Slashdot Mirror


VP Pence Lays Out Trump's Vision For Establishing a US Space Force (nbcnews.com)

Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday laid out details for President Donald Trump's proposed new branch of the U.S. military responsible for protecting national security in outer space. From a report: In a speech at the Pentagon, Pence said the new Space Force would be established by 2020. "As President Trump has said, in his words, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space -- we must have American dominance in space. And so we will," Pence said. "Space is, in his words, a war-fighting domain just like land and air and sea." He added, "History proves that peace only comes through strength, and in the realm of outer space, the United States Space Force will be that strength in the years ahead." The Space Force would ultimately become the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces and would be equal to the other five, Pence said. The Department of Defense has prepared a report laying out the phases of creating the new branch, which will ultimately have to be reviewed and approved by Congress.

38 of 528 comments (clear)

  1. BUY SPACEX by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Elon is gonna become the biggest defense contractor on earth

    1. Re:BUY SPACEX by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't you mean the biggest defense contractor _off_ earth?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  2. What about the deep see force. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 4, Funny

    We should have military dominance of the deep sea as well. I mean almost NO one can go there. We need to establish a base on the moon and a colony on mars for 'security'. After all, all that nothing is a real threat.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    1. Re: What about the deep see force. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep. Major communication infrastructure is in the deep sea as well. If the only way to protect our interests is to display strength, the military is going to need a serious budget increase.

    2. Re:What about the deep see force. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah sure let's militarize every gods-be-damned thing, as if we aren't already living on the War World. Endless cycles of war, what a great way to live!

    3. Re:What about the deep see force. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Navy? Submarines can go pretty deep if they need to. There is no critical infrastructure on the moon or mars. But there is in space and the deep sea! Full-spectrum dominance is a real thing.

      I am not sure what your comment is on about.

      Modern Submarines have a maximum depth of somewhere between 2400-3000 feet. Any further, and the pressure will crush the hull. Compare that with an average ocean depth of 12,000 feet.

    4. Re:What about the deep see force. by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Funny

      Want to know how I can tell you haven't had many repeat sexual partners....?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    5. Re:What about the deep see force. by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1984 - "Excess" productivity transferred to continuous war so the "lower classes" can be kept poor and down trodden rather than getting an increased share in worldly goods. Nationalism cranked up to keep them accepting their poverty from the resulting continuous war.

      It wasn't ALL Big Brother.

  3. You idiots. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Know what will happen because of this? Every other nation on the planet that has a space program will now be compelled to do the same. Likely won't be long before there are nuclear warheads in orbit from one country or another. So much for peaceful space exploration. More fucking Dominionist shit from Pence and the Trump administration. I hope Congress votes it down.

    1. Re: You idiots. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Problem is that an arms race is hugely expensive, and orbiting nukes mean that one fuckup means a city gone or a large part of the country hit by EMP. Dominionist is the wrong term, more like apocalyptic.

    2. Re: You idiots. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't a video game.

    3. Re: You idiots. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also who wants to live in a world that seems to be locked into a continual cycle of war or threat of war? Would be nice if we'd evolve past this bullshit.

    4. Re: You idiots. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dominionist is the wrong term, more like apocalyptic.

      You seem to be unaware of what Dominionists want. A significant percentage of Dominionists interpret Biblical version, in particular Revelations, to mean that it is their duty to intentionally induce an apocalypse in order to precipitate the Second Coming of Christ. They're the Dominionists who grew out of Pentecostalism, and sometimes self-identify as adherents of "Kingdom Now" theology. Their goal is a global Christian theocracy, and they think the sole path that gets them what they want is a global holocaust, because they interpret Revelations as prophecy, and believe the prophecy demands it. These people are properly called Dominionists because they self-identify as such, in writing.

    5. Re:You idiots. by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      These Chinese are already doing it (anti-sat missiles), and most likely the Russians have warheads parked in orbit as well. Rick, you're professing your ignorance on this topic. All that this administration did was clear the air and tell the truth and stop pussy footing around. Super Powers are dominating all domains of access because of a single universal truth of the human condition - humanity is governed by the aggressive use of force. That's not a statement for how it should be, rather reflecting on the reality for what it is.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re: You idiots. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only plus side from this is it may lead to technology to colonise beyond Earth... that's the only plus side I see.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re: You idiots. by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also who wants to live in a world that seems to be locked into a continual cycle of war or threat of war? Would be nice if we'd evolve past this bullshit.

