Slashdot Mirror


Trump Directs Pentagon To Create Space Force Legislation for Congress (wsj.com)

President Donald Trump signed a directive on Tuesday that ordered the Department of Defense to create a Space Force as a sixth military branch. From a report: With a directive signed Tuesday, Mr. Trump was positioning the Space Force much as the Marine Corps fits into the Navy, officials said, with the result being lower costs and less bureaucracy. The plan would require congressional approval. Mr. Trump is to propose funding in his proposed 2020 budget, and spell out a goal of eventually establishing the Space Force as a separate military department, a senior administration official said. "Space, that's the next step and we have to be prepared," said Mr. Trump, who added that adversaries were training forces and developing technology. "I think we'll have great support from Congress."

The order Mr. Trump signed, Space Policy Directive 4, calls for a legislative proposal by the secretary of defense to establish a chief of staff of the Space Force within the Air Force. That officer would be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to an outline. There also be a new under secretary of defense for space to be appointed by the president. The proposal calls for the Space Force to organize, train and equip personnel to defend the U.S. in space, to provide independent military options for "joint and national leadership" and "enable the lethality and effectiveness of the joint force," according to the administration's outline.

259 comments

  1. May the Force be with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and also with you

  2. Maybe not a bad idea... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...at first, I wasn't thinking this was necessary at all.

    But with recent readings about how China really seems to be upping their space game, and apparently looking to set up a base on the moon, this actually might not be a bad idea.

    China is definitely doing military groundwork for space, and we don't want to be caught with our pants too far down.

    And this actually might boost conventional space progress for us...something we've lost over the past decades.

    If you have military $$ behind it, it might give the regular NASA stuff a boost too.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree it's a direction to take, but the name.. Space Force. I feel like I'm starting to live in a Mel Brooks film.

    2. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      I agree it's a direction to take, but the name.. Space Force. I feel like I'm starting to live in a Mel Brooks film.

      Agreed, or maybe like one of the old bad Japanese space movies....maybe with a lot of hand puppets in there in lieu of live actors.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China can't function without stealing. Us competing will only fuel them with IP to steal. They can't win if we don't play.

    4. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree it's a direction to take, but the name.. Space Force. I feel like I'm starting to live in a Mel Brooks film.

      Can't be a Mel Brooks film.

      Mel Brooks films make sense. And more importantly, they make fun of everybody, but with a special twist of using openly racist tropes to satirize racists.

      No way anyone can make a movie today with a black character saying, "Where de white women at?"

    5. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Air Force, Space Force. Would you rather call it the Space Navy? The Space Corps? The Space Guard?

    6. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      How about The Space Nutters?

    7. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      If you have military $$ behind it, it might give the regular NASA stuff a boost too.

      Why not just make a division in NASA responsible for defending us from "space" too. There would certainly be overlap between what NASA does/can do and what the Space Cadets will be doing.

      I don't think we're at a point justifying a whole new military division. Letting NASA have a few more responsibilities to monitor our "Space Defence Readiness" would be far more practical than creating more bureaucracy and institutions.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree it's a direction to take, but the name.. Space Force. I feel like I'm starting to live in a Mel Brooks film.

      Why? Air Force; Space Force. It's what the Russians called their agency (well, in Russian).

      When military airplanes became a mature part of warfare, it was time to split off the Army Air Core and make a new uniformed service. These days, the Air Force has a mature group within it that launches and uses spy satellites (and other secret missions). It's enough of a disjoint specialty that a new uniformed service makes sense.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I agree it's a direction to take

      It is a dumb direction to take. It will add an enormous layer of bureaucracy, with a new hierarchy going all the way to a four star general on the joint chiefs of staff and a top level political appointee as the "Secretary of Space". Every decision will traverse up that hierarchy, until the buck stops at the person least qualified to make it. The primary job of all the bureaucrats will be to deal with all the infighting and turf battles with both NASA and the USAF.

      As our space priorities shift to the military, expect big cutbacks on planetary exploration, deep space science, or anything beyond low earth orbit.

      Our militarization of space will compel our geopolitical adversaries to respond with their own buildup. The Chinese and Russian buildups will be used by the USSF (United States Space Force) to say "We told you so" and justify even bigger budgets in the future.

    10. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Donald Trump, he just wants to have some supposed accomplishment to crow over, there is no meaningful plan or purpose to it.

      Thanks to his obsession with status, we spent months trying to get him to shut up over his stupid plans for a Wall, our deficits are growing, and even Canada is laughing at us.

    11. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by lactose99 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why? Air Force; Space Force. It's what the Russians called their agency (well, in Russian).

      We have been getting a lot of direction in Washington from Russia as of late, seems legit.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    12. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space Marines

    13. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      How about Imperial MAGA Guard?

    14. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 0

      I agree it's a direction to take, but the name.. Space Force. I feel like I'm starting to live in a Mel Brooks film.

      Whether or not it's needed, or what it's role actually will be, I think the motivation behind this is vanity. The wall fell through, so he's falling back on his other vanity project. As such, the whole creation of the Space Force probably DOES belong in a Mel Brooks film. One could certainly adapt this ridiculous vanity into a comedy project.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    15. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Why not just make a division in NASA responsible for defending us from "space" too.

      Because NASA is an independent agency not part of the Department of Defense, and the military space budget is *already* larger than than NASA's budget.

    16. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Why not call it Star Fleet?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    17. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space Balls, obviously

    18. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Space Patrol, of course.

      http://nightflight.com/wp-cont...

      Gotta love the hats.

    19. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should defund nasa entirely. They are useless proponants of climate change and waste countliss dollars on other bullshit science too.

    20. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I'm nitpicker enough that I have to toss in this correction "Army Air Corps" (although it is pronounced "core"). In 1941 its was changed to "the Army Air Forces" and generally referred to as "the Air Force," though it would not become the "US Air Force" and an independent branch until 1947.

    21. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      But with recent readings about how China really seems to be upping their space game, and apparently looking to set up a base on the moon, this actually might not be a bad idea.

      Increasing military involvement in space, good idea. Separating military involvement in space from the air force, premature idea.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exploring space in general is a gigantic waste of money though. The world isn't in a post world war era where populations are low and easily cared for. The entirety of humanity has to learn to do that before it has any right to explore a baren, desolate, and massive interstellar space.

      The fact that it is being militarized is a direct result of not caring. And if you that not giving two shytes will stop with the capacity of more (or the right kind of) people being able to leave Earth, I've got news for you buttercup. That ain't happening.

    23. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be Earth Defense Force! EDF! EDF! EDF! EDF! EDF!

    24. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose is to claim parts of the moon so US corporations can start strip mining and exploiting it.
      Corporations cant go risking their money unless they get some of the mouth breathers to go and secure it first.

    25. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by lgw · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fuck me. Nothing but "Orage Man Bad" on Slashdot these days. Can't we fucking discuss the topic?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    26. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wall didn't fall through. He did what pretty much everyone predicted he would and declare a state of national emergency and is planning to use that to pull funds out of the defense budget (funding for planned new building earmarked in the military budget would no be spent but instead diverted towards building the wall).

      However, pretty much everything he does is vanity driven. Space exploration in and of itself is vanity driven for everyone pushing for it though. There is no need for it at all, and it could very well become the next means by which humanity brings itself to inhiliation. NEOs bumped to avoid hitting one country and diverted to another. Mining of a NEO causing collapse in markets that mined stuff on Earth used to have here alone. It is vanity and huge amounts of greed and thinking well, thinking like greedy people do and not prepping for the fallout and consequences of their actions.

      Want to get to the next nearest star to look for signs of life? Is it okay to mine and destroy half the Earth in order to get enough fuel to do so? What if that is the only way to do it? What if so much time, energy, and resources get put into exploring space that in order to continue surviving on Earth interstellar travel must be done?

      People are morons. They will burn down forests to make pastures. Destroy mountains to dig up coal. Shyte in their own beds to keep from having to deal with getting up and going to the bathroom. And they will do so without hesitation if they get paid for it. Idiots the lot of them.

    27. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck me. Nothing but "Orage Man Bad" on Slashdot these days. Can't we fucking discuss the topic?

      Trump's name is literally in the headline, and you're complaining that someone said something about Trump? You whine the internets.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by GoTeam · · Score: 1

      Though I've never thought of it before now, Air Force sounds pretty silly too. I guess when you grow up hearing it, you don't realize how funny some things sound.

    29. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes and no.

      Any bureaucracy is going to spring forth from any new entity created within government. That much is a given.

      However, the USAF can focus on everything in the atmosphere. Satellites (and let's not forget the two space shuttles the USAF has) can go to its own branch and not cause too much of an issue. With its own Chain, the Space Force can bypass the pilot-heavy-to-the-point-of-religion circle-jerk that Big Blue's chain of command has always been, and get its initiatives through without having to fight a metric shitload of "geez, can't we just buy a more expensive fighter instead?" officer corps.

      As it stands now, the only way to get around that is to have the project be a Black one, where it avoids having to deal with all the bullshit politics found in the normal channels (see also those two space shuttles I mentioned earlier.) With its own branch, they can set themselves up to be more efficient towards their own initiatives... which has the hopeful happy side effect of helping to expand human entry into space (and if not, at least helping NASA out a bit more, considering the near-starvation budgeted political plaything that NASA has become.)

      Incidentally, there is still that little treaty every superpower signed back in the 1960s that prohibits (physical) weaponization of space, so any new initiatives will have to have a reconnaissance role, or at least a veneer of peaceful human/scientific endeavor.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    30. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by taustin · · Score: 2

      For those of us who grew up reading science fiction, the "Space Force" should be called "The Navy," with the existing navy changed to "The Wet Navy."

    31. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      TDS is rampant here.

      Yes, Trumpanistas who drank the orange kool-aid are everywhere. Oh, is that not what you meant? Maybe you meant that Trump is deranged?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      I'll bet that Dave Chappelle could get away with it.

