I think if you think this is bullshit then you haven't been following the topic for any amount of time. Yes, Trump is good at grabbing headlines but this topic precedes Trump by many years. Right now every branch has to manage their own use of satellites without any centralized thought to management, technological direction, or overlap. We already have a presence in space with assets to protect and a strategy to develop. The army doesn't provide the boats nor airplanes why should it be different for satellites capability?
Why bother fighting from space, with the current level of technology, it is entirely bullshit, all you have to do is shut down access to space, too easy.
Again, this just tells me you haven't been paying attention at all. The Chinese demonstrated shooting down a satellite years ago. I believe that the Russians and the Chinese are working toward expanding their ability to compromise military and commercial assets in space. Having a branch of military dedicated to understanding those threats and working to ensure that our assets in space are not compromised is the point in addition to consolidating overlapping capability that can give direction and specialization currently unable to be performed.
no idiot mud monkeys have access to space for decades to come.
And then you lost your access to space too and the capability it enhanced in addition to the economic impact in the commercial sector. Just like MAD there more to it than just "launch a missile" and the mere fact MAD existed changed strategy for various dimensions of war.
There is critical infrastructure that must be protected and ensuring that the military is organized properly to protect that and to ensure maximum lethality is the entire job of the military regardless where it is.
Uh. No. Peace through strength has been around ever since there was military strategy. Sun Tzu had some good thoughts about it.
"If their forces are substantial, prepare for them; if their forces are strong, avoid them."
"The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting."
"In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace. The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence under no circumstances can it be neglected."
What do you think would have happened if in 1939 the allies had stronger militarizes than Germany? What would have happened if the allies had adapted to the technological advancements instead of fighting the previous world war?
Every other nation on the planet that can have an aggressive posture in space will. See China shooting down a satellite.
Do you think there is something wrong with Full-spectrum dominance if so what is it? "Space Force" was inevitable as soon as the costs to get to space were lowered.
The Navy? Submarines can go pretty deep if they need to. There is no critical infrastructure on the moon or mars. But there is in space and the deep sea! Full-spectrum dominance is a real thing.
Jack of all trades are the master of none. With enough specialization the justifications to expand or reduce a particular asset of the military becomes large enough to be under its own authority and budget and command structure. What works for the Army (the backbone) does not work for the Marines (the tip of the spear) likewise what works for the Air Force may not work for a potential (IMO inevitable) Space Force.
As access to space becomes cheaper the strategic importance grows as does our nations dependency on access to space. It was an inevitability for the military to recognize space as a potential theater of war if the costs justified it to be.
Military spending accounts for ~16% of federal spending (discretionary and mandatory). It is one of the specific jobs of the federal government to do under the constitution. Health care and education are not enumerated responsibilities of the federal government.
Obama had more overturned than any other president. "good at Constitutional executive authority" is complete bullshit. It again reinforces the idea that you don't understand the concept of scope versus raw number.
As far as that tax cut I haven't looked into it. I don't trust NYT to click that link nor read it. I am willing to wait and see before I get my panties in a tussle.
It doesn't matter the number. What matters is the substance and what the executive order does. If it bypasses Congress to do something the President wants that Congress has refused to work with then that is an overreach of executive authority. That is very different than a proclamation of intent. If a E.O. undo past executive overreach than I don't see it as big as an issue than the original E.O. being undone.
I hope you can tell the difference. Bypassing congress bad. Working within Constitutional Executive authority good.
Getting back to Earth isn't the problem. It's the slowing down part. I hear the dinosaurs were pretty good at the first part (they waited long enough).
. It would have been nice to have some sort of agreement or framework that formally states our goals,
At this point it, is irrelevant what the NK state media show what matters is what the leadership will do. We waited for a long time to get an agreement before meeting and that escalated tensions. Now, we had heads of state meet and tensions are calming.
why that president walked away without some sort of statement about what our goals are and what we expect from NK.
