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.

25 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. Keeping another campaign promise by greenwow · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dammit

    1. Re:Keeping another campaign promise by youngone · · Score: 4, Funny

      It is believed that Trump still needs the support of Congress to actually establish a space force.

      Believed? Seriously, what a weird way to run a country.

    2. Re:Keeping another campaign promise by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Us goddiggetydam limeys might not have a constitution, but at least we obey it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re: Keeping another campaign promise by mSparks43 · · Score: 4, Funny

      but do you think they will still rent all the spacecraft from the russians?

    4. Re:Keeping another campaign promise by youngone · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you're a Kiwi. Why didn't you just say so?

      If I admitted to that you could probably figure out who I am. There are not many of us if you rule out the PM and the Leader of the Opposition.
      Also, her baby is not mine, OK?

  2. Separate but equal? by omnichad · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is there any subject he can't bring racism into?

  3. Gundams? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

    If we don't have Gundams, what's the point?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  4. Headquarters and starfleet academy by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Should be in San Francisco.

  5. Evidence of necessity? by TheDarkener · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This kind of stuff takes a lot of money. Is there any proof or compelling evidence that we *need* a space force separate from what our current military provides?

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Evidence of necessity? by greythax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, For what egomaniacal reason Trump is doing this is beyond me, but devils advocate, I don't hate this idea. If this is what we have to do to fund research into space vessels where large numbers of people can live without the hazards of space cutting their lifespans in half, I am all in. The one thing this country has repeatedly demonstrated is that, while it begrudges nasa every cent, there isn't a military spending bill that won't instantly pass. This could be a back door into developing a second wave of technologies that we export to the rest of the world, much in the same way we stimulated the economy with the first space race.

      However, my gut tells me we will just start shooting drones up there.

  6. Cyberspace by denbesten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .... Seems like cyberspace is the more pressing thing to defend.

  7. Drain the swamp! by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need more federal agencies for the taxpayers to support! Drain the swamp! That is what it means, right?

  8. Re:Needs a better name by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  9. Job #1 by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, the one-liners almost write themselves.

    "It's fascinating to see an administration that's so anti-science enthusiastic about something that requires so much science."

    "I hear the first job of the Space Force will be to build a really, really big wall to keep the green people out."

  10. Build a wall... by junk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    around the whole planet! We'll make space pay for it! And we're gonna tariff the hell our of Jupiter! And any Martians that dare try to sneak through our wall, asylum or not, will have their little baby critters put into a small box and shaken! Because America... errr... Earth!

    Thank little baby cheesus for family values and fiscal conservatism.

    Moron...

  11. Re:Another PATENTLY RETARDED and SUPERFLUOUS promi by magarity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the worst of Reagan's brean-dead mind boggling expenditures in the name of "conservatism?" and you traitors of no particular ideology eat it up because a traitor promised it? Lol. Mueller's keeping a promise also!

    The Air Force has satellites, the Navy has satellites, the Army has satellites. Consolidating 3x management resources into one is mind boggling expensive, how exactly?

  12. Re: This Jackoff by Miser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really, really, hope you are trolling.

    If serious, it's comments like these that make me just want to turn Amish and disappear into the woods/nature/BFE/etc.

  13. Re:Another PATENTLY RETARDED and SUPERFLUOUS promi by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny

    Consolidating 3x management resources into one is mind boggling expensive, how exactly?

    So now every satellite can use the same design process as the F-35, so they can attempt to surpass it as the most expensive military boondoggle in history.

  14. Because there is no such treaty by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're not hearing about "the treaties prohibiting militarization of space" because there are none.

    There is a 1957 treaty about putting NUCLEAR weapons in space.

    Did you forget about SDI and the hundreds of military satellites currently in orbit?

  15. Which treaty is that, exactly? by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    > 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.

  16. Re:Consolidating what is already going on ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  17. Re:Yes Trump Can! by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump absolutely escalated the situation, but the de-escalation is far below the "previous level".

    The previous level included regular, albeit infrequent nuclear weapons tests and sabre rattling, which included rocks fired toward and even over Japan. The previous administration's response to all North Korean activity was to literally ignore it.

    All of those tests were part of a program to get effective reliable Nukes and long range missiles.

    They didn't stop the tests because Trump scared them, they stopped the tests because they got their Nukes and missiles working.

    I'm not saying another President could have avoided that, but Trump's threats and bluster didn't avoid anything.

    Trump, ignoring all of his inelegance, is the first US President to ever meet with a North Korean leader

    Which has been a major NK objective forever. Something Trump should have gotten concessions for (recall the GOP scorn and outrage when Obama suggested he could meet without preconditions).

    and, like it or not, he offered two very realistic outcomes to them:

    1. Face annihilation in a war that they cannot hope to win with a people too starved to support a long war, let alone with the backing to do it (Kim didn't even fly on a North Korean plane to the meeting because they do not have one that can go that far!).
    2. Open up and become a more traditional nation internationally, gaining the investment opportunities and thus money that that brings, while also giving up all nuclear ambitions, which should be easier since their testing site imploded.

    That's a lot different than the "previous level".

    It's the game NK has played forever, work on your Nukes and endure the rising tensions and sanctions. Then play nice and talk up peace and denuclearization in return for sanctions relief.

    I'm sure the same thing will happen again, Kim will say all the right things and get whatever relief he can, up until he thinks his defensive capabilities are falling behind and then he'll start testing again.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  18. Re:Another PATENTLY RETARDED and SUPERFLUOUS promi by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the Hell does this have to do with Reagan? He was a Conservative and a Republican. A real one.

    By today's Republican standards Reagan would be a RINO.

  19. Re: Consolidating what is already going on ... by blindseer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  20. I Support This If... by careysub · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is required - by law - that the name of this organization always be pronounced: "SPAAAAACCCCCCE FOOOOORRRRRCCCCCE!"

    Any other pronunciation would be criminalized.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj