6 ms·

"threaten the peaceful use of space" and what exact is the US space force for? Cleaning up after Elon's space junk? I don't think so. Kind of hypocritic to accu

"threaten the peaceful use of space" and what exact is the US space force for? Cleaning up after Elon's space junk? I don't think so. Kind of hypocritic to accuse others of militarizing space.

ceejayoz 6y ago
The US Space Force is largely a paper reshuffling of what were previously US Air Force Space Command assets. Nothing in it is really new.
- kingkawn 6y ago
  That is not pertinent to the point being made above. Regardless of the bureaucratic nomenclature the US is actively in pursuit of weaponizing earth orbit space tech.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    The point I'm making: None of that has anything to do with the Space Force formation. It was already happening when those assets were under the Air Force, for decades. The radars, GPS satellites, etc. formerly run by the Air Force Space Command are now run by the Space Force. Same thing for the staff; they're the same people.
  - mlindner 6y ago
    Repeatedly saying it with no evidence doesn't make it true. Stop doing this. The US has not to anyone's knowledge put weapons in space. Russia has now. That's a clear escalation.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Nothing in it is really new. That isn't really the point. The point is that the US armed forces already use space for military purposes so extensively that they even have a whole branch dedicated to space militarization.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > That isn't really the point. The point is that the US armed forces already use space for military purposes so extensively that they even have a whole branch dedicated to space militarization. Military use of space != "militarization [of space]." My understanding is that the US Space Force pretty much just controls space assets used by the military that are comparable to civilian ones (i.e. sensor, communication, and navigation satellites). I don't think they've stationed any actual weapons in space.
    - slim 6y ago
      Military use of space != "militarization [of space]." of course. in newspeak
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        if the military uses email to communicate, does that constitute the "militarization of email"? I have to imagine that for most people, "militarization of space" means actually putting weapons platforms in space.
        rumanator 6y ago
        > if the military uses email to communicate, does that constitute the "militarization of email"? Are you naive to the point where you believe that the US armed forces have spent billions establishing a global comm network just to send emails? I mean, did you failed to notice that the US's current strategic bet lies on it's ability to operate and manage autonomous vehicles through its global communication network?
        esrauch 6y ago
        > Are you naive to the point where you believe that the US armed forces have spent billions establishing a global comm network just to send emails? I actually think it's very reasonable for the military to have spent billions just improving their human-to-human communication infrastructure. Efficient and highly available communication is vitally important for a functional military without needing to into autonomous vehicles.
Fishysoup 6y ago
US military presence in space consists of spy satellites and military communications satellites. As far as we know the US hasn't put any space-based weapons up there. There's a difference.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  Because the US would advertise to the whole word that they have such a capability?
- octodog 6y ago
  Russia doesn't care about the technical difference and why would they? The USA uses satellite infrastructure to exert influence, including in regions that Russia is active in and considers critical. From a Russian perspective, it is important that they have some way to counteract these capabilities. The USA and its allies finds it very useful to paint Russia as a hostile and even unethical actor here, but there is no fundamental difference between what Russia does and what the West does.
  - Fishysoup 6y ago
    In terms of gaining influence, sure, maybe they're ethically on par. But saying it's reasonable they're weaponizing space because "they need to counteract US capabilities" is a flawed argument. They could counteract US capabilities by investing in the education and economic well-being of their populace, which, if enacted in 2000 when Putin came into power, would have given enormous dividends to technological and military capability by now. Instead they spend their human capital luring college graduates into troll farms in Siberia with the promise of bare minimum shelter and food. Internally, Russia is a deeply shitty regime, run by mobsters and thugs and preying on its populace. The US has a lot of problems too (and even more so since 2017) but its fundamental framework still prioritizes individual rights and freedom of expression without fear of punishment (although, unlike its allies, it doesn't do much to provide healthcare or education). I would much rather have a world that's dominated by the US than one dominated by Russia or China.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

"threaten the peaceful use of space" and what exact is the US space force for? Cleaning up after Elon's space junk? I don't think so. Kind of hypocritic to accuse others of militarizing space.

ceejayoz 6y ago

The US Space Force is largely a paper reshuffling of what were previously US Air Force Space Command assets. Nothing in it is really new.

kingkawn 6y ago
That is not pertinent to the point being made above. Regardless of the bureaucratic nomenclature the US is actively in pursuit of weaponizing earth orbit space tech.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  The point I'm making: None of that has anything to do with the Space Force formation. It was already happening when those assets were under the Air Force, for decades. The radars, GPS satellites, etc. formerly run by the Air Force Space Command are now run by the Space Force. Same thing for the staff; they're the same people.
- mlindner 6y ago
  Repeatedly saying it with no evidence doesn't make it true. Stop doing this. The US has not to anyone's knowledge put weapons in space. Russia has now. That's a clear escalation.
rumanator 6y ago
> Nothing in it is really new. That isn't really the point. The point is that the US armed forces already use space for military purposes so extensively that they even have a whole branch dedicated to space militarization.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > That isn't really the point. The point is that the US armed forces already use space for military purposes so extensively that they even have a whole branch dedicated to space militarization. Military use of space != "militarization [of space]." My understanding is that the US Space Force pretty much just controls space assets used by the military that are comparable to civilian ones (i.e. sensor, communication, and navigation satellites). I don't think they've stationed any actual weapons in space.
  - slim 6y ago
    Military use of space != "militarization [of space]." of course. in newspeak
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      if the military uses email to communicate, does that constitute the "militarization of email"? I have to imagine that for most people, "militarization of space" means actually putting weapons platforms in space.
      - rumanator 6y ago
        > if the military uses email to communicate, does that constitute the "militarization of email"? Are you naive to the point where you believe that the US armed forces have spent billions establishing a global comm network just to send emails? I mean, did you failed to notice that the US's current strategic bet lies on it's ability to operate and manage autonomous vehicles through its global communication network?
        esrauch 6y ago
        > Are you naive to the point where you believe that the US armed forces have spent billions establishing a global comm network just to send emails? I actually think it's very reasonable for the military to have spent billions just improving their human-to-human communication infrastructure. Efficient and highly available communication is vitally important for a functional military without needing to into autonomous vehicles.

Fishysoup 6y ago

US military presence in space consists of spy satellites and military communications satellites. As far as we know the US hasn't put any space-based weapons up there. There's a difference.

NeutronStar 6y ago
Because the US would advertise to the whole word that they have such a capability?
octodog 6y ago
Russia doesn't care about the technical difference and why would they? The USA uses satellite infrastructure to exert influence, including in regions that Russia is active in and considers critical. From a Russian perspective, it is important that they have some way to counteract these capabilities. The USA and its allies finds it very useful to paint Russia as a hostile and even unethical actor here, but there is no fundamental difference between what Russia does and what the West does.
- Fishysoup 6y ago
  In terms of gaining influence, sure, maybe they're ethically on par. But saying it's reasonable they're weaponizing space because "they need to counteract US capabilities" is a flawed argument. They could counteract US capabilities by investing in the education and economic well-being of their populace, which, if enacted in 2000 when Putin came into power, would have given enormous dividends to technological and military capability by now. Instead they spend their human capital luring college graduates into troll farms in Siberia with the promise of bare minimum shelter and food. Internally, Russia is a deeply shitty regime, run by mobsters and thugs and preying on its populace. The US has a lot of problems too (and even more so since 2017) but its fundamental framework still prioritizes individual rights and freedom of expression without fear of punishment (although, unlike its allies, it doesn't do much to provide healthcare or education). I would much rather have a world that's dominated by the US than one dominated by Russia or China.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]