      After all, this is the man who brought us Clayton Bigsby...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    33. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by thereddaikon · · Score: 3, Informative

      A lot of people who are ignorant about the issue give it flak because Trump has been publicly pushing for the Space Force. Truth is this is not a new idea and is one that a lot of very qualified military leaders, policy makers and analysts have talked about for well over a decade. Further more both China and Russia have operational equivalents in place. So this is a serious and real thing. Not some weird Sci-Fi dream. It's not space marines in power armor conquering planets. Its not Star Trek with ships flying around. Its first and foremost a more sensible way to manage mil space infrastructure with a shorter and dedicated chain of command. It's budget will no longer be cannibalized for terrestrial Air Force projects. And moving forward they will be better prepared to defend our satellites. China and Russia both are working on small disposable satellites that can be used to disabled others. Shooting one down with a missile is fine and all but makes a big mess and threatens Kessler Syndrome. The new threats can disable our satellites without making such a mess. It would deny space to us but leave it open to our enemies. One of the chief complains placed on the Air Force has been their total neglect in dealing with these new threats. So like it or not, Trump is right here. The Space Force is a good idea and one the country needs.

    34. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Zorro · · Score: 1

      Colonial Marines so to match Aliens.

    35. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given we abandoned the treaty to not use weapons in space, this is the only alternative, unless we go back to agreeing to that treaty...but going to that treaty wouldn't cost us any money, so forget that choice! Make American corporations wealthy again!

    36. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's do that then. How will this new force be funded? What will be their mission? Doesn't the airforce already have this covered? Will the Pentagon become the Hexagon?

      We know the funding won't come from new taxes. A lot of political capital was spent getting taxes lowered. So where is the money going to come from? Will we dimish our existing capcilities on land, sea, and air? This would be a pretty short sighted way of funding a new space force because our enemies aren't in space for the most part, except for some defenseless satellites. Now that we have that said, is an entire space force necessary? Traditionally the air force has had this covered. Seems like we could have necessary defenses with a specialized unit without the overhead of an entire military branch.

    37. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      "Why? Air Force; Space Force"

      So lets rename the coast guard "Coast Force" the Navy, "Water Force", and the Army "Ground Force" right?

      A couple hundred years of both Science and Science Fiction from NASA to Star Wars to Star Trek to Asimov's Foundation to Warhammer 40k to Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama to Jules Verne's From Earth to the Moon to 1970s Space lego, and Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers comic strips -- we've pretty solidly settled on space craft and space travel being like to ships, not planes.

        A naval equivalent or metaphor would be much more natural sounding.

      "When military airplanes became a mature part of warfare, it was time to split off the Army Air Core and make a new uniformed service. These days, the Air Force has a mature group within it that launches and uses spy satellites (and other secret missions). It's enough of a disjoint specialty that a new uniformed service makes sense."

      Strongly disagree. There is no mature manned presence, no weapons to speak of, no unique and complex theatre, no combat personnel. Its a logistics and support team. Sure its quite specialized. But so is literally everything else.

    38. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because we are not space commies.

    39. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by lgw · · Score: 1

      We don't have a space navy, nor will we any time soon. We do have a lot of military satellites.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    40. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Funny sounding it may be, but we're not the only ones to use it. There's been a "Royal Air Force" since 1918.

    41. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      "We do have a lot of military satellites."

      Exactly. Satellites -- which are basically just radios and cameras slowly falling back to earth. We hardly need a whole new uniformed and separately chartered division of the armed forces to manage that.

      It's got less going on then the internet based electronic warfare "cyber warfare" (and we don't need a separately chartered cyber force either).

    42. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by dfn5 · · Score: 1

      Why? Air Force; Space Force. It's what the Russians called their agency (well, in Russian).

      I've always been partial to Star Force. Is it too late?

      --
      -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    43. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by lgw · · Score: 2

      How will this new force be funded? What will be their mission? Doesn't the airforce already have this covered?

      Yes, space operations are currently part of the Air Force. They will be split off. I expect they'll be quite small at first, like our other small uniformed services (NOAA and USPHS). It will continue to grow over time, though.

      Traditionally the air force has had this covered. Seems like we could have necessary defenses with a specialized unit without the overhead of an entire military branch.

      Perhaps so, but amateurs almost always guess wrong about questions of military logistics, so I'll avoid guessing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    44. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by lgw · · Score: 1

      It will grow though, as launch costs continue falling. I don't know that it needs to be it's own branch, but it's not a crazy idea, any more than the Coast Guard.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    45. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to militarize firefighters and then everything will change when the Fire Force attacks.

    46. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoealthough it is pronounced "core"

      Not if youâ(TM)re Obama.

    47. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by gtall · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they could grab up those unused Star Wars storm trooper uniforms.

    48. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Given the budget deficit and the last tax giveaway and the demographics for SS and Medicare, expect deep cuts in everything. The Democrats are pushing Medicare for all, they'll be lucky to keep Medicare as it is. The only thing that might fund Medicare for all is totally restructuring U.S. medical care. While that isn't a bad idea, it isn't a real idea because no one knows how to do that without a massive disruption and sending the Blue Haired out into the streets. The Me Generation want their pie and they want it now.

    49. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to militarize firefighters and then everything will change when the Fire Force attacks.

      The US Navy has highly militarized fire fighting. Its one of the reasons our ships tended to survive in WW2.

    50. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Trump's idea of a Space Force isn't your idea of a Space Force. His is more akin to playing with plastic soldiers.

    51. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually it may also make sense to transfer Strategic Command (US nuclear missiles) to the Space Force, giving them a significant share of responsibility (rather than being tiny compared to the Air Force), and allowing better role separation (Space Force takes care of strategic launches, while Air Force is tailored for tactical, rapid response action).

      Especially since in the 21st century, even in the even of a major war, we're not going back to WWII style massive strategic carpet bombing with conventional weapons - either things are contained enough for tactical strikes, or we break out the nukes.

    52. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you rather call it the Space Navy?

      Yes. It sounds a hell of a lot better than "Space Force" which is simultaneously too derivative of the Air Force and too generic.

    53. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Its first and foremost a more sensible way to manage mil space infrastructure with a shorter and dedicated chain of command.

      You can have that by promoting everyone currently involved in mil space infrastructure, and having the person at the top start reporting directly to the commander-in-KFC.

      It's budget will no longer be cannibalized for terrestrial Air Force projects.

      Easily done by congress declaring how the money shall be spent. Also easily undone by congress declaring how the money shall be spent. So no, there's no guarantees there.

      And moving forward they will be better prepared to defend our satellites.

      Still no need for a separate branch for that.

      One of the chief complains placed on the Air Force has been their total neglect in dealing with these new threats.

      No it isn't.

      Everything else you said was irrelevant, and everything relevant that you said was wrong.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a dumb faggot who never served, we know that.

    55. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that health care is currently being paid for in the US, right? How does it become unaffordable just because it gets a "Medicare for All" label on it?

      Especially when private insurers eat up >7% more in overhead than Medicare.

    56. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After reading your comment, it's obvious that this is a bad idea.

    57. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by bcraigen · · Score: 1

      What happen to Star-Fleet ???

    58. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Of all his dumb ideals this is the one I want to succeed the most.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    59. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do know Canada has been laughing at you since 1812 right?

    60. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by sheramil · · Score: 1

      I've always been partial to Star Force. Is it too late?

      (angrily) You can call it "Star Force" when you can send it to the stars. Until then, you might want to contain your hubris and just call it "Planet Force", or perhaps "Near Earth Force", or just "Fifty Mile High Club".

    61. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Imperial Marine Space Navy Force Corps
      - or -
      compuhyperglobalmeganet works too.

    62. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Shyte in their own beds to keep from having to deal with getting up and going to the bathroom.

      Citation needed. No, your home videos won't be good enough.

    63. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      You mean back when Canada was just a colony of Great Britain?

    64. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      You farted.

    65. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just one?

    66. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by RedK · · Score: 1

      The Imperial Church MAGArd has a ring to it. Who better to sit atop the Throne-Temple Arcology Complex than the God Emperor himself.

      Now there's a Globalization project people could rally behind. Globalization, American Imperialism style.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    67. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “Let's skip [Imperial Space Marines] tradition for a moment. Can you think of anything sillier than being fired out of a spaceship with nothing but mayhem and sudden death at the other end? However, if someone must do this idiotic stunt, do you know a surer way to keep a man keyed up to the point where he is willing than by keeping him constantly reminded that the only good reason why men fight is a living, breathing reality?
      "In a mixed ship [men and women] the last thing a trooper hears before a drop (maybe the last word he ever hears) is a woman's voice, wishing him luck. If you don't think this is important you've probably resigned from the human race.”
        Robert A. Heinlein, Space Force

      "Johnny Rico: Someone asked me once if I knew the difference between a civilian and a citizen. I know now. A citizen has the courage to make the safety of the human race their personal responsibility. Dizzy was my friend. She was a soldier. But most important, she was a citizen of the Federation."

      "We want YOU! ... In space"

      "Civilians" are neither discriminated against, nor deprived of legal rights other than that of the ballot. Several examples from the book bear this out, particularly the fact that Juan Rico's family is prosperous and lacks for nothing save the right to vote (which Rico's father regards as "useless" anyway).

      "A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life, a civilian does not." - Johnny Rico while student

      "A citizen has the courage to make the safety of the human race their personal responsibility." - Johnny Rico after weeks of military service.

      "Service guarantees Citizenship"

      We'r OFF to fight the (black) aliiiiens... and maybe some nasty bugs...

      the hug your face, they eat your toes, they chop your face, but you gotta remember your wovs

      look at the xeno, he is grean (or purple) and mean... he will chop your liver, so you better deliver

      on your tail, killer robots will take you, but if you fail then we will sue

      you must serve, if you have the nerve... get your citizenship and dont you quit

      we build a wall, high and tall

      CAPTCHA: rights

    68. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't have a space navy, nor will we any time soon. We do have a lot of military satellites.

      sure...and NASA being an empty shell that is not even a shadow of its former self, AREA 51, UFO secrecy, surveilance, the testemonies of many high ranking officials, video and photo evidence, leaked official documents, project bluebook, the norfolk incident, NAZI UFOs, Roswell, the secret and not so secret experimental aircrafts, black budget, agencies, the pictures from the moon that are supposedly altered at NASA, the hacker that found some evidence plus the new space force is in no way strongly indicating that a secret black budget CIA operated US space fleet is the actual space program being pursued? ...either the US is lying about the space force OR it really IS JUST the pathetic NASA along with a MASSIVE conspiracy to make it seem like the US is hiding aliens from us... I mean at this point ESA is cooler than NASA...

