• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Uncle at Nintendo

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Jan 3, 2018
8,607
www.space.com

Space Force has Biden's 'full support,' White House says

The nation's newest military branch just got a vote of confidence from the Biden administration.

The nation's newest military branch just got a vote of confidence from the Biden administration.

The U.S. Space Force has "the full support of the Biden administration," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said during a news conference today (Feb. 3).


"The desire for the Department of Defense to focus greater attention and resources on the growing security challenges in space has long been a bipartisan issue informed by numerous independent commissions and studies conducted across multiple administrations," she added.

President Joe Biden and his team, Psaki continued, will not revisit the decision to establish the Space Force, which was officially created in December 2019. Indeed, Biden does not have the power to eliminate the Space Force, even if he wanted to do so, she said: "It was established by Congress, and any other steps would actually have to be taken by Congress, not by the administration."

Kind of dumb, we are way to early for any type of space force, and if I am being petty, Trump doesn't deserve that type of legacy.
 

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,338
www.space.com

Space Force has Biden's 'full support,' White House says

The nation's newest military branch just got a vote of confidence from the Biden administration.



Kind of dumb, we are way to early for any type of space force, and if I am being petty, Trump doesn't deserve that type of legacy.
As the article states, only congress can end the space force. This is posturing for something that exists and has no chance of disappearing anytime soon.
 

Keasar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,724
Umeå, Sweden
One: Why?

Two: Yay another military cash sink when your country is in the complete fucking shitter that could use all that money instead.
pvUTi9g.png
 

Soda

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,890
Dunedin, New Zealand
Frankly, I find the Space Force fine if it leads to significant technological advancement in space travel, safety, and related technology... which I expect it to, frankly, far before it has any relevance in actual "defense" roles. Color me naïve and optimistic.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
39,054
Well it's a branch of the military and Biden is Commander in Chief of the Military so it would be pretty bad if he said he didn't support the space force. As... dumb as it seemed to me, and we're kind of saddled with it as an independent branch of the military unless congress reintegrates it with the Air Force.

"Space Force" has been a formal branch of the Air Force since the end of WW2, until 2019 with the Defense Authorization bill passed by Congress and it became independent of the Air Force. Bipartisan panels had recommended it as a separate military branch as far back as 2001. I wouldn't have much of a problem with it if it didn't always seem like a vanity project for Donald Trump.

Curiously ...... has congress ever reintegrated a distinct division of the military into another one? Like, was the ever a distinct branch for some amount of years that then got re-integrated into another branch?

Kind of dumb, we are way to early for any type of space force, and if I am being petty, Trump doesn't deserve that type of legacy.

It was formalized through an act of congress in 2019. For what it's worth, it mostly just moved the Dept of Air Force Space Force / Space Command into it's own branch, and it largely has the same responsibilities that it's had for the last 30 years or so ... Maintaining the GPS constellation, overseeing space-based missile warning networks, etc. It's still a very small branch... 2500 "guardians," compared to 85,000 people in the next smallest branch, the Coast Guard.
 
Last edited:

SirKai

Member
Dec 28, 2017
7,401
Washington
Investing in space assets and protecting them is hugely important. "Space Force" sounds and looks dopey but I'm glad the whole thing isn't being torn down.
 

H.Cornerstone

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,727
Frankly, I find the Space Force fine if it leads to significant technological advancement in space travel, safety, and related technology... which I expect it to, frankly, far before it has any relevance in actual "defense" roles. Color me naïve and optimistic.
We have that.. it's called NASA.
 

Landy828

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,427
Clemson, SC
Just buy the rights to the name Star Trek or call it Star Warriors or something.

It already literally stole the Starfleet Command Logo.
 

StreetsAhead

Member
Sep 16, 2020
5,080
I'm trying to think of a less dumb name that isn't directly stolen from a Sci Fi property.

The Stellar Division?
 

Forerunner

Resetufologist
The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
14,678
time.com

America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside to See What It Does

Less than eight months after its launch, Space Force is trying to justify its existence



www.thedrive.com

Space Force Boss Says One Of Russia's Killer Satellites Fired A Projectile In Orbit

A very recent test involved small orbital "inspectors" that had previously been observed shadowing an American spy satellite.

"Russia is developing on-orbit capabilities that seek to exploit our reliance on space-based systems," Raymond told Time. He explained that, on July 15, 2020, a satellite identified as Cosmos 2543 launched a projectile that could be used to destroy another craft in space.

