified.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 18:48 · Score: 0

War Bonds didn't pay for shit. There is a reason income tax switched to pay as you go rather than a yearly check to the Uncle Sam and it still wasn't enough. It took massive debt and a destruction of the rest of the worlds industry to pull us out.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 19:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ah, the old "I'm doing it because I'm protecting everyone else from the other guy who WOULD do it" argument...
America's war-mongering is going to bite it in the ass. Our infrastructure is failing. Schools aren't delivering. Job markets suck. We're honestly debating whether people deserve a right to medical treatment. Our country allowed corporations to profit from incarceration. Unemployment numbers are deliberately mismeasured. Corruption is everywhere. People detest our country *because* of that war mongering and thinking we're entitled to the rest of the world. Would the mass immigrations in Europe have happened without American action in the Middle East? I think paying the tab on that would be a nice diplomatic gesture.
Russia and China are the least of our worries. We won't take care of our own. How far do you think that'll go when we try a draft? How many are willing to lay down their lives for a country that doesn't care about them?
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by golden_hands · 2017-07-09 23:21 · Score: 2

Europe's welfare states and the rest of the world's healthcare systems are subsidized by American citizens.
Proof please- jingoism is no substitute for facts.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by sjbe · 2017-07-10 00:50 · Score: 2

Our GDP is almost 18 trillion dollars.
And our debt is nearly equal to that. And we are adding to that debt at a rate of approximately the entire budget of the US military EVERY YEAR. Basically we are borrowing the entire cost of the US military every single year which we then have to repay with interest. You think there isn't an opportunity cost that arises from that? Just because the US has a large GDP doesn't mean it is infinite or that we can't outspend our means.

One. Literally one million. A quick search shows that adding up the top 9 contracters is under 900,000 people, and a large portion of each of those companies actually sits outside the defense industry.
You have to add in the supply chain for those contractors which I assure you is considerably larger than 1 million people. The actual size of the impact of defense spending is a substantially larger percent of our economy than the 4% of GDP we spend on the federal military budget. Some military spending is necessary and proper. When that spending exceeds the military spending of the next 8 largest countries combined it's pretty hard to argue that we are being responsible with taxpayer money.

Again, our GDP is almost 18 trillion dollars. That's a lot of "nothing" we make. Our defense budget is only about 3.3% of that. For supporting 1% of the population, it's a little disproportionate, but not unreasonable.
It's absolutely unreasonable when we have congress running a $600 Billion deficit every year and they are talking about taking away health care from millions of people including the poor and elderly. Much of the money we spend on the military does not improve our society. It's just money wasted on weapons and combat resources we don't need and won't use.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by DatbeDank · 2017-07-10 03:03 · Score: 1

Europe's welfare states and the rest of the world's healthcare systems are subsidized by American citizens.
Proof please- jingoism is no substitute for facts.
For your laziness:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=America+s...
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 05:55 · Score: 0

At the least, having political control allows to award billion dollar contracts to Exxon, Chevron, Shell and other anglo-western companies.
But the incentive may be a negative one : don't allow a potential threat to the petro-dollar (e.g. Saddam Hussein's Iraq surviving and selling oil in euros), don't allow possible competition for the IMF, World Bank etc. set of institutions : e.g. perhpas Khadaffi would have won the civil war (with a tiny fraction of the death, devastation and refugee problem we have now) and then carried on on grandiose projects, both national and pan-african.
Khadafi had a vision of an African Bank or Fund or bank/monetary/financial system. He kickstarted an African space industry for one thing (you don't have to launch or even build satellites for this : operation/tracking of satellites is enough to make cost of satellite comms plummet. Also, the continent is huge, Mercator projection doesn't show how big it is. So satellites comms have been traditionnally hugely expensive in Africa, due to the lack of offer and the middlemen)
The globalist imperialists will never accept significant competition from independent nations or entities that tell the IMF etc. and the suits to bugger off, if they can destroy them at least. Thus Libya's low level civil war was a fine pretext to expedite it and the criminals who decided to heat things up don't care that 100,000 people or whatever may get killed.
As for Iraq, this was set up by armchair generals and keyboard warriors, and failed because these are incompetent and psychopathic people with no culture that may have been believing their own lies. The US generals wanted 300,000 occupation troops, and the armchair generals overrode them and gave them half or less. This is not much different than Hitler doing bonehead move after bonehead move, ignoring what actually competent people had to say and losing the war.
The armchair generals and keyboard warriors believed the country would be handed to them on a plate ("greeted with candy and flowers", fairy tales about Chalabi's connections to Hashemite dynasty) and didn't think much of destroying the state overnight by firing every government worker and disbanding the military (because, in a single party state, let's get rid of every party member). Perhaps this single decision was responsible for a 10x increase in cost and death toll of the war.
With that and the US culture of "law enforcement" (the trigger happy cops and swatting style, but done by military instead) this went to a horrible insurgency and sort of ethnic cleansing and so Shiite Iraq is aligned with Iran, Kurdistan the US can do business with, Sunni Iraq well, um, do they specialize in car bomb and mortar guns, things like that?
Iraqi oil freed from the tyrannical hands of Saddam didn't quite pay for all that happened.
In 2007 the wannabe-Kissinger idiots and criminals wanted war with Iran for crap's sake. Their criminal delusions of grandeur couldn't be fulfilled, because well that's stupid and the power conferred by their war propaganda machine didn't go this far.
Syria was always on their kill-list (there are documents from the 90s about how Israel or US should attack Syria, etc.) but that had to wait some more years.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by penandpaper · 2017-07-10 06:00 · Score: 1

