5 ms·

> There may come a point where we demonstrate some of our capabilities so that our adversaries understand they cannot deny us the use of space without consequen

> There may come a point where we demonstrate some of our capabilities so that our adversaries understand they cannot deny us the use of space without consequence Obviously that time has come if they are attacking our satellites. Why is everyone in the US government so afraid to stand up to China?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jimmygrapes 5y ago
To put it simply, the second we (U.S.) show what we can do, everyone else can start developing countermeasures. It requires a circumstance where the risk of exposing our capabilities is worth the deterrent or retributive effect. So far, throwing shit at satellites doesn't count.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  That's a good point but when pushed, you have to push back. Not necessarily with your most advanced tech.
- devoutsalsa 5y ago
  I wanna see one of the USA adversaries magically lose a satellite somehow with firing a missile at it. Like a tractor beam or something. We need some good source material for our high tech, near future science fiction.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Everybody’s already demonstrated their ability to shoot down satellites. Mysteriously deorbiting one with our mini robot shuttle though…
    - devoutsalsa 5y ago
      They’d see the X-37 sneak up. But maybe it could deploy a small, stealth drone to push a satellite down?
  - gpm 5y ago
    Wouldn't it be pretty easy to do that with a high powered laser? Thermal management in space is a pain without people adversarially adding more energy.
chrisco255 5y ago
Corruption, incompetence, poor leadership, etc. Exhausted too much political capital chasing dead ends in Afghanistan and Iraq. Far easier to focus on non-existential threats than to address the elephant in the room.
- MBCook 5y ago
  Don’t forget only existing as a separate department as an ego boost by the the idiot who literally tried to overthrow the government when he didn’t get his way in an election. To me the Space Force is terribly tainted by association. I don’t know what will change that, but vague claims of threats doesn’t.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Don’t forget only existing as a separate department as an ego boost by the the idiot who literally tried to overthrow the government when he didn’t get his way in an election. While the description of Trump is accurate, that of the US Space Force is not: it does not exist as a separate department, it is a separate uniformed service within the Department of the Air Force, much as the Marine Corps is within the Department of the Navy.
    - MBCook 5y ago
      That’s what I meant, sorry. Bring its own branch as opposed to when it was a part of the other branches. My mistake in word choice. You’re correct.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
gotoeleven 5y ago
Well the official line is because standing up to China is racist or something. Really it's because so many rich people in the US are beholden to China via investment and other business interests.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Who says that?
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Because I don't think one guy saying they're launching non-damaging attacks on satellites is worth making the lives of over a billion people worse.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  If retaliation for an attack makes the lives of 1 billion Chinese worse, then that's on them for attacking, not on us for responding. A space force general is not "one guy saying"
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    I don't think temporarily stopping us from spying on them justifies potentially killing people, particularly as I'd bet we do the same thing. And no matter how important a guy is they still need to provide evidence for their claims.
    - post_from_work 5y ago
      >>>I don't think temporarily stopping us from spying on them justifies potentially killing people Interestingly enough, Trump took the same position when the Iranians shot down an expensive spy drone, and Trump called off the punitive strike against Iran that would have killed ~150 people. Yet people maintained that he was an unstable warmonger. shrug https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-orders-strike-on-iran-then-calls-off-attack-plan https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-or...
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        Because he also made decisions like removing the Presidential approval for CIA drone strikes, dropped the "Mother of All Bombs," sold masses of weapons to the Saudis while helping them kill Yemenis, and many more acts. That he claimed to have stopped one strike doesn't change his record, though his overall record was similar to other recent presidents.
dylan604 5y ago
Biting the hand that feeds you is typically frowned upon. You thought trade was disrupted by a mere global pandemic, wait until the disruptions from a global war kick in. We've fought wars for the past 20 years while spending on consumer goods has risen steadily and taxes have been lowered many times. Long has it been the populace has felt the pinch of giving things up to support the war effort, but go to war with the one place that supplies the majority of common goods, and the populace will get a rude awakening.
- kelnos 5y ago
  There's something interesting (I think, anyway) that goes along with this. Many times war is used to unify people and to distract them from other problems at home (failing economy, poor labor conditions, etc.). But a war with China would create so many problems at home that public support for such a war would die out immediately after Amazon packages stopped showing up.
- derekjdanserl 5y ago
  Additionally, the status quo can’t sustain itself either. The current restlessness has a few (I only mean a few) notable similarities to the social context which led to WW1. A lingering ruling class who has outstayed their welcome and an alienated, devalued working class that feels they’ve lost any sense of purpose or belonging is a good recipe for starting a stupid and pointless war.
justicezyx 5y ago
I am starting to feel weird about this mentality, I.e.: If someone is capable of attacking us, they are most likely already planning to attack us, and we must plan to attack "first". (Implied in "stand-up to China, as if US were already being put down...) I mean, I was born and raised in China, CCP does not manage to install such mentality into adult Chinese. I never see anyone who say "we have to prepare to strike first". Is this mentality real? Or I perceived wrong?
- iends 5y ago
  Everybody is preparing to attack everybody first strike or otherwise. The militaries jobs are to plan out attacks and contingencies. I don’t think the average American is having this drilled into them as you suggest, but there are certainly military planners in the USA whose job it is to think about such things. China works the same way.
- simpleguitar 5y ago
  Have you seen the statistics on American gun ownership, particularly handgun ownership? And what fraction of Americans have a concealed carry permit? And how many people carry a gun on their person when they are out getting a sandwich? Yes, it’s real.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  China's foreign policy has become very aggressive and the CCP fosters intense nationalism domestically (maybe after you left?). Look up 'wolf diplomats', for example.
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    > CCP fosters intense nationalism domestically (maybe after you left?) I am pretty sure that the domestic propaganda is not too different from what it used to be. When a nation grow strong, it naturally demands more space for its realm. And they are learning new skills to push back the things they used to feel incapable of (like China seems starting to cultivate an alternative theory on democracy). Also, you have to understand, any ambitious politician in China understand the immense power if the nationalism is used properly. Imagine a nation back to its pinnacle in the Han and Tang dynasty, that's hugely attractive, and also to the people... The issue the US media sees, it's essentially that China does not put herself as a subordinate of the US dominant international hierarchy. If you think in that way, the wolf diplomacy is just normal tic to tac between two rivalry nations. And in fact, each instance of so-called wolf diplomacy action was never proactive. It was always some random Western guy or media provoked previously dormant issues, and the Chinese have to react...
wolverine876 5y ago
What are you referring to? The US government is intently focused on competing with China, especially militarily. Agencies are dedicating themselves to it as the leading priority, especially the Dept. of Defense, which is rebuilding its forces specifically for conflict with China. It's in the defense and foreign policy news every day.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jimmygrapes 5y ago

