US Warns on Russia's New Space Weapons (reuters.com)

The United States voiced deep suspicion on Tuesday over Russia's pursuit of new space weapons, including a mobile laser system to destroy satellites in space, and the launch of a new inspector satellite which was acting in an "abnormal" way. From a report: Russia's pursuit of counterspace capabilities was "disturbing," Yleem D.S. Poblete, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, told the U.N.'s Conference on Disarmament which is discussing a new treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space. A Russian delegate at the conference dismissed Poblete's remarks as unfounded and slanderous. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, at the Geneva forum in February, said a priority was to prevent an arms race in outer space, in line with Russia's joint draft treaty with China presented a decade ago.

Comments

Oh,

[msauve]

While you're at it, please ignore our new Space Force.

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

While you're at it, please ignore our new Space Force.

You do understand that the "Space Force" thing is likely a reaction to this kind of activity from the Russians and Chinese right? As campy as it sounds, it sure seems like an idea who's time has long since come.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

"whose"

Re:Oh,

[Train0987]

The Space Force is more an attempt to separate out programs from the Air Force that have been killing their budget the past decade or more. Whether it is wise or not is debatable, but to automatically declare sinister motives is silly.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah a space force of literal space cadets in tiny tin cans seems the ideal entity to deal with a mobile ground based laser that can destroy satellites.

Re:Oh,

[drinkypoo]

The Space Force is more an attempt to separate out programs from the Air Force that have been killing their budget the past decade or more. Whether it is wise or not is debatable, but to automatically declare sinister motives is silly.

There's no good reason to move that stuff out of the Air Force at this time, because it is a small amount of activity compared to the whole. The only reason you might want to move that stuff into its own force is so that you can handicap it. Trump works for Putin, who would very much like to see our ability to manage military interests in space impaired...

Re:Oh,

[mi]

While you're at it, please ignore our new Space Force.

Our new Space Force is a reaction to Chinese and Russian attempts to militarize space.

For example, Russian Air Force is but a branch of the Russian AeroSpace Forces, since 2015 — when America was still run by a Nobel Peace Prize laureate...

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

  As campy as it sounds, it sure seems like an idea who's time has long since come.

No it doesn't, it sounds like a stupid idea. Why? Because the Air Force already does this. Just like the Navy handles things under water. As a NASA Astronaut recently said, should we separate out the submarines from the Navy with an Underwater Force?

Re:Oh,

[Nidi62]

While you're at it, please ignore our new Space Force.

You do understand that the "Space Force" thing is likely a reaction to this kind of activity from the Russians and Chinese right? As campy as it sounds, it sure seems like an idea who's time has long since come.

The "Space Force" thing is likely a reaction of a person with declining mental faculties (see the very name "Space Force" as an example) who is determined to put his name on things and is unable to understand the bureaucratic inefficiency, financial strain, duplication of effort, and wastefulness that creating another military branch would bring. Especially one as ill-defined and rudimentary technologically as space warfare/space combat. Leave it under the auspices of the Air Force until technological capability or operational necessity warrant it's own independent command structure.

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

The political pull to the left is strong with this one... Why must you see collusion and conspiracy around every corner?

I see good reasons to move this function away from the Air Force, I also see good reasons not to and why the Air Force might not like the idea. None of those reasons have anything to do with my political bias or creating some intractable advantage for our advisories. These reasons should be (and are being) discussed and evaluated apart from political bias, because politics is usually a poor decision maker when it comes to national defense questions.

So, apart from your unsubstantiated theories about Trump's motives and your political bias, do you have any actual reasons you oppose this you'd like to discuss? (I mean, do you oppose this for some reason other than because Trump suggested it?) If so, let's hear what they are please.

Re:Oh,

[Nidi62]

There's no good reason to move that stuff out of the Air Force at this time, because it is a small amount of activity compared to the whole. The only reason you might want to move that stuff into its own force is so that you can handicap it. Trump works for Putin, who would very much like to see our ability to manage military interests in space impaired...

Trump just wants to go down in history as the guy who created the Space Force and guarantee having spaceships named after him. I can already see it 30 years from now: President Ivanka Trump christening the launch of the first armed and manned US vessel in space: the USSFS Donald J Trump.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

No you dumbass, this is 1) complaining and lying as America does, and 2) the "Space Force" thing is just a continuation of what the U.S. started over a decade ago, then spoken of as "Star Wars".

Re:Oh,

[drinkypoo]

The political pull to the left is strong with this one... Why must you see collusion and conspiracy around every corner?

Because I'm paying attention.

I see good reasons to move this function away from the Air Force,

Name one.

Re:Oh,

[Jason Levine]

Either that, or to send a whole bunch of (more) money to defense contractors to get specific "Space Force" ships created, crew trained, etc. The actual "Space Force" needs within the Air Force are minimal - with the Russian and Chinese threats best handled through diplomatic channels at the moment - but making it its own separate "Force" will increase pressure to funnel more money to it and beef it up as much as possible even if there isn't a threat worthy of the Space Force.

Of course, the third option is a combination of the two. They could be making a Space Force that's essentially the TSA In Space. A lot of money being sent to companies to create complex systems, but in the end an ineffective operation that doesn't actually stop any threats.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump just wants to go down in history as the guy who created the Space Force and guarantee having spaceships named after him.

Why wait. Start naming them now. USS Shithole

USS Bonespurs

USS Draft Dodger

USS Grab 'em by the pussy

USS KKK

USS Stormy Daniels

USS Karen McDougal

I could go on....

Re:Oh,

[oh_my_080980980]

Uh no it's not...

Re:Oh,

[higuita]

yes, because the US also do not have any satellite destroying weapons too (please ignore that little secret satellite and those ground-space missiles)

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're at it, please ignore our new Space Force.

Our new Space Force is a reaction to Chinese and Russian attempts to militarize space.

Ha ha ha komrade. You crack me up.

This "announcement" is too convenient to be anything but a reaction to the bad reception that the Space Force received.

Trump must be getting close to burning the Reichstag.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're at it, please ignore our new Space Force.

You do understand that the "Space Force" thing is likely a reaction to this kind of activity from the Russians and Chinese right? As campy as it sounds, it sure seems like an idea who's time has long since come.

You do understand that this kind of activity from the Russians and Chinese is likely a reaction to decade-long American efforts to plant anti-missile defence systems near the borders of Russia in order to neutralize the Russian nuclear arsenal, _and_ at the same time maintaining their arsenal? As campy as it sounds, it sure seems like an idea who's time has long since come.

Re:Oh,

[Nidi62]

yes, because the US also do not have any satellite destroying weapons too (please ignore that little secret satellite and those ground-space missiles)

Anyone who thinks the X-37B doesn't have a weapons payload package is deluding themselves.

Re:Oh,

[AmiMoJo]

Space Force is pork for the military industrial complex and the communities being wrecked by his other financial mismanagement.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

The Space Force is more an attempt to separate out programs from the Air Force that have been killing their budget the past decade or more. Whether it is wise or not is debatable, but to automatically declare sinister motives is silly.

There's no good reason to move that stuff out of the Air Force at this time, because it is a small amount of activity compared to the whole. The only reason you might want to move that stuff into its own force is so that you can handicap it. Trump works for Putin, who would very much like to see our ability to manage military interests in space impaired...

By that "logic", does Dianne Feinstein work for Beijing?

Hell, the LA Times was publishing stories on that twenty years ago, probably about the same time Feinstein hired a Chinese spy:

Feinstein, Husband Hold Strong China Connections

WASHINGTON — On Capitol Hill, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has emerged as one of the staunchest proponents of closer U.S. relations with China, fighting for permanent most-favored-nation trading status for Beijing.

