33 ms·

This seems weird and premature. We will probably need a "Space Corps" eventually, but doing it now when the technology is still in its infancy, instead of being

This seems weird and premature. We will probably need a "Space Corps" eventually, but doing it now when the technology is still in its infancy, instead of being able to leverage the manpower of an existing service, seems unhelpful. Making the Air Force its own thing, instead of part of the Army, was a good decision in 1945 but would've been dumb in 1912 too.

gorkonsine 9y ago
Actually, I think they should go the opposite way: they should eliminate the Air Force, and make it part of the Army again. The AF was split off because of the Cold War, and is just a relic of that time. No other modern military force has a separate "air force", because having it separate only complicates things when conducting a conventional ground war. For a while the Air Force even thought they were going to make the Navy obsolete, because they wanted to rely on ICBMs and long-range bombers for everything.
- rjsw 9y ago
  Most modern military forces have a separate "air force", can you list which countries don't ?
- tomjakubowski 9y ago
  > No other modern military force has a separate "air force", because having it separate only complicates things when conducting a conventional ground war. Besides the US: Turkey, Syria, Russia, Israel all off the top of my head have air force and ground army (along with, at least, a navy) separate under one "Armed Forces" command. What modern air forces operate as part of the army, rather than separately (as most navies do)?
  - smacktoward 9y ago
    The big one is China, where all the services are technically branches within the People's Liberation Army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      But, from one perspective, that doesn't mean they don't have an Air Force as a top level service, it just means the PLA is the aggregate (like “Armed Forces” of many other countries) under which the top-level services exist.
    - gorkonsine 9y ago
      That really doesn't sound any different than the US, it's just different naming. In the US, all four services are branches within the "Department of Defense". So US DOD = China PLA. To properly compare, you need to look at whether the air force has the same level of autonomy from the ground army as the navy does. If it does, it's just like the US. If not, it's not.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > No other modern military force has a separate "air force" The UK has the same high level structure as the US (A “Naval Service” including Navy and Marines, an Army, and an Air Force.) It's a fairly common structure. The Chinese PLA actually has more services (Ground Force, Air Force, Rocket Force, Navy, Strategic Support Force.) There probably are modern militaries where one of the top-level divisions isn't something like an air Force, but they aren't dominant among modern, large-scale forces.
sbaoufbasfub 9y ago
I thought we had signed an international treaty against militarizing space and other celestial bodies. In fact, here is the text: http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-principles-governing-activities-states-exploration-and-use-outer-space-including-moon-and-other-celestial-bodies-outer-space-treaty/ http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-princip...
- carapace 9y ago
  Yes! This is a huge step backwards. War and space do not mix.
- krapp 9y ago
  Simple Prisoner's Dilemma - you know that the other nations have signed a treaty against militarizing space, but why would you take anyone else at their word? The answer is, you don't - you try as hard to militarize the hell out of space before anyone else, because you assume everyone else is doing the same.
  - sbaoufbasfub 9y ago
    The other answer is like the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and START I,II. Intrusive verification by international bodies with penalties for non-compliance. It hasn't been perfect, but so far the world hasn't ended.
    - sbaoufbasfub 9y ago
      Sorry by START II, I meant New Start. START II was cancelled before it went into effect in retaliation for George W. Bush cancelling the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty.

gorkonsine 9y ago

Actually, I think they should go the opposite way: they should eliminate the Air Force, and make it part of the Army again. The AF was split off because of the Cold War, and is just a relic of that time. No other modern military force has a separate "air force", because having it separate only complicates things when conducting a conventional ground war. For a while the Air Force even thought they were going to make the Navy obsolete, because they wanted to rely on ICBMs and long-range bombers for everything.

rjsw 9y ago
Most modern military forces have a separate "air force", can you list which countries don't ?
tomjakubowski 9y ago
> No other modern military force has a separate "air force", because having it separate only complicates things when conducting a conventional ground war. Besides the US: Turkey, Syria, Russia, Israel all off the top of my head have air force and ground army (along with, at least, a navy) separate under one "Armed Forces" command. What modern air forces operate as part of the army, rather than separately (as most navies do)?
- smacktoward 9y ago
  The big one is China, where all the services are technically branches within the People's Liberation Army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    But, from one perspective, that doesn't mean they don't have an Air Force as a top level service, it just means the PLA is the aggregate (like “Armed Forces” of many other countries) under which the top-level services exist.
  - gorkonsine 9y ago
    That really doesn't sound any different than the US, it's just different naming. In the US, all four services are branches within the "Department of Defense". So US DOD = China PLA. To properly compare, you need to look at whether the air force has the same level of autonomy from the ground army as the navy does. If it does, it's just like the US. If not, it's not.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> No other modern military force has a separate "air force" The UK has the same high level structure as the US (A “Naval Service” including Navy and Marines, an Army, and an Air Force.) It's a fairly common structure. The Chinese PLA actually has more services (Ground Force, Air Force, Rocket Force, Navy, Strategic Support Force.) There probably are modern militaries where one of the top-level divisions isn't something like an air Force, but they aren't dominant among modern, large-scale forces.

sbaoufbasfub 9y ago

I thought we had signed an international treaty against militarizing space and other celestial bodies. In fact, here is the text: http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-principles-governing-activities-states-exploration-and-use-outer-space-including-moon-and-other-celestial-bodies-outer-space-treaty/ http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-princip...

carapace 9y ago
Yes! This is a huge step backwards. War and space do not mix.
krapp 9y ago
Simple Prisoner's Dilemma - you know that the other nations have signed a treaty against militarizing space, but why would you take anyone else at their word? The answer is, you don't - you try as hard to militarize the hell out of space before anyone else, because you assume everyone else is doing the same.
- sbaoufbasfub 9y ago
  The other answer is like the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and START I,II. Intrusive verification by international bodies with penalties for non-compliance. It hasn't been perfect, but so far the world hasn't ended.
  - sbaoufbasfub 9y ago
    Sorry by START II, I meant New Start. START II was cancelled before it went into effect in retaliation for George W. Bush cancelling the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty.