8 ms·

I used to joke that if you don't have air superiority, you just have permission. I'd change that by saying I would extend that to space, and it's not a joke any

I used to joke that if you don't have air superiority, you just have permission. I'd change that by saying I would extend that to space, and it's not a joke anymore. If I weren't too old, would move to the US and enlist to join Space Force. It is really the most important place to be in the world right now. I have some familiarity with some of the problems they need to solve, and they are the only place in government seriously engaged in countering our actual existential threats. The only real fully existential physical threats to the US will come not from sea, air, or land, cyber, or biology where it is already well defended, but from space. The existence of a Space domain dilutes the integrity of a US ability to secure a physical perimeter in which it can exercise its sovereignty and from where it can project its power. Just in the next 50 years, near earth orbits are going to be full of self-defending orbital satellite and space faring vehicles providing economic resources back to nations on earth. Because of the physical distances and latencies in space, the only thing that secures those vehicles from each other (and therefore any commerce and national interest in space) is cybersecurity. Managing orbital and space faring traffic and securing access to key orbits that facilite whatever economics come out of them is essential. If an axis of China, Russia or and any other countries domainate space, you aren't free or sovereign when you need to ask their permission. This is on top of how our infrastructure needs to be resilliant to to solar events and even metorites. I'm glad this agency is starting. It's smart.

rootsudo 4y ago
This is an excellent perspective. I can imagine everything you wrote as growing pains and putting time in now would really help the agency's mission and challenge yourself to overcome/fix them. Outside the Netflix series, I really had no idea about Space Force.
- motohagiography 4y ago
  Thanks! Check out the threads about post quantum crypto and NIST evaluating candidate standards. We're going to need it, because space is going to be full of largely autonomous/ML quantum and classical computers. The only way we keep peace on earth over space conflicts is by providing space vehicles with enough autonomy to defend themselves, while still being subject to terrestrial policy. At some point we figure out only sending our smartest people out into the void is probably unwise from an evolutionary perspective, and so then the drone swarms we have out there are going to be where machine learning, economics, policy and physics meet. The remote sensing and signals capabilities are going to drive a lot of research funding. On earth, the prevailing nation will necessarily be the one that succeeds at manufacturing at scale, and maths. May the odds ever be in your favour!
- mr_toad 4y ago
  > Outside the Netflix series, I really had no idea about Space Force. At least the Netflix version had some actual rockets.
visviva 4y ago
Found the Space Force recruiter /s
ketzu 4y ago
> If an axis of China, Russia or and any other countries domainate space, you aren't free or sovereign when you need to ask their permission. As a non-american, the US falls under "other countries" in this for me and, as I am much more exposed to US news than russian or chinese news, seems the most driven to use it for power projection and possibly weaponizing it. If possible, I'd like to see a stronger push to organize space faring and orbital access from the grouund up as an international cooperation. Realistically though, there will be a security-council type of result: A few countries with the ability to revoke permission for anyone they deem unfit, because they have the power to do so in practice. Of course the US will do anything necessary to be one of those or the only one to do so. But I wish a more equal-access result would be possible.
- zx8080 4y ago
  I feel it could be driven by the real balance of force only, and there's not much countries could compare their space developments to Russian, the US and China ones. (The EU could not be considered as single entity.)
mr_toad 4y ago
> they are the only place in government seriously engaged in countering our actual existential threats. With what? The threat of burying an enemy in paperwork?
- dylan604 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but the form to attack the US must be filled out in triplicate. You've also used the land invasion form which is pink. To attack via space, you need the space attack approval form which is blue. You'll also need to be sure that the forms have been properly notarized, and you'll need to apply for a notary authorization by filling out the proper form which, in this case, is yellow.
  - herewulf 4y ago
    Actually, it's worse than that because it's all gone digital except to get anything done relies upon ten separate, disparate computer systems all designed by different contractors and a third of them are down for maintenance. Oh, and we're filling out PDF forms that represent formerly paper forms and shoving them in a database.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      We're sorry, but your browser is not supported. For the most secure experience, we recommend using IE6 on an updated version of Windows95. <checks calendar> But it's 2022! Damn gov't webservers!!!!
publicola1990 4y ago
Such powers capabilities being in the control of a secretive military organization don't appeal to me. Simply because often they have too much power and too little oversight and transparency. See the mistaken bombings by US forces in the aftermath of Talibans takeover of Kabul last August. US forces simply declared that though it was in mistake and none involved would have to suffer punitive measures [0] [0] https://www.npr.org/2021/12/13/1063880137/no-punishment-troops-afghanistan-kabul-strike-civilians https://www.npr.org/2021/12/13/1063880137/no-punishment-troo... Also military culture seems to not value critical thought and democratic processes. It is better for an open society to keep the influence of the military to the barest minimum.