At the same time, far from the spotlight, Feinstein's husband, Richard C. Blum, has expanded his private business interests in China--to the point that his firm is now a prominent investor inside the communist nation.

...

And the SF Examiner:

Husband invested in China as Feinstein pushed trade

An investment fund backed by the husband of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinste in pumped millions of dollars into firms doing business in China while Feinstein was boosting expanded trade between China and the United States, The Examiner has learned.

...

So, for two fucking decades, the Democrat leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee has a Chinese spy working for her, she's pushing for closer relations and trade with China, and her fucking husband is literally making millions of dollars in China, but you go around spouting unsubstantiated bullshit about Trump?!?!

Trump Derangement Syndrome much?

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

Interesting issue you bring up, but you need to divorce yourself from the political considerations on this.

There are reasons to create a new branch of the armed services that go beyond costs. The mission and budget of the Air Force is quite big, as is their command structure. Carving out a new branch, much like the carving out the Army Air Corps, does have it's advantages. Flattening the command structure allows more flexibility and faster response times, allows for specialized training and skills to be closer to the top of the command structure, and allows for focusing appropriated budget and resources on specific areas of the mission.

Of course, there is a down side to everything. But in my opinion this idea has merit. It flattens the hierarchy at the Pentagon, allows the development and advancement of resources with specialized skills. And creates a sharper focus on a specific problem set. Rockets and satellites go one way, things that depend on wings go another. It's a natural division and there is very little overlap, so it actually makes sense to me.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooooh, so this is a reverse Star Wars scenario where Putin wants the US to overspend on their military and bankrupt themselves? If it works he might be the most intelligent evil genius to ever live. On the other hand with the US printing dollars nilly-willy he's not doing that much and it looks like the US printing press can print to infinity without problem. It's really impressive.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

' Whether it is wise or not is debatable, but to automatically declare sinister motives is silly.'

This Administration has nothing but sinister motives if they're not plain stupid.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

wrecked by his other financial mismanagement

huh?

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it likely isn't.

Re:Oh,

[Nidi62]

Interesting issue you bring up, but you need to divorce yourself from the political considerations on this.

There are reasons to create a new branch of the armed services that go beyond costs. The mission and budget of the Air Force is quite big, as is their command structure. Carving out a new branch, much like the carving out the Army Air Corps, does have it's advantages. Flattening the command structure allows more flexibility and faster response times, allows for specialized training and skills to be closer to the top of the command structure, and allows for focusing appropriated budget and resources on specific areas of the mission.

Of course, there is a down side to everything. But in my opinion this idea has merit. It flattens the hierarchy at the Pentagon, allows the development and advancement of resources with specialized skills. And creates a sharper focus on a specific problem set. Rockets and satellites go one way, things that depend on wings go another. It's a natural division and there is very little overlap, so it actually makes sense to me.

Remember what happens when you flatten something: it gets wider. Have space forces be a subsidiary command of the Air Force makes sense right now because the technology simply isn't mature enough to warrant in independent command. As an independent command you add senior command staff at the political level (think White House/Pentagon) and the support staff that goes with it, scientific staff, support and logistical staff, training facilities for both basic and advanced training, OCS/academy locations, etc. So you are either relying on contractors for staffing (very expensive but politically attractive) or robbing from other branches/setting up your own training pipeline or manpower pool.

Keep it as part of the Air Force and you keep the vertical efficiency the Air Force already has. Pull from Air Force enlisted and officer recruits or existing unit, rely on the technological and institutional knowledge the Air Force already has from decades of cooperation with NASA and working on Star Wars, X-37, etc. Until it reaches a critical mass it is too inefficient and expensive to have it operating by itself.

Re: Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

2000 was 18 years ago.

Re:Oh,

[penandpaper]

You have had some good comments. Am rather disappointed with /. comments on this topic. It seems like it would be great for discussion to breakdown and understand what a separate branch dedicated to mastering the access to space and space technology would be. It's actually kind of exciting in a way because it is a signal of our time. Space is so normal to the government that it is being seriously considered to be treated as equals to the flight.

I like the think of the military as the frontier normalizers. They are not the explorers but they create the first in-roads, infrastructure and capability to make a frontier accessible* to more development. If anything, budgets are easier to acquire for the military which makes science and development of revolutionary technology a little easier to justify (internet anyone). Space garbage can be a crippling problem and we have seem glacial movement toward management and clean up. It seems that any branch dedicated to space would be very concerned about this and could more easily secure funding to spearhead those initiatives. That's exciting to me.

The mission of the Air Force doesn't seem to be a good place for these kinds of initiatives and strategies. It seems like all too often any kind of project for space would be sidelined by an F-35 like project because they do not run parallel to the primary mission and expertise of the Air Force.

* Reminds me of the saying. Lieutenants study tactics. Colonels study strategy. Generals study logistics. For space, those aspects are so drastically different than the Air Force that it seems foolish to consider them in the same branch.

Re:Oh,

[Narcocide]

It's an obvious boondoggle. Declaring obvious boondoggles as not sinister is in itself also sinister.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially one as ill-defined and rudimentary technologically as space warfare/space combat.

As yes -- if there's one thing that's rudimentary, it's the unprecedented world of space warfare/combat.

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

The political pull to the left is strong with this one... Why must you see collusion and conspiracy around every corner?

Because I'm paying attention.

I see good reasons to move this function away from the Air Force,

Name one.

I'll bite, once... Unless you actually respond in kind.

The division of the Air Force is pretty easy. Rockets and Satellites go to the Space Force, Things having to do with wings stay with the Air Force. So the division is conceptually clear, much like the division of the Army was when the Air Force was Created.

Flying aircraft and flying rockets are largely different disciplines that deal with dissimilar hardware, so it makes sense to have speculated skills and training in one thing or the other in your manpower resources, equipment, logistics and base locations. It also allows for advancement for troops which are currently in dead end careers, being non-pilots in the Air Force sitting in missile silos for 48 hour watches with moral about as low as the base of the missiles they man.

Re:Oh,

[penandpaper]

Sailors are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve as 'soldiers'. Likewise 'soldiers' are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve aboard ship, perform amphibious operations, or participate in naval expeditionary campaigns. Because of this the Marines exist.

Wider doesn't mean less efficient. It just means that there are certain functions that require enough specialization to be organized separately. While the army studies battlefield tactics and logistics the Marines write the book on amphibious operations.

I honestly think we are at the critical moment you speak of or at least very close to. I don't think the military should wait for critical mass before a organization shift because that is being reactive and not proactive. The military should be proactive in recognizing organizational deficiencies and overlap. That way expertise can be consolidated in a competitive environment not protected by broad and overarching missions of a branch whose scope is so wide organizational problems develop inertia.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many people who don't work for Putin who would like to see a space force. Many higher ranking officers inside the USAF look down on anyone who is a "button pusher". The "warfighter" vs "button pusher" split is a big deal. The space interests in the airforce don't particularly want to see the majority of the budget eaten up on F-35's, B-21's and Tankers.

Re:Oh,

[halivar]

SDI was not a real thing. It was posturing with the sole purpose of creating psychological leverage. I expect both sides of this current issue are the same thing.

Re:Oh,

[MachineShedFred]

Please explain to me what this "space force" would accomplish, which nuclear ballistic missile submarines and existing reconnaissance satellites don't already do at a fraction of the cost, and have been for decades.

Orbiting weapons platforms can be tracked with radar, and destroyed with systems that exist today - China proved this when they blew up a satellite years ago. Silent missile submarines can still be 50 miles off your coast and you won't know where it is until it's already launched, and then it's too late. They also have the effect of being proven, buildable technology that actually works, and has known costs - all of which are a really good thing if you're looking for a true deterrent, and not bad science fiction from the 1970s

Re:Oh,

[gosand]

I see good reasons to move this function away from the Air Force,

Name one.