      IF I look at the evidence that anyone can find freely available... what is more likely... that a massive conspiracy made up of ordinary people are trying to make it look like the US is covering up secrets

      OR

      a massive conspiracy inside the US goverment branches that IS hiding and covering up secrets, exactly like regular folk along with officials have been saying all along....

      the best way to hide something, is to hide it in plain sight... atleast the US will be able to colonize other worlds when this world has become destroyed by climate change

    69. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      Air Force, Space Force. Would you rather call it the Space Navy? The Space Corps? The Space Guard?

      Space Fleet, boldly to go.

    70. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by thereddaikon · · Score: 1
      If you are going to say I'm wrong then you need to back it up with facts.This all dates back to the Rumsfeld commission in 2001. Congress mandated that Donald Rumsfeld, then SecDef investigate the future of mil space. Their specific recommendations were to separate mil space duties into a space corps under the airforce and then later to make it a separate branch. This is all public information and the full report is available. https://aerospace.csis.org/wp-... It's a very good report, makes strong and sensible arguments for a space force that are still relevant today and even recognized the growing important of commercial space in 2001 before SpaceX was a household name. To directly quote the report

      The U.S. is more dependent on space than any other nation. Yet, the threat to the U.S. and its allies in and from space does not command the attention it merits from the departments and agencies of the U.S. Government charged with national security responsibilities. Consequently, evaluation of the threat to U.S. space capabilities currently lacks priority in the competition for collection and analytic resources. Failure to develop credible threat analyses could have serious consequences for the United States. It could leave the U.S. vulnerable to surprises in space and could result in deferred decisions on developing space-based capabilities due to the lack of a validated, well-understood threat.....The ability to restrict or deny freedom of access to and operations in space is no longer limited to global military powers. Knowledge of space systems and the means to counter them is increasingly available on the international market.

      This was a clearly recognized threat 18 years ago.

      A Space Corps within the Department of the Air Force may be an appropriate model in its own right or a useful way station in the evolution toward a Space Department. One model is the Army Air Force’s relationship to the Army during World War II. Existing Air Force space forces, facilities, units and personnel, and military space missions could be transferred to a Corps. A Space Corps could have authority for acquisition and operation of space systems, perhaps to include both DoD and Intelligence Community systems, while leveraging existing Air Force logistics and support functions. Alternative approaches might be modeled after the relationship of the Marine Corps to the Department of the Navy. A Space Corps would have many of the same advantages and disadvantages of a Space Department. However, unlike a Space Department, a Corps within the Air Force would not eliminate the competition for resources between air and space platforms that exists within the Air Force today. Nor would it by itself alleviate the concerns of other Services and agencies over Air Force space resource allocations.

      And there is the recommendation. Form a space corps and then transition to a separate department.

      You can have that by promoting everyone currently involved in mil space infrastructure, and having the person at the top start reporting directly to the commander-in-KFC.

      I can tell you've never been in the military or worked as a civilian contractor even. It doesn't work that way and your pointless and lame joke shows you are just another moron who can't see past Trump. Orange Man Bad! Amirite?

      Easily done by congress declaring how the money shall be spent. Also easily undone by congress declaring how the money shall be spent. So no, there's no guarantees there.

      Once again you show your ignorance. Congress already does that. What, do you think the military budget is a blank check? Of course not, its all earmarked. And the generals find ways to spend it on what they want anyways. I recommend you read Pentagon Wars, its a good account of how it works in the real world. It was made into a hilarious movie too but I'd re

    71. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by thereddaikon · · Score: 1

      But that's only because authors had a very specific idea of what space combat would look like. And for some reason they imagined large ships fighting in a line of battle like at Trafalgar. Space combat will look nothing like that. Any relation to the terrestrial navy is silly. What looks cool in fiction usually doesn't pan out in real life.

    72. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice comment and link. Thank you.

    73. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I agree it's a direction to take, but the name.. Space Force. I feel like I'm starting to live in a Mel Brooks film.

      Perhaps Republican Space Rangers would be better?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    74. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the space movies, maybe the best way is to get rid of the term "space". Other options:

      Orbital marines
      Aeronautical force
      Astro force
      Stellar forces
      Helio force
      Exosphere marines
      Heavenly raiders (is that bad?)

    75. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like it!

    76. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "no mature manned presence, no weapons to speak of, no unique and complex theatre, no combat personnel."

      1. Has been lagging so it needs focus, therefore a new military branch. Did someone say the same thing about putting men in the air before there was an army air corps? Other countries are going there, we need to also or else we will have a huge disadvantage in war

      2. No weapons - wrong, even a small rock can be a weapon in space when you hurl it at a defenseless satellite... but even if you were correct, we need improvement here, therefore a new military branch

      3. You don't think space is unique and complex in comparison to ground, air, or sea? It's ok, that's why you're not the general that's going to oversee this effort...

      4. Obviously the goal of creating a new military service is to develop the military personnel to do the job ... It's like saying why build a toaster because you don't have any toasts yet

      Only regret here is that Trump is doing it... Anyone want to guess if the multi billion dollar appropriation for this thing also happens to include funding for a wall to protect the new space facilities from immigrants?

    77. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Make Astronauts Get Armaments?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    78. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      "Zero-G.I.s"?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    79. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by dougdonovan · · Score: 0

      a name is a name that can and probably will be changed in the future. a 6th branch of military supporting space / universe is definately thinking out of the Box no matter who started it or when.

    80. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Renaissance+Slacker · · Score: 1

      True, but like a Navy and not an Army, a Space Force will be operating out of discrete ships and bases, fighting other ships and attacking stationary targets. Of course someday there will be specially-trained combat troops who are transported to various targets to take and hold, which will need to be called something different ... the Space Force Army? Or instead of âoeMarines,â âoeVacuum Army Corpsâ (VACs)?

    81. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its actually closer to the truth than not, form follows concept

    82. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Renaissance+Slacker · · Score: 1

      It might not be long before China or Russia decides that since they planted flags at the lunar poles they own all the ice. Russia is already dropping sea floor markers in the Artic to map out geographic claims to sea floor.

    83. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Renaissance+Slacker · · Score: 1

      You bring up a point here - by creating a âoeSpace Forceâ aligned with the military, we could be putting a threatening shine on what could be innocent activities. If NASA launches a satellite, and the Space Force launches one, which makes you more nervous hanging in the sky?

    84. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you would call them Guardians of the Galaxy, natch.

    85. Re: Maybe not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of these movies are from the perspective of white American males. Hollywood has realized that they can make a whole lot more money by not pandering to this group exclusively. You should try spending more.

    86. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A veteran once told me that his paybook said "Army Air Corps" throughout WWII. Apparently, the Army Air Corps was the people, and the Army Air Force was the organization. In WWII, the Army Air Force operated pretty much independently from the Army Ground Forces. Patton pleaded for the Navy to send escort carriers to cover the Sicily landings, because the Navy fliers were much more cooperative.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    87. Re:Maybe not a bad idea... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Good responses.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  3. PEW PEW PEW! by Thud457 · · Score: 0

    Bless his heart...

    "No bucks, no Buck Rogers"

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:PEW PEW PEW! by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      "Bless his heart"

      I've been to the American South.

      That's how they say "Fuck Him". :)

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    2. Re:PEW PEW PEW! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "Bless his heart"
      I've been to the American South.
      That's how they say "Fuck Him". :)

      Almost. "Bless his heart" means "he's dumb as shit". "Bless him" is how they say "fuck him".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:PEW PEW PEW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And drinking poo means.....

  4. National Emergency! by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can Trump declare another National Emergency?

    Maybe, now that national emergencies can be handed out like candy and resources reallocated from their intended porpoises to other species.

    A Space Force could help to build the new Donaldson Sphere.

    A Donaldson Sphere is a mega structure that surrounds the earth. Sort of a planetary wall. To keep aliens out. And make the aliens pay for it.

    But it has secondary benefits. While it would keep out all sunlight from the earth, this would result in the need to burn more clean coal for energy. All of those left wing liberal solar panels aren't going to work so well with a Donaldson Sphere protecting the planet from sunlight.

    It's a great plan! What could go wrong? It's a fantastic use of resources. The best resources. The most brilliant plan, I tell you. Trust me. People call all the time saying that we should build the Donaldson Sphere. Believe me. It would be the biggest bestest project that shows how great American truly is.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:National Emergency! by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can we please stop having these content-free "Orange Man Bad" posts on Slashdot? Address the idea on it's merit. This isn't even an argument laced with ad hominum attacks, it's just an anti-Trump rant. It's about as useful as a GNAA post.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol fag

    3. Re:National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolute numbers don't tell us much ... how many of those national emergencies were fabricated out of made up facts to do an end run around Congress?

    4. Re:National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNAA posts are at least entertaining.

    5. Re:National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not as long as the Bad Orange Man keeps having thought-free outbursts that fuck up and negatively affect everyday life for people and make no sense due to their extreme idiocy.

      As long as those poor decisions affect us, they will be reported here for all to point and laugh at. Maybe something will change, probably not, but at least we'll have a good laugh along the way.

      Plus the salt in GOP's fake tears are the sweetest treat of all!

    6. Re:National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolute numbers don't tell us much ... how many of those national emergencies were fabricated out of made up facts to do an end run around Congress?

      From the other presidents, how many are US security emergencies and how many are not even for the US but just the US messing with other countries!

    7. Re: National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presidents have been using national emergencies to direct spending for all kinds of crap since Gerald Ford in the 70s and Obama was no exception. This isnt new. The liberals and mainstream media just have selective memory for obvious reasons.

    8. Re:National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classic "whataboutism" at its best.

      And what about Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and W (a.k.a. the shrub)?

      Pretty sure neither Bubba nor Obama went golfing during the emergencies they declared. Do you even know? Or are you just here to stir up the hornet's nest. Maybe I should call you Boris? Or is it Dmitri? Or Vladymir?

      Go crawl back under your bridge, troll.

    9. Re:National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      70,000 a year dead from fentanol not a problem

      A lie. Total drug overdose deaths in 2017 was 70K[1]. And BTW, it's spelled Fentanyl. The actual number of fentanyl deaths for 2016 was under 20K[2].

      49,000 US citizens violently attacked by illegals not a problem

      Another lie? Got a source for that number? I mean besides Trump and Breitbart?

      Stopping people from killing live born babies because "its my body" and the baby has nothing to do with your body at that point. Problem!

      And still another lie. Ask any Obstetrician. Nobody is killing live born babies. Maybe in some sick fantasy of yours they are.

      Yea, you will have to excuse me for thinking you are a fucking out of control moron with no common sense. Keep pushing your side to complete idiocy like you have accomplished, I wouldn't mind seeing Trump repeat Regan's 49 state win for reelection.

      Don't let the facts hit you on the way out.
       

      [1] https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates

      [2] https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/fentanyl-other-synthetic-opioids-drug-overdose-deaths

    10. Re:National Emergency! by stinerman · · Score: 1

      No.

    11. Re:National Emergency! by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Maybe, now that national emergencies can be handed out like candy

      Not sure if retarded or merely pretending

    12. Re:National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we please stop giving the orange ape actual real bad ideas that he might implement? I watched Idiocracy a few years ago. That movie isn't funny anymore. It was funny when it was making fun of a non-existent reality. Not funny when it literally is what we have to see every day of our lives.

      Donaldson Sphere seems like a funny wacky idea, until I have to read about how orange ape is actually planning to do that next year or some BS like that.

    13. Re:National Emergency! by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Anything that fucks up and negatively affects everyday life for government bureaucrats is okay by a lot of us.

    14. Re:National Emergency! by jennatalia · · Score: 0

      Dyson Sphere

    15. Re:National Emergency! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Ad hominem.

      It's not a good idea to repeat in writing things you've heard grown-ups say.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:National Emergency! by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      Yes! This sounds like a great investment!

      Fight aliens and foreign countries that are attacking our satellites: $many_trillions
      Fight election interference: $0

    17. Re:National Emergency! by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that's you Seth Myers. I just want to say, on behalf of the intelligent world, don't beat yourself up; we understand and appreciate you were doing what we all thought was the right thing.

    18. Re:National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now that national emergencies can be handed out like candy

      That's been the case for a while. There's a national emergency from Carter in 1979 that's still active. Obama declared twelve national emergencies, of which ten are still active. Trump has declared four so far, so he's about on track to match Obama.

    19. Re:National Emergency! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      A Dyson Sphere is a mega structure built around a star.

      A Donaldson Sphere is a mega structure built around the Earth. To keep the aliens out. To protect the Earth from sunlight.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    20. Re:National Emergency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as we stop having Orange Fan Sad posts like yours.

  5. Should be easy enough... by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the Pentagon can find an underused broom closet to hang the Space Force sign on.

    1. Re:Should be easy enough... by lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sure the Pentagon can find an underused broom closet to hang the Space Force sign on.

      You do understand the the Air Force has a large group of people who launch and use spy satellites, right? (And other secret payloads we could speculate about). This isn't some futuristic Space Marines thing - this is an existing set of specialties with the Air Force, that has little in common with the other stuff the Air Force does.

      The Russian Space Force also operates their early warning radar stations and some similar Cold War stuff. That overlaps enough with core Air Force specialties that I'm not sure it makes sense to split that off, but all the satellite stuff is clear.

      As launch costs come down (and they've plummeted in the past decade), I rather expect the military will be doing a lot more with satellites.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Should be easy enough... by fat+man's+underwear · · Score: 0

      "You do understand the the Air Force has a large group of people who launch and use spy satellites, right?"

      Strange. That's socialism at work right there. I guess socialism is OK when it benefits large corporations. As long you get crumbs, right?

      You are a weird WEIRD person.

    3. Re:Should be easy enough... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      You do understand that is a reference to the "Stargate Command" sign that has been placed on a broom closet in the real-life Cheyenne Mountain complex, right?

    4. Re:Should be easy enough... by lgw · · Score: 1

      WTF are you on about? I can't even follow what you're trying to say. "Socialism == Military"? Wut?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Should be easy enough... by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      You do understand the the Air Force has a large group of people who launch and use spy satellites, right?

      You mean the same Air Force that has a broom closet with a Stargate Command sign at NORAD to keep the tourists happy?

      This isn't some futuristic Space Marines thing

      I expect the Navy to be resonponsible for Space Marines and navel warships in space.

    6. Re:Should be easy enough... by fat+man's+underwear · · Score: 2

      Yes. The military is a socialist outfit. Do you not see this?

      Tell me, where does the military get its money from? Who competes with the military? Where is the market pressure?

      So why do you disparage socialism? You love your military and its silly toys? But you have a problem with roads and water?

      "I can't even follow what you're trying to say. "

      Your sig is barely better.

      "Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians"

      What lie? Which totalitarians? My Canadian health care is socialized, it's a lie? I'm a fool for having a medicare card so I can be rolled into a hospital?

      I don't get you or your sig.

    7. Re:Should be easy enough... by lgw · · Score: 1

      "Socialism" is not the only alternative to anarchy, as you seem to suggest. Socialism is the extreme. A government building roads has nothing to do with socialism - it's just a government program. When everyone shoveling asphalt works for the government, and private roads are forbidden, that's a socialist program.

      Did someone actually teach you that "socialism" is just another word for government? The mind boggles.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Should be easy enough... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I would expect the Marines would be quite upset at the suggestion that the Navy is responsible for any sort of Marines. But I doubt it will come up this century.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Should be easy enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the Pentagon can find an underused broom closet to hang the Space Force sign on.

      No, no, the Janitor uses that and would be embarrassed. The sign goes on the Unisex "Family" bathroom near the Ground Zero Café.

    10. Re:Should be easy enough... by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      Marines, also known as naval infantry, are typically an infantry force that specializes in the support of naval and army operations at sea and on land and air, as well as the execution of their own operations. In many countries, the marines are an integral part of that state's navy. In others, it is a separate organization altogether, such as in the United States, where the Marine Corps falls under the US Department of the Navy, yet it operates independently (and similarly the UK's Royal Marines come under Her Majesty's Naval Service). Marines can also fall under a country's army like the Troupes de marine (French Marines) and Givati Brigade (Israeli Marines).

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

    11. Re:Should be easy enough... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The US Marines have a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But perhaps you're splitting hairs finer than I care to.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Should be easy enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      _,--=#[The Post CRIMER aka The Original CDR aka Crash Dummy Redux doesn't want you to read!!!]#=--,_ 1)Why-are-people-upset-with-him? 2)What-can-I-do 3)What-are-his-names 4)Who-is-FatCashewsLovesMe 5)How-to-defeat-his-hustles 6)Why-are-there-dashes 7)Pastebin-Copy

      1)Why-are-people-upset-with-himHe makes frequent low quality posts for two reasons:
      Money) BASICALLY: He made thousands of shitty posts & bragged about how much money it made him.
      DETAILS: He wants u to folow his referer links & pick up his cookie. Even if u dont buy what he linked but do buy something else from that site later on he often makes money;He ALSO tries to drive TRAFFIC to his various BLOGS & vlogs.
      Karma)He believes karma acumulates infinitely So he makes lots of pointles posts that r not bad enough to mod down;hoping they wil get moded up;He was a raging ahole when he thoght he had a karma surplus

      2)What-can-I-do DOWNMOD u wil usually get more mod points. If he is postng from a new sock acount w/ krma, get his oldst posts first. DOWNMOD him and AC in fresh thrads early on;Metmods wil reward u. METAMOD his posts. REPLY ONLY ANONYMOUSLY to the most deeply nested coments in his threds it helps hide his posts. Dwnvote his SUBMISSIONS, he uses to get krma. REPORT HIM to slshdot & the afiliate progrms he is usng. DONT MENTION his brand names c**mer.

      3)What-are-his-namesMost famous:The Original CDR, Cre|mer Cdre|mer ILoveFatCashews, Anonymous Cashews, The Fat Bastard aka TCDR

      4)Who-is-FatCashewsLoveMe AKA Tardu Lardo,FCLM Funny & anoying; Not me or crimer;He keeps lookout for infestation

      5)How-can-I-avoid-his-hustles --===DONT FOLLOW HIS LINKS!!!===--
      IF YOU MUST:Use a privte tab & nevr buy anything on the same sesion. If he fools u, close tab, cler the cookies for that site. There r sites other than yutube that wil let u watch his videos. I dont know if people view his contnt but I can pictre his jowls jigling at the thoght of people subvrting his business model
      6)Why-are-there-dashes & weird stuffI know most only skim thse posts. I want the most imprtnt infrmton to pop out at a glnce & to keep it shrt. I dont use TCDRs name becase he may think tht he benfits from geting it indxed by serch engnes. Id like 2 thnk TCDR & FCLM for editrial advice

      7)Copy: http://archive.is/TtDrY

    13. Re:Should be easy enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up, you big fifty year old childish Funko Poops retard!

    14. Re:Should be easy enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't waster your time arguing with creimer please. He is a renowned worldwide broom closet expert!

    15. Re:Should be easy enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    16. Re:Should be easy enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, but, but..

      creimer IS the janitor.

    17. Re:Should be easy enough... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      ..you do realise that the Army, Navy and Civilian Federal agencies also have Spy Satellites ... in fact more than the Air Force because they have the least use for them ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    18. Re:Should be easy enough... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Socialism wouldn't have to forbid private roads. There were no laws against setting up your own business in the later Soviet Union (I'm not as familiar with the workings of the earlier USSR). You just couldn't hire an employee.

      Of course, when everyone shoveling asphalt works for a worker-owned company without interference from the government, that's also socialism.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. Wandering stars, in blackest darkness forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

    Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
    It has blood on it!
    ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
    Losing my religion

  7. I wonder if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there will also be a Space Cadet Corps.

  8. Finally ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... a career path for all the space cadets.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. Probably a good idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    We will have a manned outpost on the Moon soon, and Musk will have his Mars colony up and running soon too. It is time to start thinking about this. Also, once we put factories in space they will need to be defended.