- octodog 4y ago
  The incident in Kabul is the cost of doing business in war and security operations. The military understands that but politicians and the public do not or at least act as if they don't.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    It would be one thing if there was a war. The strike happened after US withdrawal. So is the US at war with Afghanistan forever now or what?
  - sneak 4y ago
    Civilized people have decided that the costs of war are too high (which is why the US was leaving, it turns out); dismissing clear and unforced errors as "the cost of doing business" is a diffusion of responsibility and obscures causal relationships with a handwave. Individual people made unforced decisions to slaughter children that day, and other individual people made decisions to cover it up and protect those who made the first error. The New York Times then blew the lid off of it and made the efforts of the second group ineffective. In my own personal opinion, all of the people in this criminal conspiracy should suffer the absolute maximum penalties allowed by law for conspiracy to commit premeditated mass murder. This is not just "the costs of war"; there was no threat whatsoever. The costs of war also do not justify post hoc deceit to cover one's ass. Apologism does not fix the problem.
Retric 4y ago
> self-defending orbital satellite and space faring vehicles providing economic resources back to nations on earth. Step away from the science fiction for a while, we don’t have forcefields and aren’t getting them anytime soon. Satellites have few realistic ways to protect themselves from Kessler syndrome let alone any serious attacks by nation states. Best bet is to stay in low enough that the atmosphere provides some protection, but that line gets blurry between satellites and aircraft.
- motohagiography 4y ago
  You're missing it. Without a communications link, satellites and space vehicles cease to exist. The only value they provide is via wireless signal links back to us. All space problems are communications security problems of confidentiality, integrity, and most importantly, availability. Denial and disruption of space communications is the threat to all vehicles. Interception reaps any benfit they provide back without the investment in sending them out there. The only sovereignty we have in an age of space economics and risk comes from cryptography. What, did you think our plan was to spend all this money just to figure out a way to bash them together? Like, rocks?
  - 01100011 4y ago
    Nah. It's easy to envision fully autonomous vessels in space which function fine without a communications link. In fact, that's probably the most desirable type of craft, one that isn't hampered by delays in communication and can respond quickly to dynamic situations.
    - Teever 4y ago
      But how can you ensure that it is operating in an autonomous fashion for you as opposed to someone else who has commandeered it whether through physical force cyber means?
      - Retric 4y ago
        So your hypothetical adversary is getting physical access to satellites in orbit to remotely disassemble them and then put them back together after swapping hardware. How exactly do you think this is remotely cost effective? Really the best defense is to spend less than 1/10th as much and launch a new satellite.
_8j50 4y ago
Your writing sounds like some powerpoint bullet points a think thank would present to circlejerk back and forth with military brass. > ... is cybersecurity. ... Like, that applies to any information connected system. Do you mean defend space craft from cyber attacks or attack space craft? Either way, not so different from UAV or many other terrestrial targets is it now? Do you mean maybe that a human can't get to it in time to respond to an attack? You can't get to a remote missile silo sometimes for hours as well or other remote outposts (like many in alaska and bering sea). What is very odd about your remark is how you envision a cyberattack is superior to missiles shooting down space craft. Honestly, would love to hear about any high level attack vectors aside from radio jamming. > The only real fully existential physical threats to the US will come not from sea, air, or land, cyber, or biology where it is already well defended, but from space. Excuse me but have you read the news in the past few years? The internet is leading america into a civil war many expect to take place in the next decade or so. The internet is not a space domain, US cybercom exists FYI. For kinetic attacks, ICBM are sort of space based attacks since they re-enter from orbit, THAAD as crappy as it is addresses that, it is not a new concern at all. The only deterrence is possibility of a counter attack. So long as nukes from the various delivery strategies are viable it is a non-issue. Basically keep developing better ICBMs and defenses against them. > The existence of a Space domain dilutes the integrity of a US ability to secure a physical perimeter in which it can exercise its sovereignty and from where it can project its power. Which isn't new, reagan even tried the whole "star wars" initiative because of the concern. Are we talking about mexico and canada here? Or do you expect China to send space troopers within ICBM like vehicles along with ground invasion vehicles and supply lines? Or are we still talking about ICBMs and anti sattelite weapons? If so, better icmbs and defenses against them? Non-nuclear weapons, say a laser carrier destroyer will be bad, prevents a planned ground invasion of a remote country (which is a good thing if you ask many americans tired of foreign invasions) but will not be effective against retaliation if US soil is attacked. To translate what you are saying in military speak (correct me if I am wrong):"it will be a lot harder to intervene in foreign nations' affairs and protect american economic interests like oil and shipping lanes if other countries