5 ms·

What is a "space force"? And why we need any kind of weapons in space? There are already enough weapons to destroy every living thing on Earth multiple times,

by hospes 8y ago

What is a "space force"? And why we need any kind of weapons in space? There are already enough weapons to destroy every living thing on Earth multiple times, what makes you excited about new military spending?

brandonmenc 8y ago
> What is a "space force"? We already have a "space force" - the Air Force - which was spun out of the Army. It's not odd to spin out the Space Force from the Air Force, if necessary. > And why we need any kind of weapons in space? Because other nations want to or are in the process of weaponizing space. The first time someone knocks out one of our GPS satellites, you'll be asking, "why don't we have a Space Force to protect against this sort of thing?" Everyone's favorite rational pop scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, thinks it's "not a weird idea." [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NEcxhPh7js https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NEcxhPh7js
- hospes 8y ago
  >>The first time someone knocks out one of our GPS satellites, you'll be asking, "why don't we have a Space Force to protect against this sort of thing?" It is extremely unlikely that someone will start knocking down US satellites, that would be an equivalent of attacking US, that never happened after invention of nuclear weapons. To spend billions to prepare for extremely unlikely event does not seem to be very rational thing to do. Meanwhile there are serious problems facing country and humanity in general global worming, automation takes away millions of jobs, opioid crisis, millions of people without health insurance, school system that has major issues. >> Everyone's favorite rational pop scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, thinks it's "not a weird idea." Yes, Neil gets exited when space gets any attention.
  - blhack 8y ago
    >that never happened after invention of nuclear weapons >To spend billions to prepare for extremely unlikely event does not seem to be very rational thing to do. Nuclear weapons were not free to develop.
    - hospes 8y ago
      They are already developed. Money is already spent.
      - blhack 8y ago
        Couldn't the same argument have been made for the first person to develop gun powder? Boats? Domesticated horses? Tipped spears, etc.?
        pfranz 8y ago
        Weapons can be an endless pit of development and the US is not a conquering nation. Let's say we could sustain an economy and develop the first nuclear weapons while everyone else is using spears; what was the opportunity cost? What's the value if it's only used for defense? Outside of defense I know a large military and weapons help in having influence, but so does having a stable and large economy--the later moreso. Nuclear weapons were developed out of a competition for survival. The people involved knew even in the hands of the Allied forces it was extremely dangerous. You're arguing we should invest in a Space Force because someone else might do it in the future.
    - pfranz 8y ago
      I can't see nations going forward making the investment in nuclear weapons unless they've already been making big investments. Look at NK, they've made investments in nuclear weapons as well as cyberwarfare. I'm sure the investment in cyberwarfare has been much, much smaller and they already hacked into Sony, reduced them to doing paper payroll for awhile, and released a bunch of compromising information. Sadly, the response from the US wasn't very serious. Unlike nuclear, the response has to be asymmetric because they don't have much of a network infrastructure to attack. I just don't see what to invest in for a Space Force. Anyone looking to attack something like GPS would either use something like ground base lasers, software/network hacks, or traditional projectiles. Anything developed by the US would either be obsolete by the time its needed or get sold to adversaries and used right back at us.
  - kolpa 8y ago
    What happens when an "anonymous hacker" finds a way to adjust the trajectory of a satellite, and someone needs to rapid response dispose of the rerouted satellite safely?
    - charleslmunger 8y ago
      The same thing we did last time that happened? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost
      - blhack 8y ago
        That satellite was about to decay into the atmosphere. We can't just start blowing up satellites in stable orbits.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > that would be an equivalent of attacking US, that never happened after invention of nuclear weapons. Both nation-state and non-nation-state organized groups have attacked the US since the invention of nuclear weapons. (On US territory itself—notably on 9/11/2001—but more often US military assets off US territory, which is the closest equivalent to attacking a GPS satellite.)