There's no air in space.

That's all I got.

Re: Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, budgets are easier to acquire for the military which makes science and development of revolutionary technology a little easier to justify (internet anyone)

Done outside the military. In fact, the military brass were averse to the whole idea.

Guess who did the real work?

Re:Oh,

[Nidi62]

Sailors are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve as 'soldiers'. Likewise 'soldiers' are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve aboard ship, perform amphibious operations, or participate in naval expeditionary campaigns. Because of this the Marines exist.

Exactly my point. The Marines serve a very niche, specialized, and important role. But, that role is not large enough to warrant it's own, independent branch. The Marines rely on the Navy for medical, logistical, and even training support (Naval Academy for Marine officers), and the Navy uses Marines for certain functions as well, such as guarding conventional and nuclear weapons aboard ship. If anything, the Space Force should have a Marine-Navy relationship until it grows too large or becomes operationally necessary to be independent. At that point it would have organically grown most of the logistical and command structure necessary to be an independent branch, making for a relatively easy transition. Right now, it's just forced.

Re:Oh,

[drinkypoo]

The division of the Air Force is pretty easy.

The question was not whether it would be easy to classify the areas of influence if you split the Air Force into the Air Force and the Space Force. The question is why you would want to do that.

Flying aircraft and flying rockets are largely different disciplines that deal with dissimilar hardware, so it makes sense to have speculated skills and training in one thing or the other in your manpower resources, equipment, logistics and base locations.

That does not require a separate branch of the armed forces. Fixing trucks and shooting people are largely different disciplines that deal with dissimilar hardware, but we don't have a Mechanic Force split away from the Army.

It also allows for advancement for troops which are currently in dead end careers, being non-pilots in the Air Force sitting in missile silos for 48 hour watches with moral about as low as the base of the missiles they man.

That does not require a separate branch of the armed forces; in fact, it only complicates things because now you want to move people from branch to branch instead of simply changing MOS.

So I ask again, what is the reason why we would want to split these things apart at this time? I can see that you might eventually want to do so, if you had a whole bunch of people in space, notably enough of them to fill a whole branch of the armed forces. At that point, it would make sense. Perhaps even before that point... but we are not even close. We don't have any military personnel in space! The purpose of having a separate branch of the military is to establish a meaningful chain of command, and we don't have enough people in space for that.

I am not against the idea of a Space Force, I am against founding one now. Let the Air Force work out the issues, let there actually be issues that they can't work out which could be solved by the founding of a new branch of the military, then found the Space Force. Otherwise we're just spending more money to create complications where there were none before.

Re:Oh,

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The US blew up a satellite in the 1980s to prove they could. It pissed off my astronomy professor because it was a perfectly good radio telescope satellite. IRAD I think it was called.

Re:Oh,

[GameboyRMH]

If it's a reaction to Russian and Chinese activity, then it's an unnecessarily provocative one that will only lead to further escalation. The US - all countries in fact - would do well to keep their military space capabilities as low-key as possible, and one good way to do that is to place them under an existing branch of the military. Creating a new one called a "SPACE FORCE" is the opposite of that.

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

So, the nuclear triad doesn't mean anything to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

As I understand the idea here, a "Space Force" would carve out the parts of the Air Force that wasn't based on wings and aircraft into a new branch of the department of defense. It wouldn't be taking over the Navy's mission. So the rocket vehicle based operations of the current Air Force and satellites would fall under "Space" and not "Air". The Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard wouldn't be affected, except that they'd have to deal with "Space Force" for their satellite operational needs, instead of their current Air Force contacts.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

The F35 wasn't really like by all either, as the branches each wanted an aircraft that better fit their needs. The good old government decided make one thing that can do all needs! was a good idea, so you end up with a super expensive platform aircraft that gets taken out in simulated air battles by older aircraft....

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

Why is being provocative a problem? And is this really provocative?

We often project force forward and have done so for more than 100 years now. It's what the Navy was initially for and what the Air Force and Navy do now. What do you think the point of deploying aircraft carrier task forces into the middle east is if not provocative? Sometimes all one has to do is display the ability of applying overwhelming force to keep things in line. Being provocative can be a good thing. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is a common way to express this.

Then there is the question about how provocative this move would actually be. How does this change anything for our adversaries, especially in ways that might lead them into open conflict with us? Sure, it recognizes the domain of space in military thinking and emphasizes our commitment to contend for superiority on this front, but I don't see how the Russians and Chinese are not already acutely aware of the technology race and are not fully engaged in being as competitive as they can in that realm. I don't see how a reorganization of the department of defense would change that or provoke them further.

Re: Oh,

[aliquis]

I thought officially it was the gathering of space assets into one umbrella?

Also Russia is way more defensive than the USA. Russia have poor means (relative the US) to do something somewhere else. I guess given a choice of having the same capability or not they would want the same one but their military is focused on defending their territory and sovereignty.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

Many higher ranking officers inside the USAF look down on anyone who is a "button pusher". The "warfighter" vs "button pusher" split is a big deal. The space interests in the airforce don't particularly want to see the majority of the budget eaten up on F-35's, B-21's and Tankers.

Commanders who spent the majority of their careers flying fighters or bombers typically aren't so keen to invest in the sort of activities that are important for a Space Force. The requirements for space supremacy are different from air supremacy. In terms of "thought processes" there are in many ways more similarities between the Navy and what you want in a Space Force.

Splitting off another service will allow the budget for the Space Force to be separate. In terms of staffing, we already have people who move between services.

The argument against the splitting off could be similarly applied to all the services. There's a reason the Airforce was split from the Army, just as there's a reason we have a Coast Guard and a Navy and the Marines. Creating a new service doesn't mean we can't have folks move to the new service.

Re: Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

Your distinctions are even more faulty than you realize. While the Marines proclaim that they are all riflemen, even that belies the wide diversity and segregation of their training.

Sailors differ with regards to service on carriers, destroyers, submariners, not to mention departments within them. Your cook in the canteen may have more in common with the messhall than you with the engineers.

Re:Oh,

[Amiga Trombone]

Well, you're in good company. Dr. Michio Kaku thinks a Space Force is a good idea as well.

Re:Oh,

[TomGreenhaw]

Just like star wars in the 1980's, this whole thing is a ruse. If the U.S. military is doing something in space, what makes anybody think it wouldn't be a well guarded secret? The US is either goading them into wasting money on something that doesn't matter, or creating an enemy to justify increased military spending, and probably both.

A quick internet search indicates that the US "black budget" for the military is more than $50 Billion US dollars annually. The entire Russian Federation military budget is much less than $100 Billion - probably closer to $70 bilion. Additionally, there's the $600 billion the US spends in its public military budget numbers.

Arms race - LOL.

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

The "It's a clean division" argument is simply to dispel the "It makes no sense" line of debate. It is a logical precondition of being able to split anything with as many moving parts as the Air Force to have a easy to define line to decide with. So the dividing line is easy to define and understand. This is but a pre-condition of the next step in the debate.

You are correct, it must also make operational sense. I believe it does make sense. Here is way.

There are two clear parts of the Air Force and the skills you must have to be effective when managing and flying aircraft are quite a bit different than management and launching of space vehicles. They are vastly different from maintenance all the way up through command and once you start down one path or the other, your skills and experience will drive your career more than your desire to change tracks can. We have a pile of missile officers who have no place to go, they will not be released to pursue other tracks and are seemingly stuck sitting in holes for days at a time with no way up, you can only sit at a rank so long before it's time to get out. So for these guys and gals the 'Space Force" they'd be apart of would have more opportunity for them to advance.