It wasn't tried before? Things were escalating to a point where war could have easily been because of an accident? The situation changed with nukes? Plenty of reasons. Yes, it would have been nice but not getting the optimal isn't the same as not getting something favorable.
Then wouldn't it make sense to have the result be a co-drafted document which states the goals
I would agree but everyone knows what the goals are. Both sides know what they want and know what the other-side wants. This isn't something that started yesterday. The devil is in the details and I would rather work on cautious optimism rather than suspicious pessimism.
Your original point in this thread is, what, that nothing has been given to NK?
That coulnd't be easily taken away or reversed. Yes, standing up on stage with the US president legitimizes Kim. As does the medias coverage of the Olympics in Seoul. As does Kim shaking hands with SK president on the border. Diplomacy requires some form of legitimacy. It can also be lost. For instance, if Trump changes his mind on NK and starts a twitter fiasco the main complaint of NK will remain, the sanctions. If Trump gave up the sanctions before CVID, and if NK lies then we lost a major negotiating position and have to convince others to reinstate sanctions. It's much more difficult to get to where we are in a diplomatic and negotiating position if we remove sanctions. That is the difference. Right now, all that has happened is Trump treating Kim like the media treated NK during the Olympics or NK and SK border handshake. Yes, it is legitimization but the point is that it is legitimization toward a specific goal and with actors that seemingly are willing to agree to that shared goal. whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
every time he gets caught blatantly lying, every time he rolls over for another foreign leader, and you think that NK does not notice those things and adjusts their own policies towards the US, then you're delusional. It does not happen in a vacuum.
Obviously. Why we are here today isn't to the purview of the everyday person. Through sanctions and other actions could have forced NK into this position. Probably all started through Obama and it was expected that the successor would lead the charge in CVID (everyone thought Clinton). There is so much more to it than just Trump. However, Trump is the reality and right now we have a situation where NK and Trump are moving toward a good direction. Whether you want to credit trump to that or not is not the point. The point is that currently, we have not given NK anything that wouldn't be necessary for any kind of diplomatic normalization that would hopefully lead to CVID.
I really think you need to ignore Trump, his lies, and his language for a moment. Picture a world where a blank slate president is here with the current results through the same actions (not language). From that point of view I don't think it is completely insane or out of the ordinary and there should be some credit to him or his predecessor (depending on the covert operations beyond sanctions that forced NK into a position to negotiate). That could all change and NK could be lying their ass off trying to get the sanctions removed. Who knows but claiming Trump is gave up something diplomatically is emphatically wrong. Our negotiating position is the same even if you swap out the president.
Not sure what I am conceding you haven't had a consistent thought that was relevant nor addressed my original point. You are more concerned about complaining about everything Trump than defending a claim that you made. You are all over the place. I mentioned Iran because you brought up Helsinki and Russia. Obama is relevant to the discussion for Russia and hacking because it has occurred for a long time under his watch.
If you don't want to defend your claim then don't. Is it cathartic to complain this much about Trump?
Apparently I struck a nerve. Not sure how how diplomacy for NK turned into that diarrhea. I don't have to defend everything he does to recognize good results. So far NK has been a good result.
What the hell does Russia working with Israel mean? It further isolates Iran. It may not be much but I am sure Iran takes it more serious than what you are making it out to be. Whether that is because of Trump? Could be. Could not be. But so far the results of Trumps diplomacy are moving nearly all the worst foreign issues in the right direction. Much better than Bush and Obama so far.
> I guarantee it is not because we have a strong leader. Yea, Obama was a weak leader. Since much of that has been going on for sometime. At least Obama was flexible and took down those missile defenses after the election. That was being tough!
I think your model to understand and predict reality is very flawed because you can see results that are objectively beneficial by any measure yet still say things like "he's an embarrassment". If the narrative you use to describe reality does a poor job and does not have predictive ability then I think you should abandon it. I don't think you are dumb I think your ability to look beyond "Trump is an embarrassment" is compromised.
