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

An anonymous reader quotes Gizmodo: This week, the House Armed Services Committee voted 60 to 1 in favor of the creation of a new military branch to be called the United States Space Corps... The United States Space Corps would be the first new branch of the military since 1947, when the Air Force was formed. The current proposal would classify the USSC under the Air Force in a way that mirrors the Marines classification under the Navy. The Space Corps' chief of staff would be ranked as equal to the Air Force chief of staff and would report to the Secretary of the Air Force...

According to CNN, the Air Force's secretary and chief of staff are opposed to the plan. One reason is that we already have the Air Force Space Command and the military believes that the creation of the Space Corps would just cause more complications. Secretary Heather Wilson told reporters that "this will make it more complex, add more boxes to the organizational chart, and cost more money."
The bill charges the division of the military with providing "combat-ready space forces," though CNN adds "There are still plenty more congressional hoops for the Space Corps to jump through before it would become official. But, hey, at least the name sounds cool." And Gizmodo's reporter thoughtfully weighs the pro's and cons before concluding, "Yeah, this is probably stupid."

Comments

Okay, so...

[ewanm89]

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

Re:Okay, so...

[ColdWetDog]

Somebody really wants to be a 'Space Cadet'.

Actually, it sounds like somebody wants their own budget.

All wars are resource wars.

Re:Okay, so...

[blindseer]

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.

Face Palm?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[rickb928]

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

Didn't we have treaties against space weapons?

[rsilvergun]

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...

Re: Didn't we have treaties against space weapons?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[blindseer]

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.

We don't want to be first to do this

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

A bold move ...

[petes_PoV]

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.

Re:youve got to keep that ball rolling.

[DatbeDank]

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:Of course we should do this. It's obvious

[rossz]

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.