Also, the logistics of Space are quite different than Aircraft as are the physical facilities required for both. Space doesn't need to forward spares around the world and can get by with only a few large launch sites, Air needs to have a logistics pipeline that reaches to the battle field, places to land to refuel and house repair facilities around the world. The reasons for separating them make obvious sense. Separating the personnel also makes obvious sense, for both the ability to train the necessary skills and provide rewarding career opportunities for those with unique skills and knowledge.

Re:Oh,

[GameboyRMH]

Being provocative is a problem if provoking a response would be a negative development. Like provoking Russia into building an antisat laser or covert deorbit drive satellites for example. Those seem like negative developments.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick" is actually the opposite of provocation - it means peaceful negotiation (the "speak softly" part) but having overwhelming force as a fallback option (the "big stick"). It's not "threaten loudly and carry a big stick" or "carry a big stick and boast about it."

If you can't see how putting flashing neon lights on military space capabilities with the creation of a "Space Force" could be provocative...well maybe you're just hard to provoke. Much harder to provoke than Russia, obviously. Doing this also adds a dick-waving element to space militarization that wasn't there before (bringing the issue into the public spotlight when it was previously only well-known to the military and nerdy military observers), which is a very bad thing when there are dick-wavers in charge of both the US and Russia who both know that their voters admire a good dick-waving display.

Re:Oh,

[drinkypoo]

The "It's a clean division" argument is simply to dispel the "It makes no sense" line of debate.

It doesn't do that. I can make a clean division in a piece of bread by cutting it in half, but unless I need that piece of bread to be divided, I'm not going to do it.

We have a pile of missile officers who have no place to go, they will not be released to pursue other tracks

So what you're saying is that a Space Force won't help them?

So for these guys and gals the 'Space Force" they'd be apart of would have more opportunity for them to advance.

How? Why would they be released to join the space force if they wouldn't be released to work a different MOS in the air force?

Also, the logistics of Space are quite different than Aircraft as are the physical facilities required for both. [...] The reasons for separating them make obvious sense.

No, no they do not. Each branch of the military already has disparate facilities with different logistics. This is a non-problem.

Separating the personnel also makes obvious sense, for both the ability to train the necessary skills and provide rewarding career opportunities for those with unique skills and knowledge.

No, no it does not. There are already different training academies which train for different purposes within the same branches of the armed forces.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

which one is you? https://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA752CA752&biw=2560&bih=1286&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=My9zW_CdKIjbjwT8k4G4Aw&q=martin+espinoza&oq=martin+espinoza&gs_l=img.3..0j0i30k1j0i5i30k1j0i24k1j0i10i24k1.8818.11636.0.11778.14.13.1.0.0.0.90.868.13.13.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.4.227....0.MQSZzl-27E8

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

LOL.. I seriously don't think Russia or China will be in any way deterred from their current research, nor will the realignment of the Air Force to split out a "Space Force" would spur them on to additional activities or fielding additional weapons... Unless you are claiming that the development of a "Space Force" would actually advance the arms race, because it would actually produce additional capabilities and expertise on our part.

IF you really think the latter, then I've got to ask, shouldn't we be doing all this stuff anyway? Shouldn't we be developing our space defense capability as best we can anyway? Are we not already provoking by doing this, regardless of how the DOD is organized? Should we not be building a bigger stick so we can speak softly and keep the peace?

Seem to me that if you find this to be provocative, you are really saying that it's going to be effective at development of the technology we need to be developing and you are making my argument for me. Yep, if China and Russia think this will advance the state of the art and they'd have to step up their game to keep up, then this is a good thing. We need to focus and be a head of the pack.

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

Woosh! You are not interested in engaging here. Have a nice day.

Re:Oh,

[GameboyRMH]

No, I'm saying that the mere PR effects of creating the "Space Force" are provocative, regardless of what happens with the actual capabilities behind it. When your opponent goes from secretly working on space weapons to making public statements of intent to create a space-focused branch of the military, that's provocative, and that's not even getting into the talk of militarily dominating space that came alongside those statements.

You build the bigger stick quietly and continue to speak softly rather than bragging or threatening, especially in an area that is such a gasoline-soaked tinderbox for escalation as space militarization. Space is not supposed to be militarized according to various international agreements, and the best way to keep it as peaceful and non-militarized as possible (and thus minimize the chance of space-based conflict) is for everyone involved to do their best at pretending they believe that. The statement of intent to create a "Space Force" is the biggest torch flicked at that tinderbox since the infamous Chinese satellite shootdown test.

Re:Oh,

[drinkypoo]

Woosh! You are not interested in engaging here. Have a nice day.

I'm not interested in bullshit handwaving arguments. When you have something of substance, let us know.

Re: Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

USS Tax Reform

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you commies ought to be happy. Trump is finally giving you A Safe Space!

Re: Oh,

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Yes. I'm certain Ukraine agrees with you.

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

I think you are hyperventilating about nearly nothing. Just like they went off on Reagan about his Star Wars thing, but for a whole lot less actual reason. It's not like there was an announced weapon system with specific capabilities that eclipse anything anybody else has, we are talking about reorganizing the department of defense to provide some additional focus into military force in space, there isn't some new revelation of some new weapons system or some huge R&D project that would catch them flat footed or unaware of our capabilities.

If you think the Russians or the Chinese are provoked by such talk, I'm only going to laugh at you. They are provoked by our very presence in space, by our navigation assets in orbit, communications ability and the like, because they KNOW they are behind. They are provoked by what they know we can already do that they can't. Busting out half the Air Force and calling it by another name isn't going to change that or provoke them any further.

But to hear you talk, it's like they are going to be incensed and be all that closer to entering a shooting war with us, JUST because we broke up the Air Force and created some "Space Force" from the pieces.

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

I see good reasons to move this function away from the Air Force,

Name one.

There's no air in space.

That's all I got.

LOL.. I like that one, I'll have to use it next time.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

>_ You do understand that the "Space Force" thing is likely a reaction to this kind of activity from the Russians and Chinese right? As campy as it sounds, it sure seems like an idea who's time has long since come.

It was a announced on August 9th, the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing by the USA. Of course, it follows, you're saying a reaction to this kind of activity from Americans is in order, aren't you?

Not that I claim it to be a good idea, an eye for an eye, but there's a world consensus about space being neutral -- specially because we may need to flee there once Earth is made too radioactive and impossible to live on.

Re:Oh,

[crimson tsunami]

The only reason you might want to move that stuff into its own force is so that you can handicap it.

Or you want to expand it. You want to give it more funding/resources but you don't want the Air Force to redirect that money for other things.

Re:Oh,

[rtb61]

Only a moron thinks turning satellites into high speed shrapnel travelling at tens of thousands of kilometres a second is a good idea. Here's reality for the stupid, destroy all their space stuff and the shrapnel left over will destroy all your space stuff. Also, a weapon on the ground is not a space weapon, a weapon in space is a space weapon. You got any idea how easy it is to mass destroy satellites, just set up a bunch of mirrors and wait till they orbit over head during the day, problem solved, if that satellite is a problem. Of course if you are way behind in space, then filling every possible orbit with shrapnel is a great idea, not matter how good you get in the current era of space technology, you will be denied access to space for the rest of this century, good luck with communications satellites and navigation satellites and weather satellites and mapping satellites and well, the only satellites we will have is the ones created by the biggest fucking idiots on the planet, millions of shrapnel satellites, job well done, future generations might be pretty pissed though, no space stations for centuries, simply too dangerous, you have to wait until most of the shrapnel has fallen from orbit, something like 99.99% because all it takes is one tiny strike to take out a satellite, space station or armoured space craft.

Yeah, space force, the out and out most stupid insane idea on the plant, conceived by morons and fuck any rocket scientist who contributes to this bullshit.

Re:Oh,

[GameboyRMH]

But to hear you talk, it's like they are going to be incensed and be all that closer to entering a shooting war with us, JUST because we broke up the Air Force and created some "Space Force" from the pieces.