Your cynicism aside.

So, we pick our battles and fight the wars we have an overwhelming supremacy in waging.
When would you ever want to fight a war where you are against an equal or superior enemy? It is actually the smart thing to do and if you look at any strategist worth their salt they will say the same thing... Pick your battles and only fight when you know you have an advantage. Every strategy and tactic is about creating and keeping an advantage over the enemy.
Do you want to throw away your soldiers lives because you have some obscure notion of a "gentlemen's war"? That is how you lose a war and there are plenty of examples in military history.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 06:01 · Score: 0

Well, from a "socialist" country that has universal healthcare but also a lot of millionaires and nuclear weapons, let me thank you for your imperial protection and all the "freebies" it provides, like terrorist attacks and refugees.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by torkus · 2017-07-10 07:22 · Score: 1

Perspective is an interesting thing. GDP vs federal budget.
$600b out of $18t is only about 3%. But...
Out of the $3.8t federal budget in 2015, $600b or 16% was spent on the military.
If you look at discretionary spending (i.e. exclude social security, unemployment, healthcare, debt interest etc.) then it's $600b out $1.1t or about 54%.
So more than HALF the money our government has to spend on whatever they think would best improve our country goes to the military. Mind you, I fully believe that number is grossly over-inflated from what it should be due to the types of work and contracts our military hand out.

--
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 08:02 · Score: 0

... in a nation that makes nothing anymore.
Why do people keep saying this? It is LITERALLY not true.
Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling. by redlemming · 2017-07-10 14:37 · Score: 1

we helped ourselves to the war chest during WW2 to get out of a crippling depression fueled by unregulated credit markets.
Myth. The crippling depression was not fueled by unregulated credit markets, it was caused by government. Hoover and later FDR attempted to keep wages high instead of letting wages adjust naturally, which had all kinds of negative consequences (the first step in turning an otherwise minor depression into the Great Depression). The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 was an unmitigated disaster, causing other countries to raise their own trade barriers and thus destroy the income from international trade, with consequences that rippled through the economy. The majority of the bank failures didn't happen because of a lack of regulation: they were caused by regulation. The majority of banks that failed were small country banks that were prohibited by law (i.e. regulation) from having diversified investments, which meant they were extremely vulnerable to failure. FDR compounded the mistakes of Hoover with one stupid idea after another (the USA went from having the lowest unemployment in the developed world in the mid 1920's, to not even being in the top 10 after eight years of FDR).
Contrary to popular belief, WW2 did not result in economic recovery, it merely traded debt for unemployment. The economy did not really recover until the 1950's. It was the undoing of many of FDR's policies after he died - tracing from the inability of Truman to continue FDR's policies, and the wisdom of Eisenhower (probably the most competent president the US has ever had) - that allowed the 1950's to be prosperous.
For more information, you might try reading the Gallaway and Vedder economic history of the USA, FDR's Folly (Powell), and New Deal or Raw Deal (Folsom).

At least it isn't "Space Cadets" by QuietLagoon · 2017-07-09 08:40 · Score: 1

I think this is a good idea, though. We have to be ready when Mars attacks.

