"An independent Space Force" Topic

There's been some talk on TMP about the proposed "Space Force."

Do you support the creation of a separate space branch equal to the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard?

A. Yes, a branch devoted to "The Final Frontier" is long overdue and would only make space operations more efficient by consolidating the various space sub-commands from the other branches.

B. No, the current de-centralized arrangement is more than adequate. A separate space branch will only add an additional layer of bureaucracy competing for limited resources.

C. Not sure. Why not rename the Air Force the "Aerospace Force" instead?

D. No opinion. And this is treading close to Blue Fez territory.

E – Stay with NASA – but beef it up

B – The Air Force has it under control. Way to early for a separate branch. This has nothing to do with NASA. Air Force handles the military aspect of space. NASA handles the exploration and yes NASA needs a bigger budget.

A. Makes sense now, as needs grow, and technical sophistication increases. Not sure the USAF will be able to keep up with it all, or be objective about needs when budgetary issues and other concerns arise.

The USAAC didn't like being under the thumb of the army, either. Hence, the USAF.

My guess is that they already have something and have had it for years. There was an interesting chapter in Tom Clancy's book on the Gulf Air War, Every Man a Tiger, where it talked about a space command that I had not heard about before. This was back before the year 2000, so the fact that we're just hearing something about it now means it's been in operation for awhile now.

Starfleet is more than good enough for me.

But we know from experience that the Airforce is more than capable to deal with it. I mean how many times did SG-1 save the planet? A dozen or so times?

A!

1. Despite USAF's leading role in space, each branch of the military maintains its own separate satellite programs and R&D projects. USAF, USN and USA all have their own competing and overlapping programs.

2. Then there are assets outside traditional military control such as the NRO, NOAA and other departments with communications and remote sensing capabilities that should be organized along a "Civil Reserve Air Fleet" line, managed by one agency.

3. There is also no unified MilSpace policy or doctrine, it's scattered among USAF, DARPA, USN, etc.

4. Our primary competitors have already gone down this path, both Russia and China have their own Space Force branch of service.

A.

C – Because it seems like the logical choice while everything is Earth-based and light-speed delays are short. That will slide into A when the logistics change and the branch will feel more like the silent service and not a drone palace.

A. Way overdue as SBminisguy has pointed out. Too much bureaucratic infighting is getting in the way of progess

A. And thanks to all for keeping this from becoming D. (I suspect this has actually been in the works for a while anyway.)

But, yes, a separate force is a smart thing to do for the sake of efficiency and consolidation, and effective coordination of resources to meet the space needs of the various other branches. And I think it's best to get a start now, when we (hopefully) have time to iron out any rough spots so that when the pressure's on, we have a Space Force that can do the job.

@Rallynow: haha, no. HQAF has been stealing AFSpace's budget and giving it to Air Combat Command.

It probably would be good to get all the duplicated programs wrapped up into one agency and settled out, should save quite a few billion dollars (considering that a satellite is a couple billion dollars a whack!).

I'll support just about anything that gets us more capability in space. If it's just more bureaucracy, then forget it. But if it produces more vehicles and more astronauts in space, then go for it. I'd prefer a greater non-military presence, but I'll take anything I can get.

F. There are smart people in the "space" field looking into this right now. Let the experts weigh the pros and cons of having a separate space force and report back to the President.

They would probably spend a billion just to decide where at the Joint Chiefs table the head of this program would sit. Another couple billion to get them a separate building or wing, another billion or so to decide what the ranks of the organization would be called, another billion to come up with a different name from "Space Cadet" for their boot camp people.

So B.

Dynaman, don't forget the nifty new uniforms! At least another billion for those!

As long as they have the co-ed showers from Starship Troopers, who cares!

What the creation of a separate but equal space branch would mean is that defense-related space programs would get higher prestige/political clout and a much larger slice of the defense budget by virtue of its very existence. The Space Force will fight for its funding and the salaries of its staff just like the other services, instead of relying on the discretion of the service branches they're part of as to how much is spent on space programs.

Proponents of a Space Force believe that space programs are chronically underfunded and so must gain independence from their patron services, which underfund these programs due to inherent and institutional bias in favor of their own pet projects, such as fighter planes for the Air Force and ships for the Navy. They can't help it. It's the nature of the beast.

A separate Space Force will ensure that space programs are no longer "neglected" as they have been in the past.

Opponents of a separate Space Force argue that the realm of space does not yet warrant a separate branch because space programs only provide force-multiplying "support services" (like intel and navigation) to the other service branches or civilian agencies such as the the CIA and NSA. There can be no "Star Wars" space lasers or other weapons that would violate international non-proliferation or militarization of space conventions like the Outer Space Treaty.

By creating a self-perpetuating Space Force that would compete for funding with the other services, other programs/needs will inevitably suffer because there will be what economists call an "opportunity cost."

Perhaps F?

Wait for China and Russia to complete and field their respective Space Forces, and then model a U.S.A. Space Force on the Chinese and Russian models?

> Wait for China and Russia to complete and field their respective Space Forces, and then model a U.S.A. Space Force on the Chinese and Russian models?

That would be a switch from the normal practice at least.

Wait for China and Russia to complete and field their respective Space Forces, and then model a U.S.A. Space Force on the Chinese and Russian models?

That would be a switch from the normal practice at least.

Russia's space forces is part of the Russian Aerospace Forces, not a separate branch: link

China's "Strategic Support Force" is a separate branch: link

The way the it was announced put me off it.

C.

A

all the way

I support the consolidation of all military branches under a single Defense Force.

I support non-militarized space, so keep it with NASA

I support non-militarized space, so keep it with NASA

That's nice. I'm sure the Russians and Chinese agree with you.

I support the consolidation of all military branches under a single Defense Force.

This has its merits and is a worthy discussion. There are both pros and cons of having a single Force.

Opponents of a separate Space Force argue that the realm of space does not yet warrant a separate branch because space programs only provide force-multiplying "support services" (like intel and navigation) to the other service branches or civilian agencies such as the the CIA and NSA. There can be no "Star Wars" space lasers or other weapons that would violate international non-proliferation or militarization of space conventions like the Outer Space Treaty.

That is incorrect, the only military weapons banned in space are nukes. You can have all the lasers, Rods from God, or whatever else you want, just no nukes.

We're probably going to have to do something about that treaty to create an asteroid-diverting system. The easiest way to divert an asteroid is a large nuke (multiple megatons) or several, in the style of Project Orion.