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The first time someone knocks out one of our GPS satellites, you'll be asking, "why don't we have a Space Force to protect against this sort of thing?" No, I won't. While the role is important, there is no sensible reason for a separate service, and the mission already exists in the Air Force. Sure, we need the mission, just like we need the riverine warfare mission, or the littoral warfare mission. We don't need a separate service for any of those missions, though. > Everyone's favorite rational pop scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, thinks it's "not a weird idea." It's not a weird idea, and it's something we’ll quite likely eventually need. OTOH, quite probably not this century.
  - brandonmenc 8y ago
    > quite probably not this century. That's extremely optimistic. We might not need it during this administration, but surely we'll need it in less than fifty years.
madeuptempacct 8y ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/president-trump-directs-pentagon-defense-department-to-immediately-being-the-process-of-establishing-space-force-as-sixth-military-branch.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/president-trump-directs-pent... "what makes you excited about new military spending?" I am guessing he is excited about the fact that they are focusing on space research. The original Russian "rockets" were just ICBM stages. There are hundreds of examples of military research boosting tech, especially when it comes to medicine and spaceflight.
- hospes 8y ago
  If government wants to boost space research then it should increase NASA's budget instead of creating "space force". >> There are hundreds of examples of military research boosting tech Increasing military spending to boost tech or space research is like killing mosquito with the bazooka. DoD is extremely ineffective organization, there are estimates that it wastes $125 Billion annually from its budget. [1] If government wants to increase spending on research and tech they need to invest in education first. School system in US has very low rankings compared to other developed countries. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-waste/pentagon-buried-study-that-found-125-billion-in-wasteful-spending-washington-post-idUSKBN13V08B https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-waste/pentago...
  - briandear 8y ago
    I would say the DoD is very effective. When was the last time the US was attacked by another country on our home soil? 1941? What about Europe? When was the last time a European country was attacked? March 2014. Now “effectively is not the same as “efficient.” DoD and pretty much every single other large government agency could be considered very inefficient. But ineffective? Not at all.
    - Iwan-Zotow 8y ago
      > When was the last time the US was attacked by another country on our home soil? 9/11
asdsa5325 8y ago
Russia had weapons in space decades ago. We are behind
- hospes 8y ago
  What kind of weapons do they have in space?
  - asdsa5325 8y ago
    They had a aircraft cannon attached to the Salyut 3 in 1974. No longer active of course. I'm just pointing out that other countries are not afraid of weaponizing space- we are simply behind and at a disadvantage if we don't. Especially since satellites play an important role in military and civilian infrastructure.
    - hospes 8y ago
      There are reasons why they gave up the idea of having weapons in space. Weapons in space are very expensive and dangerous. And they can be easily destroyed. Currently there are no serious weapons that can be useful in space.
      - asdsa5325 8y ago
        > Weapons in space are very expensive No, they just took a normal weapon and mounted it. > dangerous. And they can be easily destroyed Literally all mounted weapons can be described like this. > Currently there are no serious weapons that can be useful in space. Absolutely incorrect. The US has deployed laser-based weapons since the early 2000s. Used for missile defense mostly. As you can imagine, they perform well in the vacuum of space.
        hospes 8y ago
        >>Absolutely incorrect. The US has deployed laser-based weapons since the early 2000s. Used for missile defense mostly. As you can imagine, they perform well in the vacuum of space. Can you provide an example of a laser weapon(s) that can actually shoot down ballistic missile or cruise missile in real life scenario? The best that current laser weapons can do is to shoot down drones from relatively close distance. [1] Another issue with laser weapons in the space is powering them and maintaining them. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/no-quick-laser-missile-defense https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/no-qu...
briandear 8y ago
When enemy belligerents start shooting down our satellites, what then? When Mars transports are hijacked, then what? Evil and conflict are as old as humans themselves. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand human nature. What stopped Soviet tanks from rolling into West Berlin? It wasn’t a brigade of huggable teddy bears.
- hospes 8y ago
  >>What stopped Soviet tanks from rolling into West Berlin? It wasn’t a brigade of huggable teddy bears. The same thing that stops them now, nuclear weapons, huge military and NATO. No one is suggesting to not have defense or to stop spending money on defense. US already spends more on defense than next 10 countries in the list combined, most of which are US allies [1]. There is no need to spend more. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