Foreigner "Star Rider"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:40 · Score: 0

"I stole a ride on a passing star. Not knowing where I was going - how near or how far! Thru lands of light + future & past - until the heavenly gates, were sight @ last..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcVM5LHl9WM/ "... the northern lights flashed by & then they were gone: & as those stars would die, so the new ones were born... all around I sail, celestial waves - & in the light of my years, shown the rest of my days - speed increasing, all control is in the hands of those who know, but will they help us grow, to one day be Star Riders..."

APK

P.S.=> Rediscovering an old 'love' lately I let go decades ago - music (thought this'd be 'appropo', lol)... apk

They want it. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:40 · Score: 0

Of course if the US' military industrial complex wants something, they WILL get it. Actual need, cost, morals and ethics, public image / opinion, or international treaties and agreements be damned.

The real question at this point is how many more people are going to die for them to actually get it? After all, the money to do so has to come from somewhere and we don't have a surplus anywhere, so some people NOT already on the chopping block will find themselves there soon. (And those that are will be squeezed even more.) I also doubt the latest round of tax breaks to the rich have anything to do with it. So what's left to take? Or are we finally reaching the point of reimplementing debtor's prisons?

Also, what's going to be the new boogyman for space? After all we need an enemy to justify the expense to the idiots known as "voters". My bet is on China. They'll probably spin a tale about them creating military bases to destroy us on the moon or something. And Nukes, because Nukes.

But hey, maybe something good will come from this. Like finally getting off of this rock, becoming a reality for normal people. After all that's where we got the tech to build things like the ISS, GPS satellites, the space shuttle, etc. from: War. The downside this time is that it won't be a foreign country that feels the most pain from this race, but our own.

Man this congress has to end by AlanObject · 2017-07-09 08:41 · Score: 1

Well if they form their tax polices after the fantasies of someone who never got over their teenage fantasies of how the world should work then why not their space exploration policy?

Old News by charleyb123 · 2017-07-09 08:42 · Score: 1

Laugh all you want, but this is an open secret amongst the millions of personnel serving in various clandestine space commands since WWII. Air superiority has governed every war since we could get off the ground, and everybody ran to weaponize space as quickly as possible.

The Air Force doesn't like this reorganization, because they don't want to lose control of all their very cool toys.

The curious researcher will make note that only one U.S. Military Command -- The U.S. Navy -- is Constitutionally chartered, and they (mostly) own this area of operation. There is a reason that Star Trek follows the rank and command structure of the Navy, and not the Army nor Air Force. The other military commands similarly have their own space-faring tech and toys; but the average person might be surprised at how much they don't get along, and forcefully demonstrate their disagreement.

Tip of the iceberg. The rabbit hole goes very deep, and actions like these are to prime the public for better awareness regarding what the "break-away civilization" has been up to for the past half-century (and longer).

Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:03 · Score: 0

does this have anything to do with the Deep State(TM)?
are you on acid? did you take it willingly or did the CIA force you?
blink twice if you are under duress.
Re: Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:55 · Score: 0

Deep State + SJWs = Deep Throat
Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 19:44 · Score: 0

You're a part of the problem. Only morons like you can at once maintain the duality of a cover up and no cover up at the same time.

Spacecom by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 08:44 · Score: 0

Call it Spacecom and as part of the Universe wide war on terror US will be engaged with predators an Mars shortly with probably similar success as in Middle East Asia or Africa with Africom and all those "Other"com dividing up our world.

Stargate? by SirDrinksAlot · 2017-07-09 08:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Will the new division keep their Stargate in Cheyenne Mountain as well?

Re:Stargate? by epyT-R · 2017-07-09 09:24 · Score: 1

Only if the russians let them keep it. It's under loan from them.

political trial balloon by turkeydance · 2017-07-09 08:46 · Score: 1

"run it up the flagpole and see who salutes". first of many.

scamming tax dollars...that's the way they do it by THE_ALT_WHITE · 2017-07-09 08:50 · Score: 1

they play the guitar on the empty-V

roadrunner, if the coyote catches you... by THE_ALT_WHITE · 2017-07-09 08:54 · Score: 1

.down at the bottom of a gravity well

+ quoting my fav film ("Mr. Robinson")... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:02 · Score: 0

"I work for an organization whose primary purpose is not space travel: It's reshaping wrongdoings. We use space corps, among others as a means of finding people. People who are special. They are what you might call, a recruitment agency. For people with exceptional abilities - People like yourself, w/out families. No ties to the past, no ties to the future. It requires employees with advanced motor skills, remarkable memories - a job for the best & the brightest: For the elite..." the film PREDESTINATION (excellent) Mr. Robinson of "SPACE CORPS" (timecorps is more like it).