get better at space based weapons" right? The security of the homeland is still a given because of the might of the Navy, and Airforce. But it does mean not being a military superpower, China will mess up most of the world and the west's global influence might dwindle? Well that is a risk but an economic and political one not one of a military invasion of the homeland by foreign powers which is the only purpose the military serves. As for the geopoliticsl concerns, I am not saying they shouldn't be addressed but short of an actual invasion risk, the country crumbling from the inside out is a much higher concern. Vietnam and Afghanistan were lost because americans couldn't support them, military thinkers are so disconnected from americans they don't even consider this a risk. People not being able to afford a living, shelter and basic dignity is a higher risk than space craft. Politicians controlled by foreign adversaries and corrupt judges and bribery infested government are more likely to support and promote a civil war. Although I for one vehemntly disagree and think America is still great and great days are ahead, many refused to celeberate July 4th because of the state of the nation. That is a greater concern, the enemies that are domestic not foreign. I fear McNamara Fallacy is behind your line of thinking and military brass' [1], your metrics are not measuring the right things. Future battles will be lost because of internal strife before a weapon is fired IMO. [1] http://mcnamarafallacy.com/ http://mcnamarafallacy.com/
monocasa 4y ago
In contrast, I take a very low opinion of the creation of the space force. Normally the creation of a new division of the military has stemmed from a new domain that is being controlled by the command structure of another domain which is impeding their mission. The Air Force had complete control over the domain of space, splitting space out didn't answer any real organizational problems. IMO, the real forward looking decision would be to have created a cyber force. Apparently US Cyber Command is a shit show from having several seperate command hierarchies. And arguably the material conditions of the cyber domain are a greater present threat to the enforceable boundaries of the US.
- claudiulodro 4y ago
  Since there is no air in space, can the Air Force truly run the program?
- motohagiography 4y ago
  Knowing what I do about bureaucracies, the organizational problem it solved was more strategic than just that. To be agile enough to respond to space and cyber, the Executive branch needed something (like a startup) growing and changing and above all, adapting fast. That administration was persuaded that the only way to counter China was to become more adaptable above all other things, and nobody in the military was doing it fast enough to meet this crititcal need - so they did what they knew worked, and he created a new competitor for all their budgets, and also made it the place that had to solve security in the biggest problem on the horizon, space. I'd say to other orgs (to adapt an adage) that if you think space force was a solution without a problem, the problem may have been you. ;)
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    As I understand it, the primary organizational problem that the Space Force is solving is that there was no way to become a general if you were interested in space stuff, much in the same way that you're not going to make general if you were, say, a logistics officer. Or, transplanting it to business terms, this is like creating a department of paper clips so that someone can now become a senior VP in charge of paper clips.
jahewson 4y ago
> It is really the most important place to be in the world right now. Out of this world, surely?
femiagbabiaka 4y ago
Meanwhile the actual members of the military understand the Space Force to be a joke. And it should be. We spend more on our MIC than any other country in the world. I guarantee that there is already beginning to be massive overlap between the mission of the Space Force and other agencies, as there already was with the FBI and CIA. It’s incredibly likely this will be an expensive and painful mistake.
- herewulf 4y ago
  A big joke indeed. Massive overhead has been created for what is a relatively small job. The Spacemen (because the Air Force has Airmen, right?) seem awfully concerned with all the trappings of being a separate military service than actually doing a job. What the US military needs is more unity, not less. There is also significant lobbying for a "Space National Guard" too. Give me a fucking break. Signed, Crusty, grouchy Army (Reserve/National Guard) Officer
wolverine876 4y ago
There's a lot of enthusiasm in the parent, but not a lot of support for it. > If an axis of China, Russia or and any other countries domainate space, you aren't free or sovereign when you need to ask their permission. That doesn't mean the US needs a space force. It's not clear the assumption is accurate, that those countries seek to dominate space, or that such an axis exists. There are many, many outcomes besides national military competition: For example, throughout the Cold War the US and Russia kept space pretty demilitarized and non-competitive, and even used it to promote peace by allowing flyover and intelligence gathering to support treaties and prevent misinterpretation of actions. > Managing orbital and space faring traffic and securing access to key orbits that facilite whatever economics come out of them is essential. In what other domain are those functions performed by the military? Usually they are performed by cooperative intergovernmental bodies, such as the International Maritime Organization. > in the next 50 years, near earth orbits are going to be full of self-defending orbital satellite and space faring vehicles providing economic resources back to nations on earth. That's a pretty bold prediction with no support. Self-defending satellites?