That's an overstatement but it is certainly provocative, I've made a good case for the reasons why. Let's not forget the effect a simple radio beacon in LEO once had on the US.

Re:Oh,

[strikethree]

If anything, the Space Force should have a Marine-Navy relationship until it grows too large or becomes operationally necessary to be independent.

I am guessing that you are not familiar with US Space Command.

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

Trump is not the driver behind this, he just happens to be the sitting president while US Space Command is trying to become its own branch. This not being forced from the top, it is being pushed from US Space Command itself. The US Air Force is the precedent they are following. The US Air Force used to be part of the Army.

Not that I am saying there should be a Space Force.

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

Again, your example is totally out of proportion to what we are discussing.

Sputnik was obvious a provocative act, overflying another country with a new technology, demonstrating a capability that could be obviously used for less than peaceful purposes. Yea, that was provocative, clearly so.

WE are discussing an organizational change of the DOD, which is a far cry from demonstrating some new level of technology like Sputnik did. Yet, here we are, comparing this move to the launch of Sputnik. You are really overstating your argument there, which betrays how weak it really is. A reorganization of the Air Force into two parts is not even close to the provocation of Sputnik, not by a country mile.

Re:Oh,

[GameboyRMH]

You continue to downplay the message sent by creating the world's first explicitly space-based military branch in a world where space is not supposed to be militarized. This is not just some boring bureaucratic shuffle. It is a historically notable provocation, if only symbolic rather than practical in nature so far.

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand that the "Space Force" thing is likely a reaction to this kind of activity from the Russians and Chinese right?

You do understand that the heads of state work in tandem. They use the threat of the others to keep their own people in line.

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

Boy, are you misinformed.

The *only* limitations about the use of space are from a couple of treaties over 40 years old, but they do not keep the military or weapons out of space. You cannot deploy nuclear weapons and you cannot claim space or parts of it as your sovereign territory by the traditional means of military occupation, but you can fly conventional weapons and operate defensive and offensive weapon systems in space all you like So no building a military installation on the moon and claiming it as your own, and no putting nuclear weapons in space, but the rest is allowed. The rest of the treaties regulate liability for accidents, and who's responsible for hardware in space and any damage it may do to other's hardware or territory.

So you CAN militarize your use of space within limits (no nuclear weapons, but conventional ones are OK).

Re:Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more likely that this sudden "deep suspicion" is just a fabricated justification for #SpaceForce

Re:Oh,

[Nivag064]

Rockets are like aircraft in that they go fast and above the water & sea, they are like sailing ships because they can take years to get anywhere & there are brief periods of excitement with long boring parts.

I think it makes sense to have a Space Force, but the way Trump trumpets it, it behoves Russia & China to get in on the act for their self preservation.

Trump comes across as a spoilt child who says mine!, Mine!!, MINE!!! - as they don't want to play with other children, unless they always get their own way!

Re:Oh,

[bobbied]

Rockets are like aircraft in that they go fast and above the water & sea, they are like sailing ships because they can take years to get anywhere & there are brief periods of excitement with long boring parts.

I think it makes sense to have a Space Force, but the way Trump trumpets it, it behoves Russia & China to get in on the act for their self preservation.

Trump comes across as a spoilt child who says mine!, Mine!!, MINE!!! - as they don't want to play with other children, unless they always get their own way!

So you agree with the idea, you just don't like the style of the one pushing it. Fair enough.

I don't give out style points to politicians anyway because I'm concerned with what they do and why they do it and not what or how they say what they say. I'm after results, not flowery talk. What have you actually DONE concerns me more than how you talk about things.

Re: Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can make a clean division in a piece of bread by cutting it in half, but unless I need that piece of bread to be divided, I'm not going to do it."

That's a lovely analogy, not only because it doesn't involve cars.

Re: Oh,

[Anonymous Coward]

USS Lying Donny

Simplest space weapons are best

[Anonymous Coward]

Rods from God

Re:Simplest space weapons are best

[Anonymous Coward]

"God bless America"
was invented by false and unknown prophet.

"America must bless Jesus, son of God and Mary"

Re:Simplest space weapons are best

[Opportunist]

He has more than one? I start to understand why he's so popular.

Re:Simplest space weapons are best

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you go shit in the streets with that Hindu chimp guy?

What did you think would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

You launched an initiative or supposed one called Star Wars decades ago and then supposedly it was fake...well Russia decided to do it and now they have it and you donâ(TM)t. Open that checkbook Uncle Sam, itâ(TM)s time to buy more guns

Re:What did you think would happen?

[Train0987]

The US star wars program was the final nail in the communist Soviet Bloc's coffin. Money well spent even if it were "fake" (which it's not).

Re:What did you think would happen?

[bobbied]

It was neither fake nor about this kind of thing. It was a missile defense system. And it actually developed into multiple working weapons systems. Patriot missile systems are one example, and there are more.

However, one cannot deny that the prospect of such a system was partially responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union as they economically couldn't manage the R&D work required to "keep up" with all that was going on. They tried, but it only hastened their economic collapse. So, Star Wars actually was successful as a strategy, even if it didn't produce a weapon system that achieved all it's stated goals. It was pretty good propaganda if nothing else.

Re: What did you think would happen?

[mrchew1982]

You know what else was good propaganda? Mickey mouse and McDonald's.

Re:What did you think would happen?

[oh_my_080980980]

BULL FUCKING SHIT. It did not have anything to with that because every scientist knew it was absolute bullshit. SDI could not work. The Soviets knew that too. A run away military budget brought the Soviet Union to ruin. If it hadn't, the United States military budget would have bankrupted us.

Ironically, Russia's lean defense budget seems to do a better job then the United States. If you believe all the red scare in the press.

Re:What did you think would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a lot of bullshit and a part of the conservative beatification of St. Ronald Reagan, but there is little basis in reality that supports this theory. If that was true, the West would have expected the fall of the Soviet Union, but we who were there at the time remember how utterly surprised everyone was.

The Communist system collapsed under its own merits - the 4th generation comrades decided it is better to become capitalists. They made their plans in the early 80s, and executed them with precision.

To nobody's surprise, former Communists are the business elite in all of the former Comecon.

Re:What did you think would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, very little of Star Wars has to do with the modern anti-missile systems. It was called Strategic Defense Initiative for a reason - it was allegedly targeting the Soviet strategic threat, that is, the ICBMs that carried nuclear weapons. None of the systems in operation today are weapons of this class, and few use the technologies investigated at the time -- like powerful chemical lasers which, while in operation, would poison a small city, or atomic bomb pumped X-ray lasers or other similar fantasies.

Re:What did you think would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're just swapping one baseless mythology for another? "Reagan was dumb! We couldn't predict any of this!" *hand wave* "We all know the Soviets made precise plans to collapse their own system!" [citation needed]

Re:What did you think would happen?

[vtcodger]

Patriot is an antiaircraft missile system that was pressed into service as an antimissile system prior to and during the first Gulf War. It seems to be quite a good anti-aircraft system. A lot of claims were made for it as an antimissile system during the Gulf War, but they didn't stand up well to scrutiny when the data was made public. The military and the GWB administration solved that problem after 2001 by not releasing more recent data for public analysis.

Re:What did you think would happen?

[halivar]

Actually, it was the drop in the price of oil that brought the USSR to ruin. We bribed the Saudi's into oversupplying the world market, and the USSR was hardest hit. By the end of the USSR, defense spending had already fallen through the floor to make room for perestroika initiatives and to foster greater autonomy and self-reliance in satellite states.

Re:What did you think would happen?