APK

P.S.=> See it... apk

YES! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:06 · Score: 0

Start building moon bases and colonies and have wars up in space instead.
Earth is the DMZ. No guns allowed.

Who DOESN'T want awesome space battles?
Now I can finally be a space pirate then retire to the comfy life as a space trucker.

Re:YES! by Bruce+Perens · 2017-07-09 09:22 · Score: 1

Start building moon bases and colonies and have wars up in space instead. Earth is the DMZ. No guns allowed. Who DOESN'T want awesome space battles? Now I can finally be a space pirate then retire to the comfy life as a space trucker.
OK, sarcasm evident, but anyone who thinks the DMZ is peaceful hasn't been there. There are guns there, and once in a while, firefights.
Here's my DMZ selfie.

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:YES! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 06:10 · Score: 0

Still a better love story than Twilight.

Is that Bacon? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:14 · Score: 0

Sounds like something right out of Canadian Bacon, trying to restart a cold war with somebody, anybody, to distract from our problems at home with budget, corruption & waste. "Hey no one else is blatantly trying to weaponize space, maybe if we do we can get others to join in" is I imagine the mindset that (unofficially) went into concept of creating this branch.

Re:Is that Bacon? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 10:24 · Score: 0

I'd like it better if you put corruption first in the list; it's the kernel after all. The rest are just loadable modules.

Stupid by Gravis+Zero · 2017-07-09 09:15 · Score: 1

Expenditures on defense are already obscene and need to be cut in half. After they manage that then and only then should be we begin talking about space.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

Rename to... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:27 · Score: 0

Thunderbirds are go.

Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:28 · Score: 0

Looks like a bureaucracy expansion without any real "combat" potential other than "combating" "Fake News".

Re-election time in 2018 for Mike Rogers, R-Alabama and he is already in desperation mode!

Space Corps:They Will Fight And They Will Win! * by veron.claudio · 2017-07-09 09:36 · Score: 5, Funny

*service guarantees citizenship

Xenonauts by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:44 · Score: 0

Xenonauts

We don't want to be first to do this by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-07-09 09:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

The existing Space Command is a good framework for staying aware of whatever weaponization other countries might be contemplating in space before any such weaponization actually occurs. If we pre-emptively declare a Space Corps into existence, everyone else will consider it an escalation and want one too. This wouldn't even make military sense, let alone diplomatic sense.

Remember that we proved the worth of air power all through WW II without needing to create an Air Force until 1947.

citizen by bugs2squash · 2017-07-09 09:46 · Score: 2

So the name Starship troopers was gone ?

--
Nullius in verba

Re: Didn't we have treaties against space weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:50 · Score: 0

Trump isn't smart enough to do the simplest thing that will work. He's definitely going to insist on laser cannons and drop ships.

OK ... by PPH · 2017-07-09 10:04 · Score: 1

who didn't arm their spaceship?

--
Have gnu, will travel.

New Motto by Roger+W+Moore · 2017-07-09 10:04 · Score: 1

Yes, but with their new name they will have to change their motto: "Guardians of the High Frontier" seems so sensible and, well, down to earth. Might I suggest: "To infinity and beyond!"?

More stupidity by plopez · 2017-07-09 10:19 · Score: 1

Army space command
https://www.army.mil/info/orga...

Navy space command
http://www.navy.mil/local/spaw...

Coast Guard Space command
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/...

But it's DoD and DHS. The two worst US Government Departments. They are never held accountable.

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+

The Chair's Remarks by Geodesy99 · 2017-07-09 10:34 · Score: 1

Complete remarks at https://armedservices.house.go...
"The Pentagon always resists change. ... It resisted the creation of the Air Force itself – the great irony here. "

Re:Space Corps:They Will Fight And They Will Win! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 10:38 · Score: 0

Would you like to learn more?

Seriously though, the way this administration goes, it will be more like Service guarantees deportation.

A bold move ... by petes_PoV · 2017-07-09 10:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

The United States Space Corps would be the first new branch of the military since 1947, when the Air Force was formed

... for a country that lost the ability to send people into space in 2011 and is still scratching its head to work out how (or if) it can get back in the game.

