But no one is talking about a Colonial Marines/Starship Troopers scenario. Real-life space security is a totally different thing, and it’s this mission that Space Force supports.
3 Likes
What effort was made prior to 45 to militarize space? A few failed Russian designs? Reagan’s failed “Star Wars”? All doomed. As will space force be. Space is a place for co-operation not MAD. Unless you want it to be a place where we all dies but I don’t think many people, businesses and governments are very interested in that.
4 Likes
Fair enough. Language is a funny thing. Nuance on top of nuance inside other nuances. To me, “why should” sounds very different from “why would.” “Why should it be different” sounds like “I want it that way.” “Why would it be different” sounds like “That’s just the way it is.” I read your tone as more of the former than the latter.
2 Likes
This is a strange question. You know that GPS is a U.S. Air Force program, right? And that space-based military surveillance has been a thing since Corona? And that the U.S. civilian space program was always purely civilian in name only? And that the space shuttle was designed around parameters provided by the Air Force? And that Apollo astronauts considered themselves “cold warriors?”
Not trying to be snarky. A lot of people are unaware of this history.
7 Likes
Mea culpa! Probably should read “would.”
1 Like
It’s better than the dystopian bullshit we are forced to shovel everyday, by unimaginative people who cannot see anything else.
6 Likes
If there was a viable alternative, I’d be all for it. Haven’t seen one offered yet, though. In space, no one can hear you sing Kumbaya.
1 Like
Yes I “get” all of that. Regardless, we didn’t feel the need to label a specific branch with “enforcing” rules or borders in space and to this day we have no specific threat to demand a need for enforcing any rules.
Enforcing implies that someone has a “gun” with which to enforce said rules. You can’t hold ground with a big stick.
We didn’t got to the moon to build a base or a missile silo nor did we arm our satellites. We agreed spying from space is acceptable, but weaponizing space was futile and unacceptable. The air force already handles the spy sats. The formations of Space Force implies they will need to arm themselves in order to defend borders and enforce rules.
I don’t think that mandate is going to prove fruitful and will die a slow death under current circumstances. Now should China and Russia take the unforgivable steps of arming themselves in space we’re all up shits creek when a simple blast of radiation or a bowling ball sized projectile can take out a whole base with a single shot.
3 Likes
But the whole world can be forced to sing imperialist anthems at gunpoint. Basically your whole argument is militaries exist therefore militiaries must exist.
7 Likes
6 Likes
How could we best say “That’s the way, uh-huh uh-huh, I like it”?
2 Likes
Except there are specific threats, as others have pointed out upthread.
Not really. Space Force was simply a reorganization of resources that were mostly already in place. The weapons we’re talking about were already in the works within the Air Force and other bodies, they’re just under new management. And to be clear, Space Force isn’t even that far removed from the Air Force - its relation to the USAF if similar to the relationship the USMC has to the USN. Whether the restructuring was a good idea or not is a debate with legitimate points on both sides - I side with “not,” but just barely.
What base? Again, we’re not talking Colonial Marines stuff here. We’re talking about the protection of space-based infrastructure that is critical to our security on Earth, things like telecommuncations, GPS, and surveillance.
4 Likes
Well, yeah. But perhaps the U.S. should unilaterally disarm and see how it goes. What could go wrong?
American militarism is a major part of the problem, and a major driver of the problem. That’s always been the case and will continue to be the case until we start to actual dismantle our military industrial complex. Much of our footing is not remotely defensive, but offensive. We currently have the largest military in the world BY FAR, and the absolutely largest military footprint in the world. I’d suggest that quite a few other countries feel actively threatened by that reality.
We keep saying that we want to lead by example, well, maybe some demilitarization of space is a good place to start.
10 Likes
Literally no one above cited a specific threat besides a failed Russian gun that never really worked. The base l refer to is any structure you would need in order to police or hold a line. You have to have 24/7 surveillance to police something, maybe “troops or armed drone sats” therefore a base is required, preferably one nearby, which is almost impossible in space therefore it’s just more proof towards the futility of militarizing space. It’s just another money waster and an extension of the cold war. The idea is fruitless.
2 Likes
Uh, going to claim prior-art here. Not only has the U.S. had kinetic anti-satellite weapons for ages, other countries do too. Heck, China TESTED theirs on-orbit back in 2007, 14 YEARS ago. Did anyone writing this Google first?
3 Likes
I agree with all that. What I take issue with are naive takes that misunderstand the nature of the problem, or the complexities of security policy.
2 Likes
The best analogy I can think of is landmines. On earth we have many minefields which decades after the conflicts have ended still maim and kill people today. If you say explode a satellite, the bits of debris don’t go away. They now effectively become “landmines” hurtling around the earth for hundreds or even thousands of years. Problem is when these “landmines” hit another space vehicle it creates more “landmines” and so on and so forth. If you want to ensure humanity can never enter space effectively again, a war in space is the perfect way to do it. We already have abit of a space junk problem with vehicles having to change course on the regular to avoid potential collisions.
4 Likes
Just like shooting ducks in a barrel!
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DTx_qTwQqjU?start=4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It isn’t a binary. The U.S. can start the process of demilitarisation rather than lazily waiting for someone else to do it.
Or you can continue to escalate and see where that takes us
4 Likes