    1. Re:Probably a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes this is very true
      it is obvious the species must get off this rock full of water and air
      it is good to see there are intelligent people who worry about the future of the entire species thousands of years into the future
      and have real practical solutions to offer
      you know things like space elevators replicators and asteroid mines

    2. Re:Probably a good idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Trust me. You don't want to be on this rock stuck in a gravity well once the killer asteroid hits.

    3. Re:Probably a good idea by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's not what the Space Force is.

      And you seem very overly pessimistic about the New Space Race. Bezos and Musk seem quite determined to reduce launch costs, especially for manned missions, so much that it's a change in kind. They have a good track record so far. IIRC, SpaceX had more successful launches last year (21) than all the other US launchers and Russia combined. And Bezos has personal wealth that exceed the budget of the Apollo program, if he really wants to make this happen.

      We saw almost no progress for 20-30 years in rocketry because of the Shuttle, but it's a new century now. The primary factor in launch cost is rocket re-usability, and both SpaceX and Blue Origin has already demonstrated game-changing numbers. SpaceX's "Starship", if it delivers, will be another 10x reduction in launch costs, to the point where all sorts of things start making financial sense to do in space.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Probably a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes you are right
      i want to be in ingrav heaven
      floating in a zero-g bliss while my bones dissolve and my DNA alters as I forage for mushrooms growing in the mars caves
      so much better than being on this rock

    5. Re:Probably a good idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The reason we haven't colonized the galaxy yet is because of launch costs. And China had 35 launches last year, so they must be ahead of everyone.

    6. Re:Probably a good idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You are probably one of those guys who said we shouldn't colonize the New World. Or said that humans will never fly. But look around: Musk has reduced launch costs by over 20%! The future is now.

    7. Re:Probably a good idea by fat+man's+underwear · · Score: 1

      Even if rockets are free, what kind of things make sense to do in space?

      Seriously, I keep hearing this. And for someone with such a funny view of socialism, pray tell; what is it that got you your precious Moon landing in 1969?

      The invisible hand? The Free Market? Pilgrims?

      Answer: the same thing that got you your interstate highways and municipal drinking water.

    8. Re:Probably a good idea by lgw · · Score: 1

      The reason we haven't colonized the galaxy yet is because of launch costs.

      Do you see anyone else around here spouting this hyperbole? You're the person you're complaining about!

      And, yes, China is kicking ass. Their moon landing was awesome. And an Israeli moon lander will launch on a Falcon 9 in a few days, and ideally be the first to do a "hop" from one landing site to another. Exciting times.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Probably a good idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Well now that we have 20% reduction in launch costs we can build that space factory you guys always wanted. We can mine iron ore with the savings!

    10. Re:Probably a good idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Space Nutters keep talking about mining asteroids, even though it makes zero sense. We have more than enough here on Earth.

    11. Re:Probably a good idea by fat+man's+underwear · · Score: 1

      I mean what makes sense to do in space we already do: shoot up cameras and radios that mostly point back down at us.

      Sometimes we send cameras with radios further out for our amusement to get some pictures.

      Space gets us information. Planet, singular, THIS one, gets us food, water, and air.

    12. Re:Probably a good idea by lgw · · Score: 1

      what is it that got you your precious Moon landing in 1969?

      Mostly technology built by corporations. Just like interstate highways.

      There was a time when going to space was so expensive, and the payback so distant, that it only made sense or the government to do it. It's a new century, and "space" is a competitive business now.

      Even if rockets are free, what kind of things make sense to do in space?

      Anything that's unpleasant to do on Earth. I expect the first major industry to move to space will be power generation. When a several trillion dollar industry gets cheaper to do in space, it will move, and that will be the end of our whining about fossil fuels. Very simple solar thermal plants are far more efficient, even with transmission losses, than ground0based solar. At $3000/kg to orbit, orbital power is practical, but still more expensive than fracking. At $300/kg to orbit, it will happen. Solar in LEO might not make sense for other reasons, and it may be another decade or two before we're talking about $300/kg for GEO, but that's just price.

      Think about all the heavy industries that enviroweenies complain about. Most heavy industrial processes would be a lot less of a hassle in space, if we could just magically teleport millions of tons of equipment to orbit. We're a long way from asteroid mining and heavy industry moving to space, but launch costs are the sticking point, far more than robotics or redesigning a blast furnace to be a solar furnace.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Probably a good idea by lgw · · Score: 1

      /

      Well now that we have 20% reduction in launch costs

      The cost to launch stuff on the space shuttle was around $16,000/kg to LEO IIRC (actual program cost was around 3x that). Launching on the Delta IV costs around $12,000/kg - that's progress, for a government contractor.

      Falcon 9 has launch costs around $3000/kg to LEO. That's a bit better than 20%. Blue Origin is trying for commercial sub-orbital tourism this year with New Shepard (and their product demo launch makes that seem credible). The next generation (New Glenn and Starship) are promising much lower costs.

      Building a rocket will never be cheap, but rocket fuel just isn't that expensive.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:Probably a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what kind of things make sense to do in space?

      I don't know maybe manage the existing investments currently in space that contribute to large portions of our economy while developing new strategies to handle more investments and economic growth in space?

      Maybe understand and study the threat vectors that can compromise assets in space as investments grow?

      Maybe get a dedicated chain of command for emergency situations?

      Maybe have a dedicated group develop and understand emergency actions that can affect the economy and military capability?

      Are you really struggling to understand what the US Air Force already do but that consolidating the capabilities under one branch to have a budget wholly independent of F-35 focus of the Air Force might be beneficial?

    15. Re:Probably a good idea by lgw · · Score: 1

      Space Nutters keep talking about mining asteroids, even though it makes zero sense. We have more than enough here on Earth.

      Heavy industry isn't exactly environmentally friendly on Earth. It would be nice to do it elsewhere, if we could afford to. At the right price, the kind of people who own their own islands would no doubt love to own their own island-sized space stations, and it just makes more sense to build most of that in space (at least the heavy structure and water and such) rather than lifting it.

      Shorter term, the ability to make fuel in space would be a godsend to science missions. There are hundreds more probes we could launch if we didn't have to launch their fuel. There are some nearby CHON asteroids - dragging a tiny one into orbit isn't that ridiculous.

      I'd love to see us able to launch a solar probe that doesn't require 7 Venus flybys to get there (though it will be approaching 0.1% of the speed of light, which is amazing), or quickly send probes to the Pluto-like objects we've discovered. Just making interplanetary probes more than a once-a-decade affair would be a heck of a thing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:Probably a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot! of things make sense to do in space. You must not have been paying attention to any research in the past couple of decades. Medicine, Biology, Manufacturing, Nanotech, Physics, .... could go on.

    17. Re:Probably a good idea by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Even if rockets are free, what kind of things make sense to do in space?

      1: Locate incoming big rocks

      2: Determine where they will hit

      3: If (our nation) then divert

      else notify nation and ask how much money it's worth to divert that incoming rock.

      It's not extortion. It's protection, and it's expensive. So, pay up, or BOOM.

  10. I can't wait to join by Patent+Lover · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm not sure which color shirt I want to try for at this point. Definitely not the red one, though.

    1. Re:I can't wait to join by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      You're showing your age. Now red shirts are the sign of command and authority. Yellow shirts are the most dangerous since the 1980's.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:I can't wait to join by halivar · · Score: 1

      I was about to say, "What about Tasha Yar," but then I remembered she wore ochre. But she was Chief Security Officer. Why wasn't she wearing red???? SOMEONE HELP ME.

    3. Re:I can't wait to join by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Tasha Yar wore gold because she was in the security division (if the head of it.) The chief engineer also wears gold. Just like the chief medical officer and chief science officer wear blue

      Command division or ops or science is the department they are in, rank is independent. If Picard or Riker had a personal aide who was supposed to set out his uniform every day, that person would wear red but be very low ranked.

      Since you asked about Tasha Yar, you probably would note that Geordi and Worf both wear red that season. Which may seem weird. However, neither is in their iconic role yet; Worf and Geordi were both backup connmen, outside the security and engineering department. This is because they were originally conceived of as recurring rather than main characters.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:I can't wait to join by halivar · · Score: 1

      Ok, that does make sense, especially if you think of Command Division as "command of ship" instead of "command of people."

  11. Mascot: Duck Dodgers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please oh please, I hope the Space Cadets of the eventual military Space Academy adopt Duck Dodgers of the 24.5 century as the official mascot.

  12. Trump is taking his hunt for illegal aliens by cordovaCon83 · · Score: 0

    to a whole new frontier!

  13. Five becoming Six by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    Does that mean that they are going to have to rebuild The Pentagon as a six sided building of six nested hexagons each of which is six floors high ?

    Could anyone suggest a nickname for this new building ?

    1. Re:Five becoming Six by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that they are going to have to rebuild The Pentagon as a six sided building of six nested hexagons each of which is six floors high ?

      Could anyone suggest a nickname for this new building ?

      Based on the proclivities of several Presidents throughout history I would suggest the Sechs-agon?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Five becoming Six by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It will still be a Pentagon and eventually we will have five branches again because some future President and Congress will eventually do the sane thing ditch the Coast Guard or merge it back where they belong under the Navy.

      There are really only three Departments anyway, and that is the way its going to stay with this Space Force insanity falling under the Air Force like the Marines fall under the Navy

              the Department of the Army, which the United States Army is organized within.
              the Department of the Navy, which the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps are organized within.
              the Department of the Air Force, which the United States Air Force is organized within.

    3. Re:Five becoming Six by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      because some future President and Congress will eventually do the sane thing ditch the Coast Guard or merge it back where they belong under the Navy.

      The Navy isn't allowed to enforce US laws. The Coast Guard is. That's why the Coast Guard is under the DHS (and was affected by the shutdown) and the Navy is under the DoD (and wasn't).

      Now, in time of war, the Coast Guard becomes a military operation. But until then, they are arresting drug dealers and saving lives on the high seas.

      because some future President and Congress will eventually do the sane thing ditch the Coast Guard or merge it back where they belong under the Navy.

      And my guess is that the "space force", should it ever exist, will be under the Air Force. After all, the Air Force can already operate at pretty high altitudes.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Five becoming Six by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Coast Guard is essentially a police force, it should never be considered part of the military.

      And I still can't understand why "marines" are a separate arm.