      The trouble is....who (which nation) stops first and puts themselves into danger in the hopes that the other nations follow the example, vs continuing the race and eventually overcoming the weaker nations?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:You idiots. by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's worse than that. China has already demonstrated they can and will shoot down an orbiting satellite.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And the only take aways anyone with half a brain would have are:

      a) a space based weapons platform would be a sitting duck.

      b) the orbital debris from any sustained orbital conflict will make earths orbit completely inhospitable for decades. A bit of scrap the size of a pencil eraser moving at 8 km/s is going to do a number on anything in its way.

      You can't "dominate" orbital space the way you can dominate air or land. All you can do is render it completely inhospitable for everyone.

    9. Re: You idiots. by sheph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, says history. Every country on earth was acquired by conquest. It's lovely to think we could become civilized, and move beyond that. But human nature would suggest that it's not attainable. That being the case, I'd rather the country I live in be the dominant one rather than the dominated.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    10. Re: You idiots. by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This was only true when conquest was cheaper than trade. This pretty much ended with the late industrial revolution, which is why today you only really see war of conquest in the most impoverished regions.

    11. Re: You idiots. by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why the ACTUAL FUCK do you believe we have to "overcome weaker nations"? Are you also forgetting the tags around your comment?

      Not saying we (as in the US) have to overcome weaker nations, but if WE (as in the US) stop our build up first, we become one of the weaker nations that other stronger nations would be very tempted to overcome.

      Unless everyone verifiably puts down their weapons at the same time....the first one to put them down alone eventually becomes a loser to the others.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:You idiots. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bollocks. You can't hide nukes in orbit. The US already has anti-sat weapons too.

      This would be a major escalation of it happened.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:You idiots. by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did he say that we were breaking out of the 'Outer Space Treaty' that was signed into effect in 1967 by the US, the UK, and the Soviet Union (as well as India, Pakistan and China later on)? That treaty forbids putting weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, the Moon and other celestial bodies.

      If the U.S. has them they are by definition NOT WMDS. If anyone else has them a pea shooter can be called a WMD. So no problem, only nations other than the U.S. can possibly be in violation of the treaty.

    14. Re: You idiots. by outlander · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pentecostalism, which is the predecessor of modern-day Dominionism, arose out of folk churches.

      They very literally believe - as did medieval scholars - that enough biblical exegesis coupled with faith and self-abnegation will allow them to engage in divination.

      Never mind that such practices are expressly condemned in old testament texts, and would have been (relatively) heretical even to the batshit english puritans who settled the east coast of North America. The current Dominionist belief structure reflects a post-enlightenment level of absolute savagery, albeit dressed up in a nice suit for Sunday, but still red in tooth and claw.

      Dominionists slough off proscriptions against divination as "old testament" and claim that the personal relationship with the numinous supersedes both older rules (which, granted, were intended to maintain control over belief change) and (the scary bit) logic and reason. They claim that only 'experiential faith' is valid, and all other forms of religious observance are shams.

      The truly scary bit is that the notion experiential faith expressly incorporates the validity of revelatory experiences - and the mandate that revelatory experience is to be taken as truth, and challenges to it represent heretical behavior that requires prosecution in the name of holiness. Such a system has no internal checks and brooks no challenges, and is an ideal basis for an authoritarian state. For if A has a revelation and reveals it, B and C are bound to obey it, whether it is to their benefit or not.....