People should also ask: what the hell is the point? Since the USA has no "space" assets that need defending, nor has the ability to hold territory against foes and can't even claim rights to anything that might be in orbit.

But I suppose that if you want to provoke all the other world powers, who have much more advanced capabilities, into militarising space then go right ahead.

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons

Re:A bold move ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 12:08 · Score: 1

GPS is American. The vast majority of communication satellites are American. SpaceX is American. The Air Force has it's unmatched orbital plane projects. There's a disturbing number of intel satellites in orbit with unknown capabilities. Soviet Russia had a cannon on one of theirs decades ago.
The ignorance level in your post is near saturation.
Re:A bold move ... by thrich81 · 2017-07-09 16:35 · Score: 1

Among other things, the "much more advanced capabilities" of those other world powers does not include the currently operational launch vehicle with the largest payload mass to orbit -- that would be the Delta IV Heavy, made in USA. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy-lift_launch_vehicle)
Re:A bold move ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 07:23 · Score: 0

People should also ask: what the hell is the point?
Military tech tends to lend itself to a lot of civilian products/solutions.
If we get the military to "tame" the danger of space over time, civilian space travel could be trivialized and then we get Fhloston Paradise, smart guy.

Mobile Infantry by martinX · 2017-07-09 10:45 · Score: 1

Fleet does the flying, MI does the dying.

--
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."

Re:Mobile Infantry by CaptnCrud · 2017-07-09 12:51 · Score: 1

One of the things I love about that movie is it relentlessly trolls fascism, by the end all the "good" or "moral" people die or fail to make the cut in service to the meatgrinder society they live in, the "naturally selected" citizens are vapid, good looking shells of people.
Rico, basically a dumb jock meathead. Carmen is a vapid flirt that cares only for her career, Carl is a proto elitist with an almost mengele like ethos. ...I need to get around to reading the books.
Re:Mobile Infantry by Deadstick · 2017-07-09 14:53 · Score: 1

I need to get around to reading the books
You'll find a bit of contrast: Heinlein wasn't trolling. In fact, Verhoeven trolled Heinlein.

Don't infringe treaties. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 10:48 · Score: 0

Don't pollute the Earth.
Don't pollute the Moon.
Don't pollute the Mars.
Don't pollute the space.
Don't pollute the asteroids.
Don't pollute the comets.
Don't pollute the natural satellites.
Don't pollute the celestial corps.

Don't proliferate to the orbits your things as artificial satellites, weapons, nuclear objects, debris, etc.

Colonisation by fonitrus · 2017-07-09 11:06 · Score: 2

I guess since we do not have a World Unified Government then the question is who will own Mars and its resources once we do get there?
The nation who is capable to conquer it and provide 'security' for the colonists/mining companies will be the Owner of such colonies or at least charge a massive fee for providing that security. Kind of a racketeering business in space.

The way it seems we have done all the fighting we can do here on Earth now we are getting ready for Battlefield Mars.

The mineral wealth on Mars better be worth it.

Re:Colonisation by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 07:35 · Score: 0

The mineral wealth on Mars better be worth it.
He who controls the spice controls the solar system.

True but I think your missing the real benefit by rsilvergun · 2017-07-09 11:07 · Score: 2

imagine if you could drop something like a nuke but have it leave behind no trace. After all, wars are fought to take land away from the people already living there. Now imagine no war, just taking the land. Sure, it'd have to be rebuilt from scratch, but the land wouldn't be radioactive. And I think we as a species have already proven we'll kill mass amounts of each other at the drop of a hat when times our tough.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

I like the "Space" Corps by Jharish · 2017-07-09 11:18 · Score: 1

I am hoping that when they name everything in space that they just put "space" in front of it so you have "Space Captain" and "Space Private" and "Space Admiral" flying on "Space Ships" that dock in "Space Ports" that are home to "Space Fortresses" and "Space Base".

I imagine having practice for "Space Battle" so they can wage "Space Wars".

I suppose we could do the same with "Star" if we wanted to or perhaps "Astro" since we already have "Astronauts".

Here is whats really going on by sit1963nz · 2017-07-09 11:20 · Score: 1

People in power have got some mates who are only just billionaires so what they really need is large sums of tax payers money thrown their way.

Why bother ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:32 · Score: 0

Everybody knows marines always lose when they fight in space.