The Kremlin describes Cosmos 2543, also sometimes written Kosmos 2543, as a "space apparatus inspector," one of a number in orbit now, which are ostensibly intended to do just what the name says, inspect other satellites. On the face of it, this offers Russian officials a way to investigate problems with or assess damage to other space-based assets on-orbit.

However, given their small size and high degrees of maneuverability, there have been long-standing concerns that these orbital inspectors could double as spies or even "killer satellites" capable of getting close to and then disrupting or destroying other space-based platforms by any of a number of means, including electronic warfare jamming or a directed energy weapon, such as a high-powered microwave beam. They could also potentially manipulate a satellite in a way that would disable it or launch kinetic attacks, either smashing into the target themselves or launching projectiles, the latter being something that Space Force now says the Kremlin has been actively testing.

message-editor%2F1595522560269-asat.jpg


www.c4isrnet.com

What is a space weapon, and who has them?

A new report from the Center for Strategic and Intentional Studies tries to classify the six types of space weapons.

With the increasing militarization of space, there have been a number of efforts to find an international agreement to create controls on the use of space weaponry. But there's a problem: How do you create a meaningful framework for a treaty against space weapons if no one defines them the same way?

It's an issue that Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies tackles in a new paper, first viewed by C4ISRNET, in which he attempts to create a taxonomy of space weapons.

The report comes at a time when a number of countries, including Japan, France, South Korea and the United States, are expanding or standing up military organizations specifically focused on space, with officials in those nations hinting at, if not outright declaring, the need to expand their respective space weapon capabilities.

  • Earth-to-space kinetic: Physical systems launched from Earth, such as the anti-satellite missile test by India in 2019. Such weapons risk leaving behind fields of space debris, and they could be conventional or, in theory, nuclear warheads. The United States, Russia, China and India have shown such capability, with the U.S. and Russia having performed nuclear tests in space in the 1960s. Russia tested such a capability as recently as April.
  • Earth-to-space non-kinetic: Jammers, laser dazzlers or cyberattacks launched from Earth, upward. The effects can vary wildly, but overall the goal is to interfere, temporarily or permanently, with satellite capability. Many nations have this capability, including the U.S., Russia, China and Iran.
  • Space-to-space kinetic: Satellites physically intercepting other satellites to disrupt or destroy them, or weapons put specifically in space for this purpose. Debris is once again an issue here, as is the potential for use of a nuclear weapon, which could have fallout on a number of systems. The Soviet Union repeatedly tested co-orbital, kinetic anti-satellite weapons during the Cold War.
  • Space-to-space non-kinetic: A satellite is placed into orbit and uses non-kinetic, high-powered microwaves, jammers or some other means to disrupt another space-based system. There are no open-source cases of such a system being used, though Harrison notes it might be hard for outside observers to tell if it happened; France directly accused Russia of performing this kind of action in 2018, in what Paris described as an attempt to intercept military communications.
  • Space-to-Earth kinetic: A classic of science fiction, the ability to bombard a terrestrial target from space would give a true upper hand to whatever nation perfected it. Damage can be inflicted using the kinetic energy of the weapon itself (such as dropping a bunch of rods off a satellite and letting them build power during descent), or a warhead could be deployed on a reentry vehicle. The U.S. military has contemplated it in the past, but there are no open-source examples of such a system being tested.
  • Space-to-space non-kinetic: A system that could target down, whether through jamming of signals or through targeting spacecraft or ballistic missiles. The U.S. has talked about a desire for space-based laser systems for missile defense, but there are no open-source examples of such a system being used.

 
Last edited:

YolkFolk

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,212
The North, England
According to a lot of the UFO insiders, at some point there will be a false flag extraterrestrial attack and the space forces will be needed in order to help avert it. We've had the technology to stage one of these attacks for years having back engineered acquired extraterrestrial craft.

Don't shoot the messenger guys :)
 

ThiefofDreams

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,481
From what I get from press briefs, it feels like it's not even a real branch, when she says that someone from there can feel free to talk to the press.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,735
It's sort of a net neutral thing. Reorganizing existing stuff. Also given the emergence of anti-satellite interests in Russia and others, not the worst thing to be a bit proactive about.

Though I'm sure someone just showed Trump a clip of Moonraker to sell him on it.
 

Grug

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,645
Psaki needs to apologise.

My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson who will be torn to shreds by a giant bug in the battle of Klendathu deserves better than dismissive comments from the White House podium.
 

XenIneX

Member
Oct 28, 2017
622
This is fine. Like, actual-"fine", not meme-"fine".