To put it simply, the second we (U.S.) show what we can do, everyone else can start developing countermeasures. It requires a circumstance where the risk of exposing our capabilities is worth the deterrent or retributive effect. So far, throwing shit at satellites doesn't count.

fallingknife 5y ago
That's a good point but when pushed, you have to push back. Not necessarily with your most advanced tech.
devoutsalsa 5y ago
I wanna see one of the USA adversaries magically lose a satellite somehow with firing a missile at it. Like a tractor beam or something. We need some good source material for our high tech, near future science fiction.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Everybody’s already demonstrated their ability to shoot down satellites. Mysteriously deorbiting one with our mini robot shuttle though…
  - devoutsalsa 5y ago
    They’d see the X-37 sneak up. But maybe it could deploy a small, stealth drone to push a satellite down?
- gpm 5y ago
  Wouldn't it be pretty easy to do that with a high powered laser? Thermal management in space is a pain without people adversarially adding more energy.

chrisco255 5y ago

Corruption, incompetence, poor leadership, etc. Exhausted too much political capital chasing dead ends in Afghanistan and Iraq. Far easier to focus on non-existential threats than to address the elephant in the room.

MBCook 5y ago
Don’t forget only existing as a separate department as an ego boost by the the idiot who literally tried to overthrow the government when he didn’t get his way in an election. To me the Space Force is terribly tainted by association. I don’t know what will change that, but vague claims of threats doesn’t.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Don’t forget only existing as a separate department as an ego boost by the the idiot who literally tried to overthrow the government when he didn’t get his way in an election. While the description of Trump is accurate, that of the US Space Force is not: it does not exist as a separate department, it is a separate uniformed service within the Department of the Air Force, much as the Marine Corps is within the Department of the Navy.
  - MBCook 5y ago
    That’s what I meant, sorry. Bring its own branch as opposed to when it was a part of the other branches. My mistake in word choice. You’re correct.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

gotoeleven 5y ago

Well the official line is because standing up to China is racist or something. Really it's because so many rich people in the US are beholden to China via investment and other business interests.

wolverine876 5y ago
Who says that?