Maybe not such a bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:34 · Score: 0

I'm all in favor of this if it gives us an easier way, via a little bit of fudging, to take money from the ridiculously bloated "defense spending" category and use it for space-related research and development, since it is remarkably difficult to get Republicans to mobilize funding for science in almost any other way.

"Yeah, this is probably stupid." by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:36 · Score: 0

With the talking orange in charge, all stupid things are possible.

Re: Didn't we have treaties against space weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:48 · Score: 0

You neednâ(TM)t worry about a space arms race. If we entered into one it would be against the Russians and that wonâ(TM)t happen since Putin owns Trump.

Nuclear rank like in Armageddon. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 11:55 · Score: 0

"Get off the nuclear warhead" - Armageddon

What is the minimal military rank for carrying, manipulating, activating a nuclear object?

It is just needed for US president and US senate: how to control it when nuclear matter is needed in outer space and manned by these military people as minimum.

Non affiliate link by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 12:03 · Score: 1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IKVE14M

Eisenhower questioned the Military Industrial Comp by rsilvergun · 2017-07-09 12:07 · Score: 1

in his memoirs. It was created post WWII because it was the only way anyone could think of to prevent the economy from sinking back into recession/depression. The trouble isn't that we're wasting money we could be spending on income inequality, unemployment, healthcare, drug abuse, homelessness, etc. The trouble is people don't _want_ to spend money on those things. A sizable portion of the population believe if you're not working non-stop you're doing something morally wrong...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 12:40 · Score: 0

to make America great again!

But seriously, best they could come up with was "US Space Corp"? Now I feel "Umbrella Corp" is actually not bad.

Get a load of these jackoffs by PopeRatzo · 2017-07-09 12:49 · Score: 0

I'm surprised they took time out of their busy schedule of voting for people to lose health care in order to put US troops in outer space.

Republicanism - It's a cookbook!

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

They'll need an official march by ChrisMaple · 2017-07-09 13:02 · Score: 1

I suggest ABBA's "What About Livingstone?"

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Alabama pork spending on rocket manufacturing. by bongey · 2017-07-09 13:20 · Score: 1

One of the major sponsoring congressmen is from Alabama of which the dying ULA is big employer. Nothing to do with defense or space really, just trying to funnel money to his home state.

Re:Space Corps:They Will Fight And They Will Win! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 13:22 · Score: 0

I would like to know more!

Would be more appropriate under the Navy by Tangential · 2017-07-09 13:46 · Score: 1

A space command is going to have to ultimately maintain large, self contained and self sustaining long term facilities in remote, mobile locations. This is a lot closer to the model of a naval command than an Air Force one. The Navy has hundreds of self contained commands that are mobile; have large multi-disciplinary crews, and handle everything from medicine to propulsion to garbage disposal. The Air Force on the other hand has almost no expertise in this area. Their bases are fixed, land locations with little in the way of environmental hazards and they are typically run for the most part by subcontractors. it will be a space ânavyâ(TM), not a space âair forceâ(TM).

--
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain

More money! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 13:49 · Score: 0

Look! Another bottomless DOD pit for the formerly-known-as-the-middle-class to put their tax dollars!

Let us firs create US Cyber Corps by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-07-09 14:10 · Score: 1

...oh, wait. We already have one, in a different name, and they are the one who weaponized run of the mill vulnerabilities and gift wrapped them and gave them to criminals in Ukraine...

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Gizmodo? Seriously? by RogueWarrior65 · 2017-07-09 14:44 · Score: 1

You're quoting Gizmodo? A Gawker site that posts one useful, non-partisan story for every ten anti-Trump stories? "Gizmodo reporter draws conclusion before thoughtfully attempting to deflect criticism of his obvious bias." FTFY

according to cnn ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 14:51 · Score: 0

omg! haven't you gullible muricans had enough of their "truth"?

more lies from cnn ... WAHOOOOOO

fake news survives to round 12!

nuf said

An absolute necessity by seeker_moc · 2017-07-09 15:37 · Score: 0

Who else would defend the earth against the inevitable BETA invasion?

Necessary to get back the funding NASA lacks. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 17:15 · Score: 0

Space Corps can get the funding NASA can as part of the defense budget, and no patriotic American (read: trump voters) would turn it down.

1. This is short term the only way to get the US back into space in a big way.
2. This WILL spur on the other space powers to do the same, making space the global equivalent of the oceans, leading to close flybys and skirmishes between militaries.
3. The talk of asteroid mining has everyone with a foot in the space game jockeying to claim space assets for themselves, potentially giving a huge boon to their domestic economy or their position in the global one.