[halivar]

That was the intention, but it didn't have the intended result. Year-over-year soviet defense spending was actually relatively flat; increasing only 1-3% from then until '85, when Gorbechav nuked the defense budget to make room for perestroika and force military autonomy on satellite states. What we don't know is whether any intangible psychological effect influenced how glasnost and perestroika played out.

Re: What did you think would happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're just swapping one baseless mythology for another?

No, I'm not.

"Reagan was dumb! We couldn't predict any of this!"

Both are well-established facts.

Reagan had a progressing dementia in his two terms, serious in his second. Besides, even before the dementia hit him, Reagan was a skillful tactician in national politics, but not much of a strategist.

He lowered the bar for political entry and brought the evangelist right into the US mainstream, and the US is today reaping the fruits of that with the likes of Pence, Palin and Trump.

His economic policies ensured the increasing deficit and the growing inequality in the US.

His foreign politics were amateurish. He sprung the bin ladens of today, he had Iran keep hundreds of hostages for months to win a US election, sold weaponry to cutthroats, and brought the danger of nuclear conflict higher than it was in Khrushchev's time.

So yeah, he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. At least, he had better advisers than Bush jr. and the Donald.

And the fact that the collapse of the Communist block was totally unexpected is confirmed by so much documents and participant testimonies that it is not known only to the uneducated and the brainwashed.

"We all know the Soviets made precise plans to collapse their own system!" [citation needed]

Citation of what - the economic policy changes in the Comecon countries in the late 80s? The transfer of billions of cash offshore in expectation of the fall? Investing into education of the elite's young generation in the West? These are things you can easily find in economic and political analysis published in Eastern Europe.

Fucking illiterati...

Re:What did you think would happen?

[Chriscypher]

I'm still waiting for my "peace dividend" from the end of the cold war...

Re:What did you think would happen?

[Richard_at_work]

The problem with saying Patriot is a good system is that multiple recent independent studies into its effectiveness during the First Gulf War have cast serious doubt on its success - US Army claims of 80% accuracy were independently found to rather be between 0% and 10%...

The system has indeed been developed into a decent platform, but only in the years after the FGW, during which it was basically entirely redesigned.

Not a Russia appologist but really?

[DarkOx]

With the US creating a whole new military branch (or at least the executive trying to) why would be surprised other quasi hostile nations with the capability of doing so would NOT be preparing space based counter measures?

Space Force aside what did people think was going to happen everyone was just going to play nice and abide by already 40 year old treaties to not put more than 10 warheads on an ICBM for all eternity?

Time marches on folks - technology improves.

Re:Not a Russia appologist but really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Space Force is a direct reaction to stuff like this. Russia didn't just get that laser and spacecraft overnight. They've been working on it for years. The signs that Russia and China are working to militarize space have been apparent for a long time now. China shot down one of their own satellites in 2007 in an ASAT weapons test. The whole point of the Space Force is that we've noticed this going on for some time and congress doesn't think the Air Force is doing enough to protect our interests in orbit.

Re:Not a Russia appologist but really?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol this tard thinks US didn't have weapons in space before Russia and China

Re:Not a Russia appologist but really?

[ScentCone]

And you seem to be thinking that there's no moral or practical distinction between totalitarian governments in Russia and China and the rest of the free world. If you can't get your moral relativism under control, there's no point even getting involved in the conversation.

Re:Not a Russia appologist but really?

[Anonymous Coward]

So US doesn't have ship based lasers that can shoot down satellites, right? Oh, wait, the article was on ./ within the last year. Too lazy to search for it.

Re: Not a Russia appologist but really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to think it's ok for you to mindlessly bomb innocent civilians for your vapid pretenses, while pretending to be offended at the slightest act of anybody criticizing your lack of genuine moral soundness.

Interesting. Should we pretend your shit doesn't stink as well?

Re:Not a Russia appologist but really?

[rickb928]

China did not 'shoot down' one of their satellites in 2007, they destroyed it in orbit. And they did so with technology not terribly advanced even in 2007.

The primary aftermath was a debris cloud that still is largely in orbit, and will probably pose a threat to various other objects over time. Indeed, debris is likely going to be an actual weapon type in space.

China certainly used space weapons in 2007. We are behind in only now focusing on space warfare.

Re:Not a Russia appologist but really?

[higuita]

what free world? the one there the president says that everything that he do not agree is fake news and boycott then (at least do not arrest then... for now), one where he fires everyone who disagree with him (even if he hire him a few months before saying he was perfect for the job), where he promises no wars but break a peace and anti-nuclear treaty because he wants to control the other country... and send all CAPS threats via twitter. Finally, the same president (administrative branch) that demands that the judicial branch to stop investigation about him? yes, that free world

Pro tip: they are all the same

Re:Not a Russia appologist but really?

[Enigma2175]

Sure, China deployed an antisatellite weapon in 2007 but the US has been working on weapons like that since the 1950s and has also destroyed satellites in orbit. To claim the US is "behind", at least in antisatellite weapons systems, is just simply wrong - they have a number of different antisatellite weapons in their arsenal.

The purpose of "Space Force" is simple, it's just another conduit for politicians to funnel public money to their cronies. This "news" is just propaganda to justify it. Nothing new.

Re:Not a Russia appologist but really?

[DarkOx]

Where did I draw any moral equivalence. I am speaking from a purely human nature action - reaction perspective. My main point is just that nobody should be surprised.

Re: Not a Russia appologist but really?

[WindBourne]

Why is America doing a space force? Because Russia/China are way ahead in space weapons.

Re: Not a Russia appologist but really?

[crimson tsunami]

X-37B

Re: Not a Russia appologist but really?

[WindBourne]

Yeah, basically a mini shuttle with no weapons on it. Otoh, Russia and your nation are putting up weapons.

Re: Not a Russia appologist but really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're adorable.

Re: Not a Russia appologist but really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any evidence for either claim supertroll?

Well Kent

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think a secret phase conjugate tracking system is for?

Re:Well Kent

[Anonymous Coward]

Listening to pirate FM radio?

Joke's on them

[belthize]

We have a Space Farce so ha.

new meaning to the term cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

also, Russia, we are gonna kick Uranus

Re: new meaning to the term cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

For the time being, your president is gladly licking it.

Re: new meaning to the term cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't project, cuck.

Re: new meaning to the term cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

For the time being, your president is gladly licking it.

The top always licks the bottom before fucking it.

Re: new meaning to the term cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

Donâ(TM)t worry, Comrade Trumpski has got this!

better send in 007

[Joe_Dragon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Why?

[stealth_finger]

Why, did they announce they were setting up a space force or some thing?

"counter"

[Anonymous Coward]

as in they getting prepared for exactly the stupid shit americans are doing cause they cant be trusted

Timely justification for the space force...

[dfn5]

But seriously, who came up with that name? Can't we instead call it the Star Force?

Re:Timely justification for the space force...

[msauve]

"who came up with that name?"

Some guy who's always wanted to be the top Space Cadet.

Re:Timely justification for the space force...

[Train0987]

I'm sure the name "Air Force" seemed silly when it was broken off from the Army to become it's own military branch in 1947.

Re:Timely justification for the space force...

[PPH]

who came up with that name?

Someone who wanted to earn another service patch

Re:Timely justification for the space force...

[Misagon]

No. Because the Space Force is not interstellar.

Re:Timely justification for the space force...

[Nidi62]

I'm sure the name "Air Force" seemed silly when it was broken off from the Army to become it's own military branch in 1947.

Not really. The RAF (Royal Air Force) had already existed since the end of WWI, and it a logical step to go from the Army Air Corps to simply Air Force. Space Force does sound like a name straight out of a campy 50's pop novel, though.

Re:Timely justification for the space force...

[Gilgaron]

We call 'em astronauts and cosmonauts when not one has been past the orbit of the moon, though...

Re:Timely justification for the space force...

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to call it the Federation!