boomboomsubban 5y ago

Because I don't think one guy saying they're launching non-damaging attacks on satellites is worth making the lives of over a billion people worse.

fallingknife 5y ago
If retaliation for an attack makes the lives of 1 billion Chinese worse, then that's on them for attacking, not on us for responding. A space force general is not "one guy saying"
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  I don't think temporarily stopping us from spying on them justifies potentially killing people, particularly as I'd bet we do the same thing. And no matter how important a guy is they still need to provide evidence for their claims.
  - post_from_work 5y ago
    >>>I don't think temporarily stopping us from spying on them justifies potentially killing people Interestingly enough, Trump took the same position when the Iranians shot down an expensive spy drone, and Trump called off the punitive strike against Iran that would have killed ~150 people. Yet people maintained that he was an unstable warmonger. shrug https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-orders-strike-on-iran-then-calls-off-attack-plan https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-or...
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      Because he also made decisions like removing the Presidential approval for CIA drone strikes, dropped the "Mother of All Bombs," sold masses of weapons to the Saudis while helping them kill Yemenis, and many more acts. That he claimed to have stopped one strike doesn't change his record, though his overall record was similar to other recent presidents.

dylan604 5y ago

Biting the hand that feeds you is typically frowned upon. You thought trade was disrupted by a mere global pandemic, wait until the disruptions from a global war kick in. We've fought wars for the past 20 years while spending on consumer goods has risen steadily and taxes have been lowered many times. Long has it been the populace has felt the pinch of giving things up to support the war effort, but go to war with the one place that supplies the majority of common goods, and the populace will get a rude awakening.

kelnos 5y ago
There's something interesting (I think, anyway) that goes along with this. Many times war is used to unify people and to distract them from other problems at home (failing economy, poor labor conditions, etc.). But a war with China would create so many problems at home that public support for such a war would die out immediately after Amazon packages stopped showing up.
derekjdanserl 5y ago
Additionally, the status quo can’t sustain itself either. The current restlessness has a few (I only mean a few) notable similarities to the social context which led to WW1. A lingering ruling class who has outstayed their welcome and an alienated, devalued working class that feels they’ve lost any sense of purpose or belonging is a good recipe for starting a stupid and pointless war.

justicezyx 5y ago

I am starting to feel weird about this mentality, I.e.: If someone is capable of attacking us, they are most likely already planning to attack us, and we must plan to attack "first". (Implied in "stand-up to China, as if US were already being put down...) I mean, I was born and raised in China, CCP does not manage to install such mentality into adult Chinese. I never see anyone who say "we have to prepare to strike first". Is this mentality real? Or I perceived wrong?

iends 5y ago
Everybody is preparing to attack everybody first strike or otherwise. The militaries jobs are to plan out attacks and contingencies. I don’t think the average American is having this drilled into them as you suggest, but there are certainly military planners in the USA whose job it is to think about such things. China works the same way.
simpleguitar 5y ago
Have you seen the statistics on American gun ownership, particularly handgun ownership? And what fraction of Americans have a concealed carry permit? And how many people carry a gun on their person when they are out getting a sandwich? Yes, it’s real.
wolverine876 5y ago
China's foreign policy has become very aggressive and the CCP fosters intense nationalism domestically (maybe after you left?). Look up 'wolf diplomats', for example.
- justicezyx 5y ago
  > CCP fosters intense nationalism domestically (maybe after you left?) I am pretty sure that the domestic propaganda is not too different from what it used to be. When a nation grow strong, it naturally demands more space for its realm. And they are learning new skills to push back the things they used to feel incapable of (like China seems starting to cultivate an alternative theory on democracy). Also, you have to understand, any ambitious politician in China understand the immense power if the nationalism is used properly. Imagine a nation back to its pinnacle in the Han and Tang dynasty, that's hugely attractive, and also to the people... The issue the US media sees, it's essentially that China does not put herself as a subordinate of the US dominant international hierarchy. If you think in that way, the wolf diplomacy is just normal tic to tac between two rivalry nations. And in fact, each instance of so-called wolf diplomacy action was never proactive. It was always some random Western guy or media provoked previously dormant issues, and the Chinese have to react...

wolverine876 5y ago

What are you referring to? The US government is intently focused on competing with China, especially militarily. Agencies are dedicating themselves to it as the leading priority, especially the Dept. of Defense, which is rebuilding its forces specifically for conflict with China. It's in the defense and foreign policy news every day.