by hospes 8y ago

brandonmenc 8y ago

> What is a "space force"? We already have a "space force" - the Air Force - which was spun out of the Army. It's not odd to spin out the Space Force from the Air Force, if necessary. > And why we need any kind of weapons in space? Because other nations want to or are in the process of weaponizing space. The first time someone knocks out one of our GPS satellites, you'll be asking, "why don't we have a Space Force to protect against this sort of thing?" Everyone's favorite rational pop scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, thinks it's "not a weird idea." [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NEcxhPh7js https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NEcxhPh7js

hospes 8y ago
>>The first time someone knocks out one of our GPS satellites, you'll be asking, "why don't we have a Space Force to protect against this sort of thing?" It is extremely unlikely that someone will start knocking down US satellites, that would be an equivalent of attacking US, that never happened after invention of nuclear weapons. To spend billions to prepare for extremely unlikely event does not seem to be very rational thing to do. Meanwhile there are serious problems facing country and humanity in general global worming, automation takes away millions of jobs, opioid crisis, millions of people without health insurance, school system that has major issues. >> Everyone's favorite rational pop scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, thinks it's "not a weird idea." Yes, Neil gets exited when space gets any attention.
- blhack 8y ago
  >that never happened after invention of nuclear weapons >To spend billions to prepare for extremely unlikely event does not seem to be very rational thing to do. Nuclear weapons were not free to develop.
  - hospes 8y ago
    They are already developed. Money is already spent.
    - blhack 8y ago
      Couldn't the same argument have been made for the first person to develop gun powder? Boats? Domesticated horses? Tipped spears, etc.?
      - pfranz 8y ago
        Weapons can be an endless pit of development and the US is not a conquering nation. Let's say we could sustain an economy and develop the first nuclear weapons while everyone else is using spears; what was the opportunity cost? What's the value if it's only used for defense? Outside of defense I know a large military and weapons help in having influence, but so does having a stable and large economy--the later moreso. Nuclear weapons were developed out of a competition for survival. The people involved knew even in the hands of the Allied forces it was extremely dangerous. You're arguing we should invest in a Space Force because someone else might do it in the future.
  - pfranz 8y ago
    I can't see nations going forward making the investment in nuclear weapons unless they've already been making big investments. Look at NK, they've made investments in nuclear weapons as well as cyberwarfare. I'm sure the investment in cyberwarfare has been much, much smaller and they already hacked into Sony, reduced them to doing paper payroll for awhile, and released a bunch of compromising information. Sadly, the response from the US wasn't very serious. Unlike nuclear, the response has to be asymmetric because they don't have much of a network infrastructure to attack. I just don't see what to invest in for a Space Force. Anyone looking to attack something like GPS would either use something like ground base lasers, software/network hacks, or traditional projectiles. Anything developed by the US would either be obsolete by the time its needed or get sold to adversaries and used right back at us.
- kolpa 8y ago
  What happens when an "anonymous hacker" finds a way to adjust the trajectory of a satellite, and someone needs to rapid response dispose of the rerouted satellite safely?
  - charleslmunger 8y ago
    The same thing we did last time that happened? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost
    - blhack 8y ago
      That satellite was about to decay into the atmosphere. We can't just start blowing up satellites in stable orbits.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > that would be an equivalent of attacking US, that never happened after invention of nuclear weapons. Both nation-state and non-nation-state organized groups have attacked the US since the invention of nuclear weapons. (On US territory itself—notably on 9/11/2001—but more often US military assets off US territory, which is the closest equivalent to attacking a GPS satellite.)
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The first time someone knocks out one of our GPS satellites, you'll be asking, "why don't we have a Space Force to protect against this sort of thing?" No, I won't. While the role is important, there is no sensible reason for a separate service, and the mission already exists in the Air Force. Sure, we need the mission, just like we need the riverine warfare mission, or the littoral warfare mission. We don't need a separate service for any of those missions, though. > Everyone's favorite rational pop scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, thinks it's "not a weird idea." It's not a weird idea, and it's something we’ll quite likely eventually need. OTOH, quite probably not this century.
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  > quite probably not this century. That's extremely optimistic. We might not need it during this administration, but surely we'll need it in less than fifty years.