Re: Timely justification for the space force...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now which president would have been reading campy 50's pop novels?

No wait, reading, sorry as you were.

but think of the tech that will come from this

[BlackOverflow]

We know that massive technological advances were made in the 1800's and 1900's due to each country one-upping the other on technology. In WWI, one country would make a plane that could go 200mph, their enemy would make one that went 215mph. If this is applied to space warfare, we would achieve lightspeed, antimatter weapons, and antigravity far sooner than we would otherwise.

Re:but think of the tech that will come from this

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry but this is like saying that medieval warfare will bring us dragons, eternal youth elixirs and the philosopher's stone.

Re: but think of the tech that will come from this

[Anonymous Coward]

great, as long as you donâ(TM)t care about millions (or billions) who died (will die) in the ensuing wars, ot damage to the one planet we have.

Made up names

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

The name "Yleem D.S. Poblete" sounds like the type of name a race of alien lizard people would choose as sounding nice and inconspicuous!

And that's coming from me!!

Re:Made up names

[cascadingstylesheet]

The name "Yleem D.S. Poblete" sounds like the type of name a race of alien lizard people would choose as sounding nice and inconspicuous! And that's coming from me!!

Like "John Bigboote" or "John Smallberries"?

Re:Made up names

[White Yeti]

It's an anagram for "Embed soy pellet".

(That's a lot of useful letters.)

Re:Made up names

[BrianMarshall]

It looks like an anagram.

Trump will protect us...

[Anonymous Coward]

...from the terrible secret of space, russia's SPACE WEAPONS. Some kind of top secrety WEAPON TECHMOLOGY!

cease fire stand down,, declare peace

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks again...

American hypocrisy

[aliquis]

Start a space war branch.
Whine that Russia for whatever related to war in space.

Make sense.

Also the agencies have no credibility for the stories they make up. Right now a top 10 video of militray plans which never happened is playing on my computer including CIA suggesting supporting American communists to attack the USA to put the blame on Cuba and make it possible to attack them.
It's happened so many times.

Of course Russia will make weapons for space war if the US do so.

We cannot allow a fake laser satellite gap!!!

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> United States voiced deep suspicion on Tuesday over Russia's pursuit of new space weapons, including a mobile laser system to destroy satellites in space

Clearly, the red-blooded Men of America cannot allow a fake laser satellite gap - open the nation's pocketbook now!!!

Re:We cannot allow a fake laser satellite gap!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it turns out that this satellite laser and interceptor system is actually meant to clean up garbage from the orbit. But since Russian words have always had an opposite meaning to the non-Russian readers, the Rationalization and Cleaning of the Orbital Environment program became Raiding and Pilfering Satellites with Maximum Chaos, Viking Style -program.

Russia is ready to respond to any provocation, but

[Anonymous Coward]

"Russia is ready to respond to any provocation, but the last thing the Russians want is another war. And that, if you like good news, is the best news you are going to hear."

A whiff of World War III hangs in the air. In the US, Cold War 2.0 is on, and the anti-Russian rhetoric emanating from the Clinton campaign, echoed by the mass media, hearkens back to McCarthyism and the red scare. In response, many people are starting to think that Armageddon might be nigh—an all-out nuclear exchange, followed by nuclear winter and human extinction. It seems that many people in the US like to think that way. Goodness gracious!
The curtain is falling on a country in serious trouble

But, you know, this is hardly unreasonable of them. The US is spiraling down into financial, economic and political collapse, losing its standing in the world and turning into a continent-sized ghetto full of drug abuse, violence and decaying infrastructure, its population vice-ridden, poisoned with genetically modified food, morbidly obese, exploited by predatory police departments and city halls, plus a wide assortment of rackets, from medicine to education to real estate That we know.

We also know how painful it is to realize that the US is damaged beyond repair, or to acquiesce to the fact that most of the damage is self-inflicted: the endless, useless wars, the limitless corruption of money politics, the toxic culture and gender wars, and the imperial hubris and willful ignorance that underlies it all This level of disconnect between the expected and the observed certainly hurts, but the pain can be avoided, for a time, through mass delusion.

This sort of downward spiral does not automatically spell "Apocalypse," but the specifics of the state cult of the US—an old-time religiosity overlaid with the secular religion of progress—are such that there can be no other options: either we are on our way up to build colonies on Mars, or we perish in a ball of flame. Since the humiliation of having to ask the Russians for permission to fly the Soyuz to the International Space Station makes the prospect of American space colonies seem dubious, it's Plan B: balls of flame here we come!

And so, most of the recent American warmongering toward Russia can be explained by the desire to find anyone but oneself to blame for one's unfolding demise. This is a well-understood psychological move—projecting the shadow—where one takes everything one hates but can't admit to about oneself and projects it onto another. On a subconscious level (and, in the case of some very stupid people, even a conscious one) the Americans would like to nuke Russia until it glows, but can't do so because Russia would nuke them right back. But the Americans can project that same desire onto Russia, and since they have to believe that they are good while Russia is evil, this makes the Armageddon scenario appear much more likely.

But this way of thinking involves a break with reality. There is exactly one nation in the world that nukes other countries, and that would be the United States. It gratuitously nuked Japan, which was ready to surrender anyway, just because it could. It prepared to nuke Russia at the start of the Cold War, but was prevented from doing so by a lack of a sufficiently large number of nuclear bombs at the time. And it attempted to render Russia defenseless against nuclear attack, abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, but has been prevented from doing so by Russia's new weapons. These include, among others, long-range supersonic cruise missiles (Kalibr), and suborbital intercontinental missiles carrying multiple nuclear payloads capable of evasive maneuvers as they approach their targets (Sarmat). All of these new weapons are impossible to intercept using any conceivable defensive technology. At the same time, Russia has also developed its own defensive capabilities, and its latest S-500 system will effectively seal off Russia's airspace, being able to intercept targets both close to

When Russia is the voice of reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange times.

With US touting the new space force, it is inevitable that others will follow. Faking Russiaâ(TM)s supposed space weapons seems like the only argument for the space force. But itâ(TM)s fake. Russia may have done research in this area during the cold war, but to say this is âoedisturbingâ while US openly forms a space force is hypocritical at best.

"Only we are allowed to weaponize space."

[Anonymous Coward]

if someone else does it, then they're bad people. Waaah-waaah-waaah. The corrupt, dishonest and hypocritical war-mongering shithole of America complaining again.

Re:"Only we are allowed to weaponize space."

[Nidi62]

if someone else does it, then they're bad people. Waaah-waaah-waaah. The corrupt, dishonest and hypocritical war-mongering shithole of America complaining again.

Let's really freak people out: We need a treaty that the only vessels allowed to be armed in space must be under the control of UN, staffed by a multinational crew and composed of a command crew made up primarily of people from each of the UNSC member states(for example French captain, Russian XO, American Chief engineer, Chinese Senior NCO, etc).

Re:"Only we are allowed to weaponize space."

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever, Comrade.

Re:"Only we are allowed to weaponize space."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, all hail our Expanse UN Overlords. That worked out just as well for them as I would expect it would work for us...

Re:"Only we are allowed to weaponize space."

[Hognoxious]

And don't forget the British cook.

No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[Anonymous Coward]

He asked intelligently, you failed to respond intelligently.

I can't tell the difference between someone with TDS and a paid writer on here, assuming you're the former - get a grip, you're acting like TDS has shut down your reasoning centres.

Re:No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[drinkypoo]

He asked intelligently, you failed to respond intelligently.

Point to the intelligent part of his comment. Even Trump's legal counsel has had to walk back from "no collusion" to "collusion is not a word in the code so it can't be a crime" which is, of course, a load of horse shit. We therefore know that there has been collusion, since they have shifted to attempting to justify it, and the only question is what the scope of the collusion was/is. Hence, anyone who has been paying attention knows that there was collusion. They claimed they were talking about adopting orphans, now they've admitted that was not the case, etc etc.