      Thomas Paine, who I revere, has this to say about this sort of revelation-trumps-all thinking in Part2/Sec20 of Common Sense. He was responding to earlier forms of socially-sanctioned illogic occasioned by the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 40s, led by Jonathan Edwards and

      "Revelation then, so far as the term has relation between God and man, can only be applied to something which God reveals of his will to man; but though the power of the Almighty to make such a communication is necessarily admitted, because to that power all things are possible, yet the thing so revealed (if anything ever was revealed, and which, bye the bye, it is impossible to prove), is revelation to the person only to whom it is made. His account of it to another person is not revelation; and whoever puts faith in that account, puts it in the man from whom the account comes; and that man may have been deceived, or may have dreamed it, or he may be an impostor and may lie. There is no possible criterion whereby to judge of the truth of what he tells, for even the morality of it would be no proof of revelation. In all such cases the proper answer would be, "When it is revealed to me, I will believe it to be a revelation; but it is not, and cannot be incumbent upon me to believe it to be revelation before; neither is it proper that I should take the word of a man as the word of God, and put man in the place of God." This is the manner in which I have spoken of revelation in the former part of the Age of Reason; and which, while it reverentially admits revelation as a possible thing, because, as before said, to the Almighty all things are possible, it prevents the imposition of one man upon another, and precludes the wicked use of pretended revelation."

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
  4. Why not use the USAF? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not use the USAF instead of creating another parallel bureaucracy? Better yet, why not merge all of the branches (cut out the Coast Guard and put it back under DoT control) and share as much bureaucracy as possible?

    It's not like we don't have domestic issues (crumbling roads, health care, education, etc) to spend money on. Cut taxes, cut the debt, or start spending money on things that benefit people other than military contractors.

    1. Re:Why not use the USAF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What, then they couldn't ask for a 20% increase in defense spending. This is like Bush creating DHS. Creating new agencies or military branches are a great way to funnel cash to your buds, not the previous guy's buds. There is a good argument that there is already too much duplication among the existing branches.

      There is also the issue that most of the modern problems in international relations cannot be solved by killing people better. Imagine a world where schools, hospitals, and economic development were the lead in American influence in the world instead of bullets and bombs.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Militarized space by DrYak · · Score: 3, Informative

    Likely won't be long before there are nuclear warheads in orbit from one country or another. So much for peaceful space exploration.

    First, nuke in orbit aren't necessary when you can deal damage by the sheer kinetic energy when de-orbiting things. There's a reason why controlled deorbit aim for the Nemo point.
    (Also nukes in orbit would be violating several international treaties, but I wouldn't be surprised if some rulers decided to wipe their asses with those)

    Now, the most important part : You might have not noticed, but despite several decade of space conquest, there hasn't been much actual *fighting* going on in space. Most of the weapons sent into space where for the specific use of survival among the wild-life if the return capsule gets lost in the middle of nowhere (some of these lost cosmonauts where complaining of hearing wolves and bears dangerously close to the capsule during night-time, while waiting to make contact with the retrival team).

    The thing which space has been used a LOT for is for intelligence and spying.

    The first thing that is going to happen if other countries try to militarize their space program is high resolution camera pointing at all the place that the US won't allow to be photographed with their own satellites plus ability to jam any communication satellite that adversaries might be relying on.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  7. What about the uniforms? by mmmVenison · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will there be redshirts? Oh my god I hope there are Redshirts.

    --
    Offended? Find a safe space and cry yourself to sleep.
  8. Mexico? by ZipprHead · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is Mexico going to pay for this too?

  9. Big beautiful rockets... by Drethon · · Score: 4, Funny

    We'll have big beautiful rockets! And the Martians will pay for them.! And they will be flown by the most elite astronauts, but the true elites are all of you right here who voted for me! And...cough...sputter

    Sorry, can't keep that up.

  10. money to burn by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We got people who can't afford to go to the doctor, but these jackoffs want to play outer space.

    Deficits exploding, but they're acting like we got money to burn. Wages going down for working people, and these geniuses think they're going to put jackbooted space troopers on Mars. Probably have a big Trump parade up there, too.

    I mean, Pence is a guy who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old and there's no evolution, but he's spearheading a Space Force that's going to be paid for with money borrowed from China, with whom we just started a trade war. Oh, we are so fucked.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:money to burn by Straif · · Score: 3, Informative

      Almost the entirety of the "Space Force" exists today but they are spread across multiple DoD and Intelligence groups so this isn't a huge expansion of the defense budget, more a realignment of existing expenditures. Over time it could even save money through consolidation. It's not even like this is a new proposal it's just the first time the Executive Branch bothered listening.