Helsinki? Look weak and cowardly? I guess... That is hardly a surprise considering your narrative for NK. I think the fact that Russia created a 100 mile buffer between Syria and Israel and now coordinating military efforts with Israel is something to consider. I think that is more noteworthy than "looking" weak. Particularly so when Putin said that he can be useful toward NK denuclearize (which he can) and stability in the ME (which he can).
It seems that you are lost in minutia while not seeing the big picture. The narrative and frame you use seems deeply flawed.
I didn't say I don't value Research or Education. You are building a strawman.
You really miss my point. So, I will ask a simple question. Why would anyone risk their blood and sweat for someone else to sit in a cushy lab when they could build up their own lab?
I think if you think that Trump going for handshake, the general a handshake and they both swap until they both land on a handshake is anything other than just a gaffe says more about you than anything. Proper protocols and saluting? Sure thing. Who cares. It's really a non-issue that is really sad that you are obsessed with.
We have been waiting for how long for instability? Internet revolt? Like Syria? Sheesh. You are naive to think that decades of the same will amount to something this time! People have been saying for decades that NK wouldn't be able to hold out. But surely you are smart enough to realize that this time will work.
Was Kim going to lose his power if Trump didn't do what he did? probably not.
Slashdot Mirror
I think if you think this is bullshit then you haven't been following the topic for any amount of time. Yes, Trump is good at grabbing headlines but this topic precedes Trump by many years. Right now every branch has to manage their own use of satellites without any centralized thought to management, technological direction, or overlap. We already have a presence in space with assets to protect and a strategy to develop. The army doesn't provide the boats nor airplanes why should it be different for satellites capability?
Why bother fighting from space, with the current level of technology, it is entirely bullshit, all you have to do is shut down access to space, too easy.
Again, this just tells me you haven't been paying attention at all. The Chinese demonstrated shooting down a satellite years ago. I believe that the Russians and the Chinese are working toward expanding their ability to compromise military and commercial assets in space. Having a branch of military dedicated to understanding those threats and working to ensure that our assets in space are not compromised is the point in addition to consolidating overlapping capability that can give direction and specialization currently unable to be performed.
no idiot mud monkeys have access to space for decades to come.
And then you lost your access to space too and the capability it enhanced in addition to the economic impact in the commercial sector. Just like MAD there more to it than just "launch a missile" and the mere fact MAD existed changed strategy for various dimensions of war.
There is critical infrastructure that must be protected and ensuring that the military is organized properly to protect that and to ensure maximum lethality is the entire job of the military regardless where it is.
Ignore the law that establishes and limits the federal government because you can make a straw-man of government remaining in the 1700s.
Seems legit. Your list doesn't address anything relevant worth mentioning.
lol, touche. Thanks for the laugh.
Grunt: How high do we go? ... ... Higher.
General: Higher.
General: Higher.
General: Too High!
General:
I didn't look up the depths because it wasn't necessary. The point of "can go pretty deep if they need to" is "deep enough".
Uh. No. Peace through strength has been around ever since there was military strategy. Sun Tzu had some good thoughts about it.
"If their forces are substantial, prepare for them; if their forces are strong, avoid them."
"The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting."
"In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace. The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence under no circumstances can it be neglected."
What do you think would have happened if in 1939 the allies had stronger militarizes than Germany? What would have happened if the allies had adapted to the technological advancements instead of fighting the previous world war?
The calls for a separate branch specific for space have been around a lot longer than Trump.
Space Race 2.0?
Every other nation on the planet that can have an aggressive posture in space will. See China shooting down a satellite.
Do you think there is something wrong with Full-spectrum dominance if so what is it? "Space Force" was inevitable as soon as the costs to get to space were lowered.