I can't tell the difference between someone with TDS and a paid writer on here,

I can't tell the difference between idiots who believe in TDS, and the paid writers they got the idea from, and neither can anyone else — especially when they post as AC. You could be anyone, including a sock puppet or a paid agitator, and you probably are.

Re: No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still stalling....

Re:No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[drinkypoo]

I can't tell the difference between someone with TDS and a paid writer on here, assuming you're the former - get a grip, you're acting like TDS has shut down your reasoning centres.

TDS is not even a thing, and you are acting like a pusillanimous wimp. Run along, now, coward. The adults have things to talk about.

Re: No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one.

Re:No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell the difference between idiots who believe in TDS, and the paid writers they got the idea from, and neither can anyone else — especially when they post as AC. You could be anyone, including a sock puppet or a paid agitator, and you probably are.

How is that any different than "drinkypoo?" You could be anyone, including a sock puppet or a paid agitator.

Everyone here knows that login accounts get more traction than anonymous ones. If you wanted to start a misinformation campaign, using AC posts would be a foolish waste of resources. The odds are, if there are any paid or otherwise serious agitators, they will have a user account. Probably an old one found via dumps of password username pairs leaked from elsewhere like the yahoo breach.

No, if you want to avoid being misled, apply less credulity to usernames. Particularly look into older ones with gaps in posting history. If you want to mislead, make a script to try old username password pairs until you get a hit, then start posting daily as that user.

Re:No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you say everyone knows there was collusion, id love to hear what was illegal that we know of so far.
Ive heard papadopoulos was offered knowledge of Clinton dirt, and while he was sketchy in his recollection of the exact dates a year later, there was no investigations into the Mifsud character or his connections. Rather, the FBI chose to bore into PapaD with a national security letter. While they did eventually interview Mifsud, he is still walking around a free man coming and going in and out of the US. Even mueller interviewed him 18 months after the meeting with PapaD. Papadopoulos even became an informant for Mueller in 2017 as part of his plea deal.

Carter Page was an FBI under cover informant for years, and helped prosecute Russians for espionage. His latest case ended in May 2016. He was the FBI's sar witness. Yet somehow he became a Russian double agent by october the same year, requiring a FISA warrant for a year. To date, no charges. Did deeper into the FISA warrant and you find legal jeopardy for the applicants.

Other campaign members probed by Stefan Halper, who was the FBI informant HUMINT working the case in the UK. Who didnt this guy invite to give speeches? Even Jill stein ended up giving a speech in the UK during his operations. And since the official opening of 'crossfire hurricane' was july 31, the FBI has yet to explain what Halper was doing contacting the Trump campaign .

And all of this predicated on Hillary's missing emails. The monumental nothing burger that matter not one bit, UNTIL George Papadopoulos is offered them by some stranger in a BAR. THEN the emails are a national security emergency and the FBI MUST spy on Papadopoulos. HORSE SHIT!

Collusion delusion shills need to stfu

 

Re:No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[drinkypoo]

How is that any different than "drinkypoo?" You could be anyone, including a sock puppet or a paid agitator.

My real name is right there in my gmail address at the top of every page. This account has persisted for many years. If you have some evidence that I am one of those things, present it.

Everyone here knows that login accounts get more traction than anonymous ones. If you wanted to start a misinformation campaign, using AC posts would be a foolish waste of resources.

Why? It's easy and cheap, and many people do take them seriously.

No, if you want to avoid being misled, apply less credulity to usernames.

Nonsense.

Re:No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[Anonymous Coward]

He asked intelligently

Indeed. Because when I see someone write "advisories" instead of "adversaries" I immediately think he's a potential Nobel candidate.

Re: No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[Anonymous Coward]

Carter Page was an FBI under cover informant for years, and helped prosecute Russians for espionage. His latest case ended in May 2016.

Let's see some references for that (from somewhere reputable, not consortiumnews or RT).

Re:No, you can't answer him, you have TDS

[Uberbah]

Even Trump's legal counsel has had to walk back from "no collusion" to "collusion is not a word in the code so it can't be a crime" which is, of course, a load of horse shit.

Russiagater's horse shit. Meeting with someone offering to give you information to use against an opponent is not and will never be a crime until an amendment is passed to overturn the Freedom of Association working in the 1st Amendment.

More to the point, why is anyone still trying to fuck this chicken long after it came out that Hillary Clinton not only "colluded" with foreign spies to influence a general election, but paid for the Steele Dossier for that very purpose.

The west ruined the Soviet Union economically

[Anonymous Coward]

Payback time.

What a load of shite

[nagora]

Firstly, why would I believe anything that the Trump administration says about anything?

Secondly, it's a bit handy this coming a few days after the pile of vomit in in the White House twitted about his great new Space Force and how it will "dominate" the world, isn't it? Almost as if the two announcements were connected.

Thirdly, what the hell should anyone about to be "dominated" by the US do? Sit and watch?

Trump is a disgrace to his mother's cunt.

The United States is desperate to justify its

[Anonymous Coward]

violation of the Outer Space Treaty, and it will stop at nothing to blame other people for this.

Fuck off, nobody believes a word of what the US says since the "Iraqi WMDs" and the "Arab Spring".

Of course, the Americans on Slashdot will play brainwashed as they do for the war crimes of the US during WWII, for example.

Good

[matt007]

It would be sad if only the US had a space force... I'm happy.

Such Confuse

[Anonymous Coward]

An unreliable US Administration's report on an unreliable Russian Administration.

Such confuse. Much uncomfort. Distilled disdain.

false flag

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe trump took a page out of bush's book with the iraq war. people are against Space Force, so lets make a threat to prove how much we need it!

Wait till Russia finds out Bitcoin is traceable

[WillAffleckUW]

We designed bitcoin to allow us to track down all of Putin's cash horde, worldwide.

Boy is he going to be surprised!

Re:Wait till Russia finds out Bitcoin is traceable

[iggymanz]

hahaha, he's not stupid enough to put money in that pyramid scam.

mmm, boy, time to buy some, it's getting cheap. hahahaha

Re:Oh, wait

[Anonymous Coward]

trump thought it was SPACE WHORES

White House KUK'D by Pooty Poot

[Anonymous Coward]

What a shithole country the USA has become since 1980.. ownedby canel fuckers and chinks, and jews, sponsoring global war for massive profit while turning their own country into a third-world shithole wherr even the children cant wait to shoot each other and themselves.

Thanks Reagan!

TL;DR

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you and your copy & paste

Re: No Money For Social Security

[Anonymous Coward]

Soooooo sorry we spent it all on SPACEFORCE(tm)!! which of course will destroy GPS, cel phones, weather forecasting, and of course any hope of humanity ever escaping President Pence's Holy Armageddon!
  - A Stable Genius, so said that drunk liar Doctor

Russia and China are not Prohibited

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia and China are not prohibited by any treaty from pursuing space weapons. The United States, however, is quite prohibited from putting any armaments in space, and Russia and China will pursue sanctions in a second the minute they find out the US is in violation of treaty.

Lol. China/Russia are both big in space

[WindBourne]

Both China and Russia are blowing big bucks on space weapons while claiming they want to stop it. What a joke.

Re:Lol. China/Russia are both big in space

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL at you thinking any other country has a military budget the size of the USA.

NASAhhh forgedaboutit.

[mjwx]

Or I dunno, forget about any notion of Republican Space Rangers and just use the organisation that's been successfully doing space travel and exploration for 60 years.

But that would mean some orange retard admitting he was wrong to de-fund them in the first place.

There isn't a need for a military presence in space, in fact it would be an expensive boondoggle.