    5. Re:Five becoming Six by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will not be adding a sixth side. They will simply surround the existing Pentagon with a wall and rename it the Pentagram.

    6. Re:Five becoming Six by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hexagon

      even captcha agrees: mundane

    7. Re:Five becoming Six by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm...

      Six sided building.
      Six sided hexagons.
      Six floors.

      666...

      Nope, I got nothing. Sorry :(

    8. Re: Five becoming Six by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vatican City

    9. Re:Five becoming Six by halivar · · Score: 1

      The Sextagon!

    10. Re:Five becoming Six by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Coast Guard has cutters that make good minor warships, and has a lot of well-trained sailors. Merging it in with the Navy for wartime makes good sense.

      The Marines are a separate force for complicated historical reasons, and by "historical" I mean the history of bureaucratic infighting, not any history involving people shooting each other. The US Marines were an outgrowth of the Navy's desire to meddle with things ashore, and the Navy pretty much won the 1947 battle that resulted in the Defense Department. (In Britain, Marines were Army soldiers assigned to ships.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  14. It was a terrible idea from day 1 by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    weaponizing space helps nobody except the Military Industrial Complex. We had treaties to prevent this sort of thing.

    Defense is a moot point now. Pakisitan keeps turning a blind eye to domestic terrorists in India and nothing ever comes of it because the ruling class isn't going to let you and me have another big war and break all the stuff they own. Unless globalism breaks down completely we're done with World Wars.

    You won't see much new research out of this because the point isn't get get ahead of the curve or to defend the nation or even to attack others. The point is to soak up taxpayer dollars and distract from the ever worsening economy. Works too.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We already have a Space Force, rsilvergun. It has nothing to do with weaponizing space or whatever TDS BS you're spouting today. The problem is that it's split across all four major branches (although most of it is currently concentrated in the Air Force).

      The Space Force mostly deals with maintaining things like NAVSTAR GPS and various other important satellites that we already have in orbit. It also maintains various other space monitoring systems designed to detect potential stellar threats. No, not aliens. Think more like cosmic rays and other things that might disrupt communications.

      All President Trump is doing is recognizing reality and moving the Space Force out of a hodge-podge of offices that already exist across all the current branches and making it its own thing with its own budget.

    2. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      weaponizing space helps nobody except the Military Industrial Complex. We had treaties to prevent this sort of thing.

      We HAD treaties. We've been tearing all our treaties up the last few years. The current mission is to treat the rest of the world as rivals rather than try and make them our allies and friends.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think concentration is good, I suppose we should also combine the Marines and the Army, actually get all the planes and helicopters out of the various branches and put them in the Air Force, combine the special forces teams into one, et cetera.

    4. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a time traveler?
      Your talking like it's in the past.

      "The Space Force mostly deals with maintaining things like NAVSTAR GPS and various other important satellites that we already have in orbit. It also maintains various other space monitoring systems designed to detect potential stellar threats. No, not aliens. Think more like cosmic rays and other things that might disrupt communications."

    5. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this "we" kemosabe. Trump is unilaterally tearing up treaties, to our everlasting detriment.

    6. Re: It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "it already exists" did you fail to grasp? President Trump is not creating a new organization out of nothing, he's grouping the various Space Commands that already exist under one banner.

      Yes, all of that stuff is happening RIGHT NOW because we already have Space Commands because we already have military assets in space. NAVSTAR GPS is probably the most well known, but it definitely is not the only.

    7. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think concentration is good, I suppose we should also combine the Marines and the Army, actually get all the planes and helicopters out of the various branches and put them in the Air Force, combine the special forces teams into one, et cetera.

      This has often been discussed. However, the Marines and the Army have totally different missions, much like the Air Force and Army have different missions. But there ARE issues with having these unique missions ending up with unique aircraft, or somewhat similar aircraft with varying configurations.

      The lesson of WW2 is clear, the Marines need their own close air support. The Army requires a different set of aircraft for it's missions and the requirements are not Air Force like boring holes in the sky or the same kind of close air support required by the Marines. It's this way because it works best this way.

      That's not to say there isn't possible gains in combining aircraft types across services. Which is why the F-35 is being built as it is.... Yea, unfortunately you don't fix the problem by combining the services in the way you suggest.

    8. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this "we" kemosabe. Trump is unilaterally tearing up treaties, to our everlasting detriment.

      Which Treaties are you talking about? The only one I can think of that was really a ratified treaty or wasn't being replaced with a new treaty was with the Russians, one where only the USA was actually abiding by the terms and the Russians had stopped long ago.

    9. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The treaty that also excluded China.

    10. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by gtall · · Score: 1

      The Military Industrial Complex died back in the 1990s and 2000s when those companies realized they could make much more in the private sector. Right now, DoD almost has to beg them to produce stuff that isn't a big boondoggle like the F-35.

    11. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't about weaponizing anything. RTFA - this is about a bureaucratic reorganization of people that sit on the ground. Any reading at ALL on the topic makes this clear. The fact that you don't understand it simply shows that you are completely ignorant, and yet still feel privileged enough to display your stupidity for all to see.

      There will not be any weapons going into space because of this, nor will there be any "Space Marines". Stop fantasizing about what you think someone said and actually spend a few seconds to find out. Then you won't embarrass yourself nearly as much.

    12. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by patilise · · Score: 0

      China has too good a record of breaking promises - "We had treaties to prevent this sort of thing" does not apply nowadays, unfortunately.

    13. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weaponizing space helps nobody

      I guess youre one of those "I, for one, welcome our alien overlords"-type of people.

      In practice, this is mostly breaking away already existing parts of other branches into its own branch. Slashdot shouldnt be against having things in their proper place instead of spreading it around. We see enough of that in code.

      And then there is offcourse the dream that theyll get an astronomical budget wich could help improve human tech towards space exploration & settlement. We might not live the dream, but our grandkids or (grand * n) kids might. WONT YOU PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

    14. Re:It was a terrible idea from day 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weaponizing space helps nobody except the Military Industrial Complex. We had treaties to prevent this sort of thing.

      It helps you if others are already establishing its weaponization.

      Unless globalism breaks down completely we're done with World Wars.

      Predictions are hard. Also, why would space combat be confined to world wars? Think there'll be no space Crimeas? No space terrorists? My god man, have some imagination.

      The point is to soak up taxpayer dollars and distract from the ever worsening economy. Works too.

      Ah, I see what you're trying to do now.

  15. You're a moron Cayenne. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have no idea about any of this. Your opine is head in ass bullshit in defense of a moronic traitor. Trump is clueless, and you're just his butler.

  16. Playing the long game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is clearly the next step in the complicated multi-year plot to send Trump's hair back home.

  17. Call it SG1 to get more vote! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Call it SG1 to get more vote!

  18. NO, FUCK YOU TRAITOR APOLOGIST. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as Trump stops lying about his Russia connections, mob financing, lies about Koshoggi, etc. Then we'll be happy to stop discussing the traitor on office.

    Fuck off until then, whiny faggot traitor apologist.

    1. Re:NO, FUCK YOU TRAITOR APOLOGIST. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to give TDS the attention it deserves.. Take your meds and keep DVR'ing MSNBC!

    2. Re:NO, FUCK YOU TRAITOR APOLOGIST. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you have drunk the MSM coolaid big time! Or did you not hear that no collusion was found and that it was just a democrat tactic all along? However, the Hillary collusion, even though proven, the FBI has done nothing about.

  19. This has been mulling for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is partially an effort to keep the Air Force leadership from taking money away from military space issues. Mike Griffin is a proponent of a 'Space Force', and he has a lot of experience on the military side of things.

  20. Hey WSJ - He's your president, not 'Mr. Trump' by ASCIIxTended · · Score: 1

    Without even looking I can bet the WSJ never referred to Obama as 'Mr. Obama'.

    --
    I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
    1. Re:Hey WSJ - He's your president, not 'Mr. Trump' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Has he recently undergone a transgender operation or something, and is now Ms. Trump?

  21. God I hope we stop that crap by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    in 2020. I don't want war with Iran. Or Venezuela. And I'd love to put a stop to the 7 or 8 wars we're in now.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:God I hope we stop that crap by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      We would currently be engaged in a land war in Syria if Clinton had been elected.

  22. We don't need a special branch of the military by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Between the Air Force and the Marines this could be covered, we don't need a special separate branch of our military to do this.

    1. Re:We don't need a special branch of the military by Straif · · Score: 1

      I believe that's the problem this 'Space Force' is actually meant to deal with. Almost every branch of the military has some form of space operations (GPS/COMM satellites, long range detection, etc..) but with the same or similar systems being spread across 2 or 3 branches you get a lot of unnecessary duplication and incompatibility. You're also stuck within the hierarchy of branches who may not prioritize space based operations.

      The main purpose of this is to create a specialized force to handle current and future orbital related issues. Most of these jobs already exist, this is just a plan to bring them all together into a single structure.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    2. Re:We don't need a special branch of the military by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem I have with what you just said: We have the Air Force; we also have the Army Air Corps, and Marine Air. If you apply your logic to this then why do we have air services in all branches of the military instead of just letting the Air Force do it all?
      I stand by my original statement. The Air Force could handle the vast majority of space-related operations. If it comes down to actual hand-to-hand combat in space then send in the Marines. We don't need another branch of the military just for that.

    3. Re:We don't need a special branch of the military by RedK · · Score: 1

      The Air Force could handle the vast majority of space-related operations.

      They currently do. It's called the Air Force Space Command :

      https://www.afspc.af.mil/

      This is what Trump is trying to seperate into its own branch, based on advice from DoD officials. This is not "Trump creating the Space Force", this is EXPERTS asking him to do so based on logistics issues created by having the Air Force trying to manage Space Command.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    4. Re:We don't need a special branch of the military by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      *shrug* I don't see it, and I, among so many others, have come to distrust anything that comes out of that sonofabitchs' mouth; and before you get all offended at that (if you get offended at that, that is): Trump notoriously and consistently doesn't listen to anyone about much of anything, 'experts', 'officials', or not. Easy enough to think it's some hare-brained idea of his own.

    5. Re:We don't need a special branch of the military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a coincidence!

      Trump notoriously and consistently doesn't listen to anyone about much of anything, 'experts',

      It definitely reminds me about creimer's behavior.