Space is going to get raped just like America and every established country before it was/is. The only hopeful bright spot to it is there is probably far less advanced life out there than on earth. Although maybe some of that less advanced life that gets a ride back will turn out to be the death of us all.

You had the chance, you bungled it by bursch-X · 2017-07-09 17:58 · Score: 1

If this is going to be a thing there's simply no other choice but calling it Starfleet, right?

--
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.

Re:scamming tax dollars...that's the way they do i by amalcolm · 2017-07-09 20:03 · Score: 1

Cool Dire Straits reference :)

--
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing

Controlling the Earth via the Moon? by sjbe · 2017-07-10 00:29 · Score: 1

The ultimate space weapon could be deployed from the moon.

What weapon? Why would you need the moon to deploy it? One can deploy hugely destructive civilization ending weapons from near earth orbit without needing to go to the trouble of going to the moon.

Whomever has control of the moon(as in..actually there), will control the Earth provided the human race survives that long.

That sentence doesn't make much sense. How exactly do you figure someone on the moon (a place with no food, little water, no atmosphere, and no economy) is going to control earth? By threatening with WMDs? We already have that situation in case you forgot. Do you think people on Earth couldn't shoot those on the moon just as easily as the reverse? I think you've been reading too much science fiction.

Re:Controlling the Earth via the Moon? by torkus · 2017-07-10 06:06 · Score: 1

Do you think people on Earth couldn't shoot those on the moon just as easily as the reverse? I think you've been reading too much science fiction.
I was about to disagree with you based on the depth of the gravity well on earth vs. the moon but in reality it would probably be more efficient (in a large scale) to go to the moon, build projectiles, then move them to earth orbit since that transfer requires much less energy. Then you use the PE of earth's gravity to bring your projectiles down.
But for smaller scales, it's far more efficient to just go to earth orbit and drop things back down. Not that it's especially efficient anyway of course. It just doesn't involve nuclear fallout if you use the weapons.

--
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.

You can grow the list by sjbe · 2017-07-10 00:34 · Score: 2

There is an Outer Space Treaty that prohibits "weapons of mass destruction" in space. So, no nukes. However, kinetic bombardment weapons have been in development for some time now.

A powerful enough kinetic bombardment system IS a WMD. Just because nukes, biological, and chemical weapons are currently considered WMDs doesn't mean we can't add to the list. When you can get nuclear level yields by dropping an asteroid on a city you'll have a pretty hard time arguing that it isn't a WMD.

United States Space Rangers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 01:10 · Score: 0

And we could name such a force the United States Space Rangers, oh no that's U.S.S.R. so much for that idea.

Re:United States Space Rangers by k6mfw · 2017-07-10 04:57 · Score: 1

Trump would love it.

--
mfwright@batnet.com

"But, hey, at least the name sounds cool" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 02:15 · Score: 0

No, it doesn't. It's about as cool as calling network security, "cyber security" which is fucking dumb.

Let's just make another branch while we are at it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 02:24 · Score: 0

Cyber Corps...

We are going to have a branch that covers 4 out of 5 of the domains of battle: Air, Land, Sea, Space, and Cyberspace. Might as well just break off US Cyber Command and all of its sub-commands belonging to the branches into its own branch. This would alleviate a ton of adoption issues and growing pains surrounding the integration of hackers into the military branches.

Umm, money? by holophrastic · 2017-07-10 02:33 · Score: 1

You guys are doing it again. Does your country have the money for this? Do you intend to throw more of your taxes to your military?

The article mentions China's space-oriented weapons. China has money. China has your money.

Maybe you should, as a country, find some money before opting for what must be the most expensive military faction ever considered?

The 'US Space Corps'? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-07-10 02:40 · Score: 1

What do you mean? The Galactic Empire or the Peacekeepers?

--
#DeleteFacebook

DPRK Will Win Victory in Confrontation with U.S. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 02:42 · Score: 0

Jul. 8, Juche 106 (2017) Saturday

DPRK Will Win Victory in Confrontation with U.S.

Recently U.S. President Trump on his twitter said the U.S. plan to curb the nuclear development of the DPRK by use of China came to failure.

