4 ms·

While the idea that space would forever be a shared, international region akin to Antarctica, the militarisation of space was bound to happen eventually. While

While the idea that space would forever be a shared, international region akin to Antarctica, the militarisation of space was bound to happen eventually. While there are some downsides, I actually think this is a net positive. War-time, or at least the preparations for potential war-time (as all military endeavours actually are), usually lead to the greatest scientific and technical advancements. Just looks at WW1, WW2, the Cold War. I think we are now entering a "space cold war". Hopefully it can stay a "cold" war. But it is exciting to see what developments may come along. The other upside, is that if the US achieves space superiority (which it already has, but if it develops the means to properly enforce it - which it is trying to do with this space force), it will open up the potential for proper commericialization. The US will be able to enforce space trade law, customs law, private property in space will be made possible. This will enable companies like SpaceX to have a proper legal framework within which to operate.

ivrrimum 7y ago
What space superiority does the space have? :D Russia is currently space superior, technically.
hyperbovine 7y ago
How many of the 90m people who died in the world wars would have gone on to have amazing scientific careers? I can name a few. The idea that war is the best way to fund science is reprehensible.
rambojazz 7y ago
I'd rather take 100 years for tech to develop slowly than have it next year for the price of war.
harikb 7y ago
> The US will be able to enforce space trade law, customs law, private property in space will be made possible. This will enable companies like SpaceX to have a proper legal framework within which to operate. Even if you don’t believe current President is incompetent, don’t rule out a future one you might hate. If such a force existed, you can be sure it will be used for evil and for extracting favors for private entities eventually. These things are never done for the good of the regular people. SpaceX doesn’t have a lawful society to operate in already?
oaiey 7y ago
And now to your last paragraph: "Proper commercialization" ... The he US represents 5% of humanity. All this argument just expresses hubris and the will to use weapons to enforce it. China and India are no Europe. They will play by their own rules. And that implies hot war. Talking to each other and collaboration is the way of a civilized humanity. A pre-emptive creation of a military branch is not.
oaiey 7y ago
The downsides are millions of dead people. There is never a "net positive" situation here.
- michaelborromeo 7y ago
  Ok but then if one country doesn’t do this then another will. It’s like nuclear weapons. You cannot reverse or stop technology from progressing and you can’t stop governments from using that technology to build weapons. How many wars did it take for humans to adopt a different “steady state”? And even now it’s not a real steady state. Maybe we have more lessons (I.e mistakes) to learn from in space where billions die. Hopefully not. Hopefully we let the 20th century continue to instruct us.
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  On the one hand millions vastly underestimates the possible death toll. On the other hand kinetic bombardment is much better than than nuclear exchanges for the people left alive and makes nuclear weapons pretty close to obsolete.
  - oaiey 7y ago
    The long term effects... Yes. Short term ... No benefits I guess.
- Tempest1981 7y ago
  I keep hoping the world leaders will "become adults" and find a way to stop fighting/killing each other. Meanwhile world leaders spend well over $1 trillion a year on their militaries. What else could we do with that much money?
- prebrov 7y ago
  If anything, armed conflict in space will likely play out with autonomous and remotely controlled weaponry and might as well be death-less. There’s absolutely no reason to launch humans to space for the purpose of operating space-based machinery.
revicon 7y ago
> The other upside, is that if the US achieves space superiority (which it already has) Why do you think the US has space superiority? Currently the US has no capability to send humans into space, we use the Russian Soyuz program for this.

ivrrimum 7y ago

What space superiority does the space have? :D Russia is currently space superior, technically.

hyperbovine 7y ago

How many of the 90m people who died in the world wars would have gone on to have amazing scientific careers? I can name a few. The idea that war is the best way to fund science is reprehensible.

rambojazz 7y ago

I'd rather take 100 years for tech to develop slowly than have it next year for the price of war.

harikb 7y ago

> The US will be able to enforce space trade law, customs law, private property in space will be made possible. This will enable companies like SpaceX to have a proper legal framework within which to operate. Even if you don’t believe current President is incompetent, don’t rule out a future one you might hate. If such a force existed, you can be sure it will be used for evil and for extracting favors for private entities eventually. These things are never done for the good of the regular people. SpaceX doesn’t have a lawful society to operate in already?

oaiey 7y ago

And now to your last paragraph: "Proper commercialization" ... The he US represents 5% of humanity. All this argument just expresses hubris and the will to use weapons to enforce it. China and India are no Europe. They will play by their own rules. And that implies hot war. Talking to each other and collaboration is the way of a civilized humanity. A pre-emptive creation of a military branch is not.

oaiey 7y ago

The downsides are millions of dead people. There is never a "net positive" situation here.

michaelborromeo 7y ago
Ok but then if one country doesn’t do this then another will. It’s like nuclear weapons. You cannot reverse or stop technology from progressing and you can’t stop governments from using that technology to build weapons. How many wars did it take for humans to adopt a different “steady state”? And even now it’s not a real steady state. Maybe we have more lessons (I.e mistakes) to learn from in space where billions die. Hopefully not. Hopefully we let the 20th century continue to instruct us.
buzzkillington 7y ago
On the one hand millions vastly underestimates the possible death toll. On the other hand kinetic bombardment is much better than than nuclear exchanges for the people left alive and makes nuclear weapons pretty close to obsolete.
- oaiey 7y ago
  The long term effects... Yes. Short term ... No benefits I guess.
Tempest1981 7y ago
I keep hoping the world leaders will "become adults" and find a way to stop fighting/killing each other. Meanwhile world leaders spend well over $1 trillion a year on their militaries. What else could we do with that much money?
prebrov 7y ago
If anything, armed conflict in space will likely play out with autonomous and remotely controlled weaponry and might as well be death-less. There’s absolutely no reason to launch humans to space for the purpose of operating space-based machinery.

revicon 7y ago

> The other upside, is that if the US achieves space superiority (which it already has) Why do you think the US has space superiority? Currently the US has no capability to send humans into space, we use the Russian Soyuz program for this.