    6. Re:We don't need a special branch of the military by RedK · · Score: 1

      What you have is Stage 1 TDS. Seriously. The idea of a Space force existed before Trump. This is not something he pushed. Same as the Border wall which also existed prior to him which DHS are the ones pushing for.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    7. Re:We don't need a special branch of the military by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Oh shove it up your ass. Trotting out this "TDS" bullshit is on the same shitty low level as using the term "virtue signalling" or calling someone a "social justice warrior" just because you don't like what they have to say. You're not going to have any chance of having any sort of actual conversation with me when you spout crap like that so how about you just bugger off? You're not going to make me love that asshole no matter WHAT you say to me so just knock it the fuck off. Attempting to marginalize an ENTIRE HUGE SEGMENT of the citizenry of this country is NOT going to make points with anyone. /subject

    8. Re:We don't need a special branch of the military by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You left out the Navy, which has carrier-based and land-based aircraft, in addition to the Marine air. The Army is by law forbidden to have fixed-wing aircraft, but it has swarms of helicopters. I'm not sure what the Coast Guard has, but it's likely the only service or quasi-service arm without a sizable air contingent.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:We don't need a special branch of the military by thereddaikon · · Score: 1

      Bugger off? Why should we care what a Brit thinks of our politics. Why do you care about the US military's force organization?

    10. Re:We don't need a special branch of the military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Air Force could handle the vast majority of space-related operations.

      They currently do. It's called the Air Force Space Command :

      https://www.afspc.af.mil/

      This is what Trump is trying to seperate into its own branch, based on advice from DoD officials. This is not "Trump creating the Space Force", this is EXPERTS asking him to do so based on logistics issues created by having the Air Force trying to manage Space Command.

      The experts are trying to slow down, stall, and minimize this until it either goes away or it just ends up as a bigger budget for the AF. Have you ever actually listened to high level DoD officials talk about these plans? Try C-SPAN sometime. I strongly doubt you have heard the Secretary of the AF talk about it for one thing. Everybody is trying to keep their jobs, but their thoughts on this are obvious.

      Do you know how much shit the DoD stirred up letting every branch shop for its own uniforms? And you really think leaders are asking for a new service...

  23. Cost benefit analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Canadian border has many more illegal entries, than the sky border. Considering how few illegal aliens from the sky are having anchor babies, or are on welfare, it does not make sense to spend much on patrolling the sky border of the USA.

  24. Yer phased plasma rifle coming right up by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    I'm on it. I'll be trying to get a contract to provide our loyal, space troupers with phased plasma rifles in the 20, 40 and 100 watt range. I expect the R&D to be extraordinarily expensive.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:Yer phased plasma rifle coming right up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, just what you see, pal.

  25. hegemony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there's no oil in space, then they're wasting their time and money.

  26. Don't change the subject away from investigations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regardless of whatever merits this space force may or may not have, isn't it a bit late for this president to be trying to change the subject and introduce ideas or policy?

    Let's finish resolving the criminal cases before we listen to Trump as though he were a politician. The evidence against him is overwhelming, and in the unlikely event that he really didn't know what his family and everyone working for him was doing, he can clear it all up quickly by talking to the prosecutors under oath about his conversations with the other conspirators, publishing his income tax returns and other proof that he really divested all his hotels to avoid violating the emoluments clause, explaining where the inauguration's laundered money went and what favors he owes for which foreign bribes, explaining why he does everything Putin asks, etc.

    Until that happens, there isn't anything else to talk about with Trump, and nothing else that any of us want to hear from him. The investigations are everything. What are there, now six run by the feds (not counting the states starting to get involved with the tax evasion)?

    You wanna talk about space force? No. If you were chasing a shoplifter and he suddenly shouted behind him, "I have an idea for a perpetual motion machine," would you listen to his idea, or would ignore it and proceed with tackling him, cuffing him and booking him? If Trump has anything to say to us, it needs to be about his role as a criminal suspect, not as a wanna-be president. Either confess so we can get it all over with, or start explaining how all the evidence might be incorrect.

    If he's innocent, it shouldn't be too hard to explain a few things, leaving Mueller to slap his forehead and say, "ooh, I never thought of that! Maybe you really are innocent!" Who knows, whatever the misunderstanding is, it might also clear Cohen's and Manafort's names too. Doesn't anyone care that they're about to start doing serious time?

    RESOLVE THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE TALKING POLITICS OR VISION.

  27. kathy kennedy says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the force is female lol

    1. Re: kathy kennedy says by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It is...if you are Russian!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  28. Everything is better when reinvented by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a narcissistic obese white man. Air Force does it already. Requiring the Air Force to interface with another organizations means increased communication problems making America weaker, a great win for non-Americans. Let's just rename the Air Force to Space Force for a win for Donny, a win for America and a non-win for those who want to see us weakened.

  29. you fucking idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? I get it that you hate Trump, but tearing up treaties that our near peer competitors have been routinely violating makes sense. There is no good reason to hamstring ourselves when the Chinese and Russians are no longer subtle about violating the treaties. The Russians tested an IRBM that violates SALT II. Do nothing about it is a really fucking stupid approach. The Chinese are weaponizing space, and they don't give a fuck about treaties. They've already weaponized the WTO and blatantly cheat. Get your head out of your ass and realize that preserving our culture and nation is much, much more important than hating Trump.

  30. International treaty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what Russia, China, Brazil and India would think of this (just to name a few).

    There's an international treaty preventing the militarization of space. If that gets violated we get all kinds of nasty things hovering above our heads. I don't want an arms race in space.

    What will happen when someone who is trigger happy comes to power in a country possessing space weapons?

  31. Air Force Space Command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It exists, already.

  32. "Guard" not "Force", ala USCG not USAF by perpenso · · Score: 1

    From a conversation among the grownups. Something modeled on the Coast Guard rather than the Air Force since we have regulatory compliance, defense and force projection.

    https://spacenews.com/space-fo...

    1. Re: "Guard" not "Force", ala USCG not USAF by Renaissance+Slacker · · Score: 1

      I like this - I wonder if one mandate could be âoealways be prepared to launch a rescue mission capable of evacuating X number of personnel from a location in low earth orbit within Y time frame?â As national and private space activity increases, there will be more chances for problems. A high-profile mishap that resulted in a bunch of astronauts and/or civilians suffocating when their air runs out could sour the public on space and make it hard to get budget $.

  33. Liberals are baby killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Northam suggested in a proposed law in VA that at birth a woman could say she wanted an abortion, they would give birth, make sure the baby was comfortable, and if the woman still wanted an abortion they would kill it.

    Not sure why you liberals have such a fucking hard on for killing babies, but you are deranged.
    Video of him saying it

    Go ahead call me a liar you fucking baby killer.

    1. Re:Liberals are baby killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Northam suggested in a proposed law in VA that at birth a woman could say she wanted an abortion, they would give birth, make sure the baby was comfortable, and if the woman still wanted an abortion they would kill it.

      Not sure why you liberals have such a fucking hard on for killing babies, but you are deranged.
      Video of him saying it

      Go ahead call me a liar you fucking baby killer.

      You are a liar and posted a biased source (a youtube video from EWTN, a hardcore, right wing religious network). He didn't say they would kill the baby, he did say they would resuscitate the infant IF the parents wanted. A far cry from kill the infant. However, I guess you don't know anyone who has had key information kept from them regarding the pregnancy that resulted in an infant that died immediately after birth due to major abnormalities (such as missing organs, organs outside the body, and more) because the doctor thought the fetus was more important than the parents making an informed decision on whether to terminate or not.

      I have...and they wanted the child but would have terminated had they known because the child SUFFERED after being born due to it medical issues and died within minutes of being born. They would have preferred to an abortion and then trying again than what actually occurred.

      And so few abortions occur in the 3rd trimester, the primary reasons are people like you restricting access so it takes until then to be able to get to a clinic...or the fetus dies in utero and needs to be removed before it kills the woman.

  34. Imagine by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    A world where Trump has no money, and his 5 guard secret service agents are just outside his cell.

  35. First order of business for the new Space Force... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... would be to develop X-Wing fighters, right?

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  36. 'merkin space kadet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your president is a space kadet.

  37. Pentagon: No can do ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

    ... coke head in chief.

    Remember the other goddam memo you sent last week to look in every nook and cranny and office couch and vending machine for money for your GODDAM wall?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  38. Re:Don't change the subject away from investigatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The evidence against [Trump] is overwhelming

    The secret evidence that only you have seen? The evidence against HRC is public record, and a tarmac meeting with former president WJC made investigations into HRC all go away.

  39. LEARN TO READ TRUMP FAGGOTS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously have never read a book because you think public libraries are socialism. (and in that sense, they are.) You're a fucking moron. Government programs are very often socialist whether you understand terms or not.

    Uneducated Trump faggots, lol. Throw them in prison and let them learn to read.

  40. DUSEPA by mark-t · · Score: 1

    (pronounced "doo-see'-pa")

    Department of United States Extra-Planetary Affairs

    Sounds a hell of a lot less juvenile than "Space Force".

    My 2c.

    1. Re: DUSEPA by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Department of United States Extra-Planetary Affairs

      Sounds a hell of a lot less juvenile than "Space Force".

      I guess the air force should have been called the Department of United States Above-Land Affairs?

      Although if you're really going to propose something that silly for the space force, I would much rather go with Department of United States Extra-Terrestrial Affairs. Give all the UFO nuts something to go ape over.

    2. Re: DUSEPA by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I had thought of using the term "Extra-Terrestrial", but the problem with it is that the term "Extra-Terrestrial" is often taken as a noun, instead of an adjective, and could imply that the department's concern is actually about aliens, and not about what happens off of the planet.

      I was making a serious suggestion, Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with the idea of creating a new branch for the military whose domain of interest is off-planet, even if we aren't yet technologically at a point where something like it is really necessary, but "Space Force" quite honestly sounds stupid, IMO.

  41. Re: Agreed (although could be done better) by Slicker · · Score: 1

    So many U.S. military systems make use of space-based resources that their destruction would have an immediate and profound effect on our ability to defend our own country or win in war elsewhere.