Media appreciated that the U.S. admitted its military threats and blackmail, economic sanctions and all other "famous medicines" to stifle the DPRK proved to be ineffective. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations of the U.S. in a special lecture confessed that denuclearization of the DPRK was unattainable goal.

This means the U.S. recognized total failure in the confrontation between the DPRK and the U.S..

Since the emergence of the Trump administration, the U.S. has made desperate efforts to curb the DPRK, claiming that it can never recognize the latter's position of nuclear weapons state. However, the strategic position of the DPRK has been consolidated.

The point of the matter of confrontation between the DPRK and the U.S. has now totally changed.

So far, the U.S. has boasted of its strength after striking the weak countries devoid of nuclear weapons, unbecoming for its status. It is nothing but height of American-style bluffing and arbitrariness.

The DPRK's possession of world-strong nuclear weapons put an end to the ready-made idea that the U.S. is the safest place.

It is natural that world people say that the U.S. with bad habit of underestimating others and swaggering would not curb the DPRK.

If the U.S. imperialists dare provoke a war against the DPRK, they will have to face those of faith who do never compromise with aggressors and are full of resolute will to declare destruction to the U.S. imperialism. It is self-evident that the aggressors will be doomed to meet a miserable end by those people of faith.

Jo Thaek Bom

It is not needed by VikingNation · 2017-07-10 03:08 · Score: 1

I appreciate that Congress wants to help the nation but they should listen to military leaders and keep the current structure. The long term solution to combat threats in "Cyber space" would be to hold companies liable for in secure software and data breaches.

US Space Corps is GO by neoRUR · 2017-07-10 03:59 · Score: 1

US Space Corps is GO

Starship Troopers by Macdude · 2017-07-10 04:10 · Score: 1

I think what's happened is Drumpf watched Starship Troopers and got scared of space bugs...

--
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America

Energy efficiency by sjbe · 2017-07-10 06:25 · Score: 1

I was about to disagree with you based on the depth of the gravity well on earth vs. the moon but in reality it would probably be more efficient (in a large scale) to go to the moon, build projectiles, then move them to earth orbit since that transfer requires much less energy.

We don't have to involve the moon at all to have more than enough firepower to destroy earth. I fail to see how the efficiency the orbital mechanics would be significant in a shooting war when the warheads coming from Earth are more than adequate to wipe out civilization already without any of the bother of building a moon base. While the same missile shot from the moon could reach earth a bit faster and require less energy, it wouldn't get to earth quick enough to prevent a retaliatory launch so no tactical advantage is gained that I can see.

But for smaller scales, it's far more efficient to just go to earth orbit and drop things back down. Not that it's especially efficient anyway of course. It just doesn't involve nuclear fallout if you use the weapons.

Pretty much exactly my point. Even if we had an extensive infrastructure on the moon it would still remain true I think.

Think of the Uniforms! by tmjva · 2017-07-10 06:39 · Score: 1

Will they be like Forbidden Planet with shoulder flaps and a ball cap or more like Space Cadets with high shoulder ridges and a helmet ?

--
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT

Re:Space Corps:They Will Fight And They Will Win! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 06:58 · Score: 0

Especially considering Johnny Rico spoke Tagalog. No way they'd let him be a citizen.

We already have the Marine Space Corps by phrackthat · 2017-07-10 07:30 · Score: 1

Congress is behind the times. We already had Marines in space combat in 1979 -- here's the documentary proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:We already have the Marine Space Corps by k6mfw · 2017-07-10 09:51 · Score: 1

per inter service rivals:
Army: You can't win the next war unless you have boots on the ground.
Air Force: You can't win the next war unless you have air superiority.
Navy: You can't win the next war unless you have command of the seas.
Marines: We don't care how you win the next war but it can't be done without an amphibious landing!

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 09:58 · Score: 0

+1!

Ever wondered how In Name Only adaptions happen? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 12:42 · Score: 0

I need to get around to reading the books

You'll find a bit of contrast: Heinlein wasn't trolling. In fact, Verhoeven trolled Heinlein.

Correction: It's one of the many times where the story was written before it was decided it was going to be an adaption of a book. They basically edited the script to use the names and slapped the title on.

I'm not particularly interested precisely because it's known this is what happened--that, and the man is responsible for Showgirls. Not forgiving him for that, ever.

Their motto forever will be by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 15:35 · Score: 0

"We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks!"

Slashdot Mirror

Congressmen Propose a New Military Branch: The 'US Space Corps' (gizmodo.com)

228 comments