The Navy? Submarines can go pretty deep if they need to. There is no critical infrastructure on the moon or mars. But there is in space and the deep sea! Full-spectrum dominance is a real thing.
I am not sure what your comment is on about.
Jack of all trades are the master of none. With enough specialization the justifications to expand or reduce a particular asset of the military becomes large enough to be under its own authority and budget and command structure. What works for the Army (the backbone) does not work for the Marines (the tip of the spear) likewise what works for the Air Force may not work for a potential (IMO inevitable) Space Force.
As access to space becomes cheaper the strategic importance grows as does our nations dependency on access to space. It was an inevitability for the military to recognize space as a potential theater of war if the costs justified it to be.
Military spending accounts for ~16% of federal spending (discretionary and mandatory). It is one of the specific jobs of the federal government to do under the constitution. Health care and education are not enumerated responsibilities of the federal government.
I would rather the military have marketing like this than the draft.
It's a volunteer army. Why is it a problem to sell themselves like any other group looking to increase recruitment?
If you don't like war then don't enlist. Simple. Others are free to make that decision for themselves.
Obama had more overturned than any other president. "good at Constitutional executive authority" is complete bullshit. It again reinforces the idea that you don't understand the concept of scope versus raw number.
As far as that tax cut I haven't looked into it. I don't trust NYT to click that link nor read it. I am willing to wait and see before I get my panties in a tussle.
It doesn't matter the number. What matters is the substance and what the executive order does. If it bypasses Congress to do something the President wants that Congress has refused to work with then that is an overreach of executive authority. That is very different than a proclamation of intent. If a E.O. undo past executive overreach than I don't see it as big as an issue than the original E.O. being undone.
I hope you can tell the difference. Bypassing congress bad. Working within Constitutional Executive authority good.
We've figured out how to slow down an asteroid on a collision with Earth? News to me.
Getting back to Earth isn't the problem. It's the slowing down part. I hear the dinosaurs were pretty good at the first part (they waited long enough).
The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies.
Nah, we just named a journalism award after one of the guys who invented yellow journalism.
. It would have been nice to have some sort of agreement or framework that formally states our goals,
At this point it, is irrelevant what the NK state media show what matters is what the leadership will do. We waited for a long time to get an agreement before meeting and that escalated tensions. Now, we had heads of state meet and tensions are calming.
why that president walked away without some sort of statement about what our goals are and what we expect from NK.
It wasn't tried before? Things were escalating to a point where war could have easily been because of an accident? The situation changed with nukes? Plenty of reasons. Yes, it would have been nice but not getting the optimal isn't the same as not getting something favorable.
Then wouldn't it make sense to have the result be a co-drafted document which states the goals
I would agree but everyone knows what the goals are. Both sides know what they want and know what the other-side wants. This isn't something that started yesterday. The devil is in the details and I would rather work on cautious optimism rather than suspicious pessimism.
Your original point in this thread is, what, that nothing has been given to NK?
That coulnd't be easily taken away or reversed. Yes, standing up on stage with the US president legitimizes Kim. As does the medias coverage of the Olympics in Seoul. As does Kim shaking hands with SK president on the border. Diplomacy requires some form of legitimacy. It can also be lost. For instance, if Trump changes his mind on NK and starts a twitter fiasco the main complaint of NK will remain, the sanctions. If Trump gave up the sanctions before CVID, and if NK lies then we lost a major negotiating position and have to convince others to reinstate sanctions. It's much more difficult to get to where we are in a diplomatic and negotiating position if we remove sanctions. That is the difference. Right now, all that has happened is Trump treating Kim like the media treated NK during the Olympics or NK and SK border handshake. Yes, it is legitimization but the point is that it is legitimization toward a specific goal and with actors that seemingly are willing to agree to that shared goal. whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
every time he gets caught blatantly lying, every time he rolls over for another foreign leader, and you think that NK does not notice those things and adjusts their own policies towards the US, then you're delusional. It does not happen in a vacuum.
