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.

Comments

Re:Needs a better name

[angel'o'sphere]

And then there are all those treaties prohibiting militarization of space ...

Which treaty is that, exactly?

[raymorris]

> 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.

Re:Consolidating what is already going on ...

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re: Consolidating what is already going on ...

[blindseer]

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?