4 ms·
Why not split off the Air Force Global Strike Command (long range nuclear bomber and ICBMs), or the Army Corps of Engineers, or the Navy's submarine operations?
by learc83 8y ago
Why not split off the Air Force Global Strike Command (long range nuclear bomber and ICBMs), or the Army Corps of Engineers, or the Navy's submarine operations?
The answer is that what defines "a nebulous and expensive operation" is incredibly vague and if we start splitting all large military operations into their own branches we'd just end up with even more administrative overhead and the designation of separate services would lose distinction.
The big difference here is that Space Force sounds cool.
- lainga 8y agoICBMS, the Corps of Engineers, and submarines have well-defined roles in the American military. Spacecraft, as of yet, do not. If you want surveillance, we have the NRO.
- learc83 8y agoWe already have the Air Force Space Command, which is the mission that The Space Force is going to take over. I'd say what they'll be doing is about a well defined as any other forces role. We don't know what a major war in orbit will look like, but we don't know what a major war against modern naval powers would look like either.
- lainga 8y agoThe great-grandparent was providing a justification for splitting space operations off of AFSC, as its mission is "vague and nebulous" and manages to eat up money and personnel in an opaque manner. You countered that other areas of the military could also be "vague and nebulous" and could be split off as well. I put forth that the other areas you mentioned have well-defined purposes, but spacecraft do not. First: now you have mentioned that we already have the AFSC. Doesn't this seem a bit circular to you? Second, AFSC already operates satellites, including the GPS constellation. If the Space Command inherits ownership of those satellites it will indeed be "operating spacecraft" without any real or described grandiosity.
- learc83 8y ago>now you have mentioned that we already have the AFSC. Doesn't this seem a bit circular to you? I said it's hard to define what nebulous and expensive means. I don't think AFSC's mission isn't anymore nebulous and expensive than a whole host of other commands. >operating spacecraft Operating spacecraft is indeed a grandiose term for maintaining satellites.
- lainga 8y agoAlright, how about the X-37B?
- learc83 8y agoSo they are operating a spacecraft. We don't know what it does but the most plausible explanation I've seen is that it's just a sensor test bed.
- lainga 8y agoYou've gone from claiming that operating spacecraft doesn't fit what the Space Force would do (in your grandparent comment, before you edited it) to claiming that it's not relevant because they're only operating one spacecraft. I'm fairly certain you're not arguing in good faith, especially given the heavy editing of the grandparent comment after I replied to you.
- learc83 8y agoI edited that before I saw that you responded. I said that operating military spacecraft is a grandiose description of what their mission is. It makes it sound like they have a fleet of spaceships fighting other enemy spaceships. I never said it doesn't fit what they would do. I said it's not what they would do. I also never said operating one spacecraft wasn't relevant. I said that operating spacecraft is a grandiose and downright pretentious way to describe the mission of an agency with one remote controlled, scaled down space shuttle, testbed laboratory and some GPS satellites. And it is.
- nicwolff 8y agoAnd the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command AKA SPAWAR http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pages/default.aspx http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pages/default.aspx