Obviously. Why we are here today isn't to the purview of the everyday person. Through sanctions and other actions could have forced NK into this position. Probably all started through Obama and it was expected that the successor would lead the charge in CVID (everyone thought Clinton). There is so much more to it than just Trump. However, Trump is the reality and right now we have a situation where NK and Trump are moving toward a good direction. Whether you want to credit trump to that or not is not the point. The point is that currently, we have not given NK anything that wouldn't be necessary for any kind of diplomatic normalization that would hopefully lead to CVID.
I really think you need to ignore Trump, his lies, and his language for a moment. Picture a world where a blank slate president is here with the current results through the same actions (not language). From that point of view I don't think it is completely insane or out of the ordinary and there should be some credit to him or his predecessor (depending on the covert operations beyond sanctions that forced NK into a position to negotiate). That could all change and NK could be lying their ass off trying to get the sanctions removed. Who knows but claiming Trump is gave up something diplomatically is emphatically wrong. Our negotiating position is the same even if you swap out the president.
Not sure what I am conceding you haven't had a consistent thought that was relevant nor addressed my original point. You are more concerned about complaining about everything Trump than defending a claim that you made. You are all over the place. I mentioned Iran because you brought up Helsinki and Russia. Obama is relevant to the discussion for Russia and hacking because it has occurred for a long time under his watch.
If you don't want to defend your claim then don't. Is it cathartic to complain this much about Trump?
Apparently I struck a nerve. Not sure how how diplomacy for NK turned into that diarrhea. I don't have to defend everything he does to recognize good results. So far NK has been a good result.
What the hell does Russia working with Israel mean? It further isolates Iran. It may not be much but I am sure Iran takes it more serious than what you are making it out to be. Whether that is because of Trump? Could be. Could not be. But so far the results of Trumps diplomacy are moving nearly all the worst foreign issues in the right direction. Much better than Bush and Obama so far.
> I guarantee it is not because we have a strong leader.
Yea, Obama was a weak leader. Since much of that has been going on for sometime. At least Obama was flexible and took down those missile defenses after the election. That was being tough!
There is a difference thinking your opinion is correct and being so headstrong as to be blind to anything else.
I think your model to understand and predict reality is very flawed because you can see results that are objectively beneficial by any measure yet still say things like "he's an embarrassment". If the narrative you use to describe reality does a poor job and does not have predictive ability then I think you should abandon it. I don't think you are dumb I think your ability to look beyond "Trump is an embarrassment" is compromised.
Helsinki? Look weak and cowardly? I guess... That is hardly a surprise considering your narrative for NK. I think the fact that Russia created a 100 mile buffer between Syria and Israel and now coordinating military efforts with Israel is something to consider. I think that is more noteworthy than "looking" weak. Particularly so when Putin said that he can be useful toward NK denuclearize (which he can) and stability in the ME (which he can).
It seems that you are lost in minutia while not seeing the big picture. The narrative and frame you use seems deeply flawed.
I didn't say I don't value Research or Education. You are building a strawman.
You really miss my point. So, I will ask a simple question. Why would anyone risk their blood and sweat for someone else to sit in a cushy lab when they could build up their own lab?
Your arrogance is off the charts.
That is yet to be found out but it seems like you are convinced that your opinion is the correct one.
See, I just thought he was a dumbass,
I think if you think that Trump going for handshake, the general a handshake and they both swap until they both land on a handshake is anything other than just a gaffe says more about you than anything. Proper protocols and saluting? Sure thing. Who cares. It's really a non-issue that is really sad that you are obsessed with.
We have been waiting for how long for instability? Internet revolt? Like Syria? Sheesh. You are naive to think that decades of the same will amount to something this time! People have been saying for decades that NK wouldn't be able to hold out. But surely you are smart enough to realize that this time will work.
Was Kim going to lose his power if Trump didn't do what he did? probably not.