madeuptempacct 8y ago

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/president-trump-directs-pentagon-defense-department-to-immediately-being-the-process-of-establishing-space-force-as-sixth-military-branch.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/president-trump-directs-pent... "what makes you excited about new military spending?" I am guessing he is excited about the fact that they are focusing on space research. The original Russian "rockets" were just ICBM stages. There are hundreds of examples of military research boosting tech, especially when it comes to medicine and spaceflight.

hospes 8y ago
If government wants to boost space research then it should increase NASA's budget instead of creating "space force". >> There are hundreds of examples of military research boosting tech Increasing military spending to boost tech or space research is like killing mosquito with the bazooka. DoD is extremely ineffective organization, there are estimates that it wastes $125 Billion annually from its budget. [1] If government wants to increase spending on research and tech they need to invest in education first. School system in US has very low rankings compared to other developed countries. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-waste/pentagon-buried-study-that-found-125-billion-in-wasteful-spending-washington-post-idUSKBN13V08B https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-waste/pentago...
- briandear 8y ago
  I would say the DoD is very effective. When was the last time the US was attacked by another country on our home soil? 1941? What about Europe? When was the last time a European country was attacked? March 2014. Now “effectively is not the same as “efficient.” DoD and pretty much every single other large government agency could be considered very inefficient. But ineffective? Not at all.
  - Iwan-Zotow 8y ago
    > When was the last time the US was attacked by another country on our home soil? 9/11

asdsa5325 8y ago

Russia had weapons in space decades ago. We are behind

hospes 8y ago
What kind of weapons do they have in space?
- asdsa5325 8y ago
  They had a aircraft cannon attached to the Salyut 3 in 1974. No longer active of course. I'm just pointing out that other countries are not afraid of weaponizing space- we are simply behind and at a disadvantage if we don't. Especially since satellites play an important role in military and civilian infrastructure.
  - hospes 8y ago
    There are reasons why they gave up the idea of having weapons in space. Weapons in space are very expensive and dangerous. And they can be easily destroyed. Currently there are no serious weapons that can be useful in space.
    - asdsa5325 8y ago
      > Weapons in space are very expensive No, they just took a normal weapon and mounted it. > dangerous. And they can be easily destroyed Literally all mounted weapons can be described like this. > Currently there are no serious weapons that can be useful in space. Absolutely incorrect. The US has deployed laser-based weapons since the early 2000s. Used for missile defense mostly. As you can imagine, they perform well in the vacuum of space.
      - hospes 8y ago
        >>Absolutely incorrect. The US has deployed laser-based weapons since the early 2000s. Used for missile defense mostly. As you can imagine, they perform well in the vacuum of space. Can you provide an example of a laser weapon(s) that can actually shoot down ballistic missile or cruise missile in real life scenario? The best that current laser weapons can do is to shoot down drones from relatively close distance. [1] Another issue with laser weapons in the space is powering them and maintaining them. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/no-quick-laser-missile-defense https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/no-qu...

briandear 8y ago

When enemy belligerents start shooting down our satellites, what then? When Mars transports are hijacked, then what? Evil and conflict are as old as humans themselves. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand human nature. What stopped Soviet tanks from rolling into West Berlin? It wasn’t a brigade of huggable teddy bears.

hospes 8y ago
>>What stopped Soviet tanks from rolling into West Berlin? It wasn’t a brigade of huggable teddy bears. The same thing that stops them now, nuclear weapons, huge military and NATO. No one is suggesting to not have defense or to stop spending money on defense. US already spends more on defense than next 10 countries in the list combined, most of which are US allies [1]. There is no need to spend more. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...