    Furthermore, we are on the verge of launching a number of missions to the Moon, Mars, and Deep Space by a number of different commercial agencies. We need infrastructure up there and defensive capabilities. ESA is working on a permanent Moon base, ULA is working on a permanently manned space station for zero-G manufacturing and refueling. China is eyeing the very limited spaces with water-ice on the Moon and the harvesting of the Moon's helium-3 for nuclear reactors (Earth's uranium supplies are running low). And of course, there is Blue Origin and SpaceX and others pushing hard toward the Moon, Mars, and deep space in general.

    However, I suggest this be done a little differently.

    (1) The Air Force's Space Command should be made into a separate branch of the Air Force with its own independent budget. It's primary missions should be data collection and orbital asset protection. These assets are a cornerstone of U.S. survivability, in terms of communications, navigation, and threat identification. The Air Force's Space Command already performs this mission and the Air Force is best equipped to respond to identified threats in this area.

    (2) The Department of Homeland Security should be given the additional mission of missile and infiltration defense. It needs its own independent budget and focus on the now vastly growing threat of medium range and cruise missiles with tactical nuclear warheads. This is a huge vulnerability that Russia is working very aggressively to exploit. The gap simply must be filled -- quickly. We need short/medium range missile defenses all around the country -- manned 24x7. They also need for develop capabilities to knock out hypersonic weapons. Russia has hypersonic weapons (early versions) and their bombers are capable of dropping dozens of tactical nuclear cruise missiles, at a time. These could be quite crippling in a surprise attack on U.S. based military command and control plus other pivotal resources.

    (3) The Navy should be given the additional mission of deep space rescue and exploration. However, it does not yet need a new sub-agency with its own budget as we are only beginning commercial deep space ventures, today. Do we really want Moon colonies, Mars colonies, and deep space asteroid mining assets left defenseless with no ability to response to attack? Those space resources are likely to become essential economic resources in the decades to come. The Navy is by far the best for this mission as their core competency is in far away, self-reliant, missions amid small spaces and limited resources. Submarines are not unlike deep space vessels. The Navy knows how to keep up morale and professionalism, in addition to survival and mission preparedness.

    On a side note, I also think the Navy and particularly U.S. Army aviation should seriously reconsider dirigible airships (Zeppelins). Not only has material sciences improved by leaps and bounds to make these ships safer, faster, and more survivable but recent advances in active armor and close range laser defenses should make them almost invulnerable to attack. The blimp that flew over Baghdad for years in Iraq was never shot down, even without active armor. Army Airships could absolutely take command as they sweep over enemy held territory or insurgents in the rear... with high tech sensors, armed drone dropships, and special operation commando forces.
       

  42. It's all about the style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I'd like to put my hand up to tender on the design of said pending "Space Force" uniforms.
    I have an idea the uniform will be mostly white, with hints of black at the joints. Made from an acrylic-like substance in glossy white. It will include a helmet in same material and colors that can filter for smoke particles.
    My price is cheap, only $USD1 billion for first 100,000 clones...err uniforms.

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. Build a Wall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on the moon. That must be a national emergency too.

  45. Space force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not resurrect the old one? Oh, wait... nevermind.

  46. Explore space, serve your country! by VanessaE · · Score: 1

    Would you like to know more?

    1. Re:Explore space, serve your country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like to know more?

      The new Star Wars empire - led by Emperor Palpatrump.

  47. a republican wants to expand government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Republicans were for smaller government. Oh that's right they just say that then spend like drunken sailors. With the Whitehouse and both houses of Congress the Republicans could not pass a balanced budget ammendment. Tells you all you need to know.

  48. space force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space Ghost!

  49. Re:Don't change the subject away from investigatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The secret evidence that only you have seen?

    No. There's evidence that other people have seen but the public hasn't, but every single person who has been briefed on it (even Devin Nunes) knew for sure that the president is definitely nailed beyond the slightest doubt. This is what scared Nunes so much that he had to join the coverup (possibly implicating himself).

    But there is also non-secret evidence, that every single person who has been following the news has seen, where we already have enough to prove some crimes by Disgraced President Donald Trump. 1) The obstruction of justice was done openly and we know for sure that the president is definitely guilty. 0% chance of aquittal. 2) The inauguration money laundering and bribery case's evidence has much of its evidence in public. He's definitely guilty on that one too, but the public doesn't yet have all the details about who bribed him. (That's going to be fun to watch. You should start following the news!) 3) As for the emoluments violation, that sure looks like a slam-dunk case from what we've seen in public, but there's always a chance that the president has been lying when he brags about breaking that law. 4) But the public evidence of the bigger conspiracy crime, hasn't implicated the president yet. It has only implicated a bunch of people who worked for him and most of his family. We know for sure that they're guilty, and some have already been convicted. Classic mob boss rollup. Trump is looking pretty fucked, much like what happened to his pal Gotti.

    The evidence against HRC is public record

    I'm going to take a wild guess that this "HRC" person you're obsessed with is Hillary Clinton; if it's a person on the president's staff please correct me. (You're talking about her as though she is, but the initials really look like a reference to Clinton.)

    If you think there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by her, you should defintely cite it and bring it to law enforcement's attention, because nobody else has seen it yet. Please, come forward. So far, all the "evidence" against her turned out to be useless, where any prosecutor who looks at it shrugs and says "We've got nothin' here." The evidence hasn't even supplied enough probable cause to probe for more evidence. There just isn't reason to suspect a crime yet, but if you know something that hasn't been covered in the news yet, speak up. You might be the person who finally takes down that monarchy. The Republicans weren't ever able to find anything, though. And they tried desperately, crying wolf too many times so they had no reputation left, which is why a RINO was able to come in and take the presidential nomination away from them.

    Contrast that, to the evidence againts that RINO, where every prosecutor who sees even just what is in public so far gets a huge hardon and says, "Why can't my job as a prosecutore be as easy as what Mueller and SDNY get to do?" Every time they are shown a crime and dig deeper into it, they uncover new crimes. Trump is Easy Mode, and could be done by students in Prosecution 101, but we have America's top guy doing it. What a slaughter!!

    Best of all, the president lies and makes all his people lie, so once they get investigated, they all end up even deeper in trouble than where they started. The president's campaign manager could have gotten off with only about ten years, if he had just confessed once he was caught. Instead, now the president's right hand man is looking at 19-24. Niiice.

    And Mueller has been advocating sentences in proportion to responsibility and power, so if Manafort is getting approx 20, that means Disgraced President Donald Trump is going to get even more. Thus, my point that we should just be talking about his criminal cases instead of political issues and whatever distracting thing he says he wants to spend taxpayer money on.

  50. Trump legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump just wants his name attached to stuff in the history books. Just like how Kennedy comes up in all the movies about the moon landing. That is what the wall and Space Force is really about. It would be awesome if Space Force doesnâ(TM)t become a thing until a future president does it.

    Would you like to know more?

  51. Re:Wall is still going strong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wow, some others have stated it's inevitable! Well, it must be true! I read it on the internet! #facepalm

    The voting majority of people don't want a wall with Mexico; just the clown that's at Mar-a-Lago way too much.

  52. Not really splitting hairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The marines are quite happy to be part of the navy; none of them will shy away from the fact. They also have constant contact with and support from sailors. Almost all the medics servicing the marines are actually navy sailors. They get navy medals. They have sailors on the org charts in their buildings. They often use navy ships and it's normal for them to attend navy technical schools.

    They like to joke that they're the men's department

    I'm shocked to be on dumpty's side today.

  53. Great again at any cost or at any definition of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great again at any cost or at any definition of it.

    Il was watching Star Trek Discovery season 2 and The Terran empress was so "Great" that she survived season 1. After all, her spartan Earth, or Terra, had already conquered its Milky Way while the Federation was just hesitating about a "Vulcan Hello" or not to the Klingons. So the empress was well qualified for the hidden space force.

    I personnaly don-t think the US can be both great and déterrent. Because if they want to be that great beast combination (they can) then the escalation stops when that greatness too is retaliable for deterrence. And in the the previous era, US greatness itself was not at stake. I think of the founding fathers as normal free masons, enlightened, like "away team" from their temples.

    What is really great in space ? space has no war history, maybe a cold war one, with spying satellites. The people behind the triggers of actual spying satellites are motivated by evidence gathering, a counterpart of Hubble or James Webb telescopes. Its like in the NRA's logic, if you put a military force behind the gun its for killing opponents, if you put a mom behind the gun its for protecting her childrens.

    So is an X-37 style force even tolerable in space ? First for gathering evidences about opponents activities and then as armed autonomous space planes ? No, I think it is absurd in the first place to depend on a war free space to win a ground-based war. Its like saying that Apollo's crew, the first men, were fighter pilots in the first place. I think the X-37 fate is just an illustration of NRA logic, from a spaceship for Nasa to an X-wing for Darpa to a space reconnaissance plane for Air Force to a gun for Space Force.

    So being a great beast is not really great. I really dislike the feelling of an Earth forever boasting of conquering the galaxy with fire and fury machines. But know its because I had never boasted for any good enough reason.

  54. Re:Wall is still going strong by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Ignoring the first section of that post, the main roles of the Coast Guard are to keep our waterways safe and stop smuggling, neither of which currently applies to space. It may be useful to create a United States Space Force in fifty years, but right now it's a dumb idea.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  55. Dream On by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, do you think that "people... are ignorant?" How about more like people are paying attention?

    Trump is exactly the wrong person to lead this issue. What Trump wants is the zingy name, a distraction from his failures, and for people not to notice he has no funding. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "...very qualified military leaders, policy makers and analysts...". In fact Trump regularly disparages those people, or haven't you noticed?

    You are confusing your dreams about space with how to go about achieving those dreams. Trump's best-case scenario on this policy item? He doesn't completely fuck it up. The military doesn't particularly want a "Space Force", and it definitely doesn't want an unfunded Space Force. They are being placed in a no-win situation where they may have to take funding from other approved programs, things that budget officers and military administrators probably fought for years to get money, and suddenly that money is gone.

    Trump wants Wall. Trump wants Space Force. Trump wants trade wars. Trump wants pussy. Trump wants Putin's approval. Trump wants a hamberder with covfefe. See a pattern here? Invest in wannabe dictators, you get hundred foot statues to their egos.

    No, I don't suppose you do see the pattern.