      It's main proposed purpose is to protect the US (and it's allies) from space based attacks which are not primarily of a physical nature but more technological. There looking to develop better defense of satellite and earth based communications, GPS systems and physical space based equipment as well as develop tech that may be able to interfere with those same systems as used by the 'enemy'.

      It's not like this is way out there either as China has already made claims about some of their satellite based 'defensive' capabilities.

      A lot of these projects are already funded but due to various agencies priorities the money doesn't necessarily get spent in those areas. This will create an agency that ensures the money appropriated for space based defense gets spent on space defense.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    2. Re:money to burn by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      so this isn't a huge expansion of the defense budget, more a realignment of existing expenditures.

      Horseshit. There's already been a $120 billion increase in the defense budget this year, and the DoD has already requested another $12 billion just to begin the process of realignment. Have you ever heard of an additional government agency that didn't cost more money? How much do you think it cost just to put on Pence's little ceremony today announcing the Space Force? How much will the grand military parade Trump is planning for November cost taxpayers (and China)?

      It's main proposed purpose is to protect the US (and it's allies) from space based attacks which are not primarily of a physical nature but more technological.

      OK, so we're going to be protected from the Klingon empire. Noted.

      It's not like this is way out there either as China has already made claims about some of their satellite based 'defensive' capabilities.

      You know that additional $120 billion that we're spending on the military this year? It's almost entirely borrowed from China. Goddamn, man, do you not see the folly of going into debt to the country so you can build defenses against that country?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Re:Needs approval of Comgress ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Informative

    Indeed.

    [July 1 2018] Trump's border wall not worth government shutdown, say lawmakers

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  12. Re:Yeah, that's one smart move by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Informative

    The US doesn't even have the rockets to launch anything like a nuke. Russia has man rated rockets to launch them.

    Never in history has anyone taken a manned rocket to detonate a nuclear warhead. I can't say that it was never on the drawing board, but it seems like a bonehead idea.

    The US's ICBMs fly up to around 1100 km before reentering to strike their targets. That's just above the maximum altitude of the old Shuttle Orbiter, and well beyond the typical operational altitude for most Shuttle missions (320 km).

    Can Russia fly higher? probably. But is that a requirement for nukes in space? clearly not. In fact the highest test explosion was at 540 km, and yet about half of the known tests were under 100 km.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  13. Re:"History proves that peace only comes through s by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Germany was quite peaceful in 1939, thanks to its strong military and authoritarian government.

    Yet Germany lost the subsequent war.

    The biggest "winner" of both world wars was the country that had done the least to prepare for them: The United States of America.

    After WW2, America switched to much higher military spending, and higher levels of preparation. Results: Korea - tie, Vietnam - lost, Afghanistan - lost, Iraq - lost.

    The problem with high military spending, is that it makes it easy to initiate stupid wars.

  14. This, so much This. by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Trump is more than a bit of a clown, but Pence scares me. He actually believes the crap he spouts. If the media was doing it's job his radical religious beliefs would have been front and center during the campaign. If he had his way we'd go back the the 50s with mandatory prayer in schools (yes, that was a thing until a SCOTUS decision shut it down).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  15. Only if it involves WMDs by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It only happens if the US issues formal notice that it is withdrawing from the Outer Space Treaty. The Outer Space Treaty forbids weapons of mass destruction anywhere above the Earth, to include installations on other celestial bodies. Warmongers like to try to claim this only forbids nuclear bombs, and therefore allows kinetic bombardment. This is some bullshit of the highest order. A megaton explosion is mass destruction regardless of how it was initiated.

    As you note, the OST only outlaws WMDs in space, but low size kinetic or energy weapons - i.e. satellite destroyers - are not banned. And yes, taking out an enemy's GPS satellites would be a terrible idea due to the Kessler Syndrome it would lead to, but it's not explicitly or implicitly against the treaty.

    Similarly, you could put armed guards on your station or moon base without violating the OST.