Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Directs Pentagon To Create New 'Space Force' Military Branch (defensenews.com)
Gunfighter shares a report from Defense News: President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to sign an executive order directing the Pentagon to create a new "Space Force," a move that could radically transform the U.S. military by pulling space functions variously owned by the Air Force, Navy and other military branches into a single independent service.
"I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces," Trump said during a meeting of the National Space Council. "That's a big statement. We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force. Separate but equal. It is going to be something. So important," Trump added. "General Dunford, if you would carry that assignment out, I would be very greatly honored." Dunford responded in the affirmative, telling Trump, "We got you." The oddity of Trump's statement was that it was followed up with a White House readout that "contained no language related to the creation of a new military branch, leaving open the question of whether Trump has actually issued formal guidance to the military," reports Defense News. It is believed that Trump still needs the support of Congress to actually establish a space force.
"I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces," Trump said during a meeting of the National Space Council. "That's a big statement. We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force. Separate but equal. It is going to be something. So important," Trump added. "General Dunford, if you would carry that assignment out, I would be very greatly honored." Dunford responded in the affirmative, telling Trump, "We got you." The oddity of Trump's statement was that it was followed up with a White House readout that "contained no language related to the creation of a new military branch, leaving open the question of whether Trump has actually issued formal guidance to the military," reports Defense News. It is believed that Trump still needs the support of Congress to actually establish a space force.
And then there are all those treaties prohibiting militarization of space ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Do you think anyone in his administration has mentioned to Trump that the United States is bound by a treaty, ratified in 1967, which specifically forbids militarization of space?
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
https://www.state.gov/t/isn/51...
I mean, I understand that he wants to do anything he can to distract us from the fact that his campaign manager is sitting in a jail cell, his personal attorney is spilling his guts and his administration is keeping children in concentration camps on our Southern border, but does he really think anyone but the most dedicated MAGA chud is going to think the SPACE FORCE is anything but the butt of future jokes?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I dunno. The creation of the Air Force didn't keep the Navy and Marines from each having their own air wings, all with different needs to fill and thus different aircraft. And attempting to unify them has cost probably more than what it would cost to just design three separate aircraft.
So while it does make some sense to consolidate where possible, odds are they'll just end up creating more bureaucracy.
dom
You can also put people into space from Florida. I believe we may have done so once or twice already.
Not in the last 7 years.
There's an old story that General Curtis LeMay (head of SAC and later Air Force Chief of Staff) once said that "the Russians are the adversary, but the Navy is the enemy".
> all those treaties prohibiting militarization of space
Which treaty is that, exactly? The 1957 treaty talks about putting NUCLEAR WEAPONS in space. The President has not announced any plan or intent to put nuclear weapons in space.
Did you forget about SDI and the hundreds of military satellites currently in orbit? Or for that matter, ballistic missiles, which fly through space? There is no treaty prohibiting militarization of space.
I may be mistaken but my recollection is that Congress was involved in splitting off the Air Force from the Army and creating a new armed service.
The Army/Air Force split is a good example of how to do it badly. First, the Air Force only acquired the Army's air assets. The Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard still have their own aircraft. Since the Army felt that the USAF was ignoring their needs to close air support, they built a parallel air force based only on rotary wing aircraft (which they were still permitted to have).
So the US has five different air forces, which different aircraft, procedures, and protocols. We are using helicopters in missions where they are inappropriate for purely bureaucratic and political reasons, and the Army's need for CAS is still not being met. When the different branches are forced to work together, such as on the F-35 project, the politics and in-fighting resulted in the worst and most expensive military boondoggle in the history of the world.
he also formally recognized Kim Jun Un's dictatorship as the legitimate ruler of N. Korea (something they'd been trying to get America to do for decades going back to when his dad was in charge) and made comments (largely ignored by the press) that he wants to see Americans stand in attention just like N. Koreans do for Kim; moving the Overton window substantially towards Authoritarianism in America.
He didn't return things to the previous level. He left them much, much worse.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm still trying to figure out why we need yet another branch of the military. If all they do is space, then what how do they engage in combat?
There is already a "space force" within the USAF. There is also small number of satellites operated by other military branches, as well as civil agencies that have a direct support role to the military. This USAF space force is getting large enough that it's become in effect a separate branch on its own. Not quite the size of the US Navy but if broken out from the Air Force it could easily be on par in size with the US Coast Guard. The USCG is not a military service but it can be called upon to serve in war. There are other services with a military structure that perform support services to the military, and so share a rank structure and uniforms with the military. These services are called "uniformed services" and uniformed services include the military services.
The USCG was already mentioned as one uniformed service that could be called upon to serve under the DOD in war. There is also the US Public Health Services Commissioned Corps and NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps. As I understand it the USPHS has officers that they "loan out" to the various military branches to serve as medical specialists on military bases and ships at sea. The NOAA don't necessarily get "loaned out" like USPHS officers but they operate at sea in parallel with the Navy and USCG for watching the weather. I believe the NOAA has aircraft they fly from Navy and Air Force bases.
Anyway, the point is that even a non-combat capable force may be needed to manage space assets in support of the other military branches. Just like we already consolidate weather forecasting and medical care in uniformed services. The Navstar GPS satellites would be one asset that would be most definitely transferred to the "space force". Then there would be spy satellites and communications satellites, and perhaps even weather satellites even though the NOAA already manages some already. Separating the space force off from the USAF would mean the USAF can get back to flying airplanes and leave the managing of satellites for the benefit of all military branches to the new space force.
Perhaps one combat role the space force could command would be the fleet of ballistic missiles. The space force could be in command of anti-ICBM and anti-satellite systems. As I recall the US Navy has some anti-satellite capability and if this capability is shared or transferred to the space force then maybe we could see the space force with it's own fleet of blue water ships.
It sounds like the USAF wants to wash its hands of the space based military assets, they want to be in the business of dropping warheads on foreheads. Things like GPS and spy satellites are a general military need, not something unique to the USAF. When it comes to things like creating budgets we might see the Army wanting more satellites for something but the USAF not wanting to give up manpower and funds to do it. I guess the Army can get, and likely already has, a small "space force" of its own.
Seems to me this is more of a directive to answer the questions on how this space force would work, what assets it would manage, how large it should be, where it would have bases, what kind of training it would have, and so forth. POTUS can want a new space force but without knowing exactly how it would work he can't bring a proposal to Congress to create it as an entity separate from the USAF.
Besides, what do we refer to the personnel as?
In the early days of the USAF they were called "soldiers" until they agreed on "airmen". Is it correct to use "guardsman" refer to those in the Coast Guard? Those in the National Guard? Both? Neither?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The United States Air Force was in fact previously the Army Air Corps. Since the Navy operated a lot of aircraft too at the time some assets from the Navy moved to the Air Force. Also at that time the US Army was in a separate War Department and the Navy in the Navy Department. This created some confusion and logistics issues in World War 2 as each branch had separate standards on things like gas masks and even boots and blankets. The Air Force was created at the same time the Army and Navy were consolidated under the Department of Defense. This created standards that would be shared among all military branches to remove much of the logistics issues that they experienced previously.
One issue of debate was if the Navy would be able to keep it's aircraft or if the new Air Force would be flying planes from aircraft carriers. The issue was resolved in that land based aircraft would be flown by the Air Force. The Navy and Marines could only fly aircraft launched from ships. The Army would not have any fixed wing combat aircraft but could keep some fixed wing non-combat aircraft (cargo and VIP planes mostly) and could have rotary wing aircraft.
I could see a similar issue arising. The US Navy already operates some satellites, only communication relay satellites as I recall. Then there are satellites operated for military support by civilian government agencies. Obviously the Air Force operates most military orbital assets now. How would these assets be distributed? I'm guessing the Navy might be reluctant to give up control of their satellites.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I'm still trying to figure out why we need yet another branch of the military. If all they do is space, then what how do they engage in combat?
Space is much like air. You drop things from it that impact the ground. Think of it as an AF drone operator operating a vehicle at a much higher altitude.
That's not military at all. In every branch of the armed forces, every single person has a combat role attached to their military specially.
A family member made that very clear. He was a paratrooper at Bastogne. He shared his frozen hole in the ground with a truck driver who had not fired a weapon since basic training back in the US. The driver was one of the volunteers that brought in the last bit of supplies before the encirclement was complete, they were surround immediately after his truck made it in.
That said, again, how would "space force" personnel maintaining, launching and controlling vehicles from a safe location be any different than AF personnel maintaining, directing and possibly controlling aircraft from an equally safe location in the US or an allied country?
Marines are...well...Sailors with guns, or jarheads, or "couldn't be a seal"s
1. Marines are an entirely separate and independent branch of the armed services. They are not Navy, nor are they sailors. A sailor with a gun is the Yoeman who hit the target once in basic who is then trained (tertiary) as the automatic rifleman in case a shore party is needed. [Not slamming the Navy, that's how another family member described his service. Job 1: manning a typewriter. Job 2: manning an Oerlikon 20 mm AA cannon. Job 3: Shore party, automatic rifleman. He was thankful he only saw combat via job 2. ]
2. Many Marines could be SEALs, they merely preferred to serve as a Marine rather than a Sailor. Similar story for many Special Forces and Rangers. Some Marines are equivalent to SEALs, MARSOC, elements of Force Recon, same standards, skill set and training, cosmetic difference. Similarly some Special Forces are equivalent and arguable superior to SEALs as some SF have a larger skill set. When you have an individual that makes it into SF, MARSOC or SEALs that particular individual would most likely have made it into any of those specialized units, they just preferred one branch of the service for whatever reason. Well, that's how the former Vietnam era SEAL that was a manager at a company I used to work at described it to me. He said selection for all these special operations type units selects for the same thing, basically finding those who were born with a personality type that will just not quit something they start regardless of the physical and psychological pain. He said muscles, weapons proficiency, that was all relatively minor. That nearly any healthy athletic intelligent individual could be trained to be as strong and proficient as necessary. The military has known how to develop strength and proficiency for millennia. The real problem is finding the person born with the necessary personality type that just won't quit.
But yeah, I understand, Hollywood tells you different.