Like, sure, it was kinda dumb to fork the Air Force Space Command off into a whole separate thing -- mostly amounting to a change in letterhead. But at this point, all un-ringing that bell would do is torpedo morale.

Let them have their fun and see what comes of it.
 

Jroc

Banned
Jun 9, 2018
6,145
The Space Force just does the stuff that the Air Force was already doing up there.

I don't think it's a big deal one way or another.
 

nded

Member
Nov 14, 2017
10,592
The Space Force is a thing that already existed before trump shuffled it around and giving him credit for it is being too generous.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
39,054
We have that.. it's called NASA.

NASA's responsibility is civilian space exploration, Space Force (or "Air Force Space Command" before 2019) -- for better or worse -- has always been focused on military infrastructure of space technology, services, etc. GPS, for instance, has been maintained by the Space Command, now Space Force, not NASA. There's other shit too, space-based missile defense programs, upper atmosphere missile programs during the Cold War, military satelites, and so on. While NASA is a civilian agency of the US government, there are good reasons to separate out military space programs from the civilian ones, which benefits both NASA and whatever nascent space military developments there have been. There are some obvious reasons too, like, it would be unusual for a branch of the US military to coordinate with, say, Russia or China, while civilian space programs make sense to coordinate with foreign adversaries.

Personally, I think it would have made as much sense to keep it under the Air Force, but w/e, it was a vanity bill breaking it off from the Air Force for Donald Trump, and squeezing the toothpaste back into the bottle is not worth the effort.
 

papertowel

Member
Nov 6, 2017
2,023
The Space Force already existed as the Air Force Space Command. It was more of a reorganizing than creating a whole new thing. We've have a 'space force' for decades.
 

iksenpets

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,502
Dallas, TX
Defense in space is whatever, but it seems silly for something so small to get its own independent branch instead of being an office in the Air Force (hell, I'm not sure anything has ever actually benefited from separating the Air Force from the Army). For the foreseeable future, what are they even doing other than thinking through scenarios where they may need to shoot down a satellite? There is no conceivable orbital battle in foreseeable future, let alone any sort of open space warfare. And now we're stuck with all this weird pomp they added to Space Force so Trump could bring attention to it, like the future uniforms and branding the members as fucking "Guardians".
 

NihonTiger

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,527
As mentioned, Space Force is basically taking a bunch of stuff that already existed in the Air Force, Army and their respective national guards and moving it all under one new umbrella, including most of the facilities here in Colorado and especially most of the Air Force facilities in Colorado Springs (only Fort Carson really didn't escape being absorbed into it).

Killing it off completely, as some people seem inclined to do, could turn Colorado into Republican state for the near future by demolishing the state's booming aerospace industry that has, for decades, worked awfully close with the folks in Colorado Springs and Aurora. The people who work at command down in Springs are already massively upset that Trump planned to move command to Huntsville, Alabama. It would also remove NASA's West Coast launch facility at Vandenburg (which was moved into Space Force from the Air Force) if you actually eliminated the entire program.
 

Ruken

Member
Oct 29, 2017
194
My one beef is please just call it Starfleet.
The name is too good not to use.
 
Oct 28, 2017
27,185
If you picture it the right way it makes sense. The name lacks pizzazz but the function is needed. You get more of the needed resources to be under the right grouping. Like the Coast Guard and the Navy. Sure they could do the same function but they work better as separate entities. Also since there is no Secretary of the Space Force, I think they fall under the Air Force anyway.
 

Powdered Egg

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
17,070
Frankly, I find the Space Force fine if it leads to significant technological advancement in space travel, safety, and related technology... which I expect it to, frankly, far before it has any relevance in actual "defense" roles. Color me naïve and optimistic.
It's going to be the same as Earth. Wars for resources with non-whites doing most of the digging, at the expense of their health, for white nations.
 

KDR_11k

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
5,235
The name and uniforms and stuff are silly but apparently creating the branch itself was overdue.
 

charmeleon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,383
The space force is a good idea, there is a reason the air force was split off from the army.
 

BassForever

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
29,955
CT
At this point even if you merge it back into the air force, you'll probably have to split it out again 50-100 years when space travel is a lot more common. Might as well just leave it as is for future proofing.
 

Dyle

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
29,962
Why wouldn't they fully support it? Maybe if Biden has some kind of burning hate for GPS? 99% of the reason people shit on Space Force is because Trump took credit for it that he didn't deserve and they stole their logo from Star Trek. What's done is done, there's no point in eliminating it.