- 015a 4y ago
  > In what other domain are those functions performed by the military? Usually they are performed by cooperative intergovernmental bodies, such as the International Maritime Organization. Traditionally; the existence of a Navy was to project power across a nation's geographically disparate colonies, which isn't in isolation a very valuable thing, so take it a step further: a nation may want colonies in order to bolster mercantile trade, and the existence of a Navy was to assert power over those colonies, and protect the trade ships in-between destinations. Sea pirates aren't much of a threat anymore; but certainly non-zero. When incidents occur, its not the International Maritime Organization which responds. Its a sovereign Navy. A strong argument exists that the only reason our seas are as safe as they are, today, is thanks to the extreme investment in naval superiority sovereign states have made; its easy to point to organizations of peace as the reason for peace, when they're backed by guns. Additionally, navies served a critically important purpose in logistics during times of war. Basically, if your broader point is to assert that Humanity will leave behind its nature of bloody violence & territorial aggression when we develop our solar system, not only is that stance laughably idealistic, its patently false; we're already developing space, it already serves an extremely critical role in national security, and we're still killing each other & fighting over land. Treaties, agreements, and NGOs are fantastic, until a sovereign suddenly realizes "hey, actually, that asteroid is worth a lot of money, we're going to take it". The only reasonable argument I've heard against the Space Force is, essentially, that it may be that significant The Expanse-style solar colonization isn't in the cards for the future of humanity, for whatever irrelevant reason, and thus if their entire purview is the protection of earth orbital satellites, it may be that responsibility is more efficiently met by other traditional, more terrestrial command structures (Air Force, NORAD, etc). That's a reasonable criticism, but the equally valid counter-point is, if we wait for more certainty, we'll already be behind.
nicodjimenez 4y ago
> The only real fully existential physical threats to the US will come not from sea, air, or land, cyber, or biology where it is already well defended, but from space. This is such an absurd statement. US is literally collapsing before your very eyes and going to turn into an extremely dangerous unstable rogue nation with a lot of nuclear weapons. US has been totally subverted and is now falling behind Russia and China in conventional weaponry, and falling way behind Russia in missile defense and offensive hypersonic missiles. There is zero chance USA will be the space faring nation of the future. There's some smart people in USA but the cost of societal, financial, and economic collapse will catch up to the legacy that the USA enjoys due to the hard work of the older dying generations. The real competition for the future of space is between China and Russia. Friends now, but you never know later.
- ralusek 4y ago
  Even without SpaceX you'd be wrong. However, with SpaceX, you're mega wrong. Falcon 9 had already completely changed the cost function to space. Starship, however, is very set to completely turn the industry upside down.
  - nicodjimenez 4y ago
    I love Elon and his antics but competing against the space programs of military super powers China and Russia will not work in the end. State power is ultimately orders of magnitude greater than a single corporation's power.
- kbelder 4y ago
  >US has been totally subverted and is now falling behind Russia and China in conventional weaponry, and falling way behind Russia in missile defense and offensive hypersonic missiles. It's obvious now, In a conventional war, the US would obliterate Russia in weeks. So could western Europe, even if the US didn't lift a finger to help. Russia has been revealed as a paper tiger. As far as China, they're probably more of an actual competent force than Russia, but what large-scale military actions has China done in the last few decades?
curiousgal 4y ago
> The only real fully existential physical threats to the US will come not from sea, air, or land, cyber, or biology where it is already well defended, but from space. hahaha this is so out of touch. The biggest threat to the US is the US itself. The country is at war against its own population.
vineyardmike 4y ago
> I have some familiarity with some of the problems they need to solve... The only real fully existential physical threats to the US will come not from sea, air, or land, cyber, or biology ... but from space. I have some familiars with the problems a "cyber force" may need to solve and I believe that neither land, water, air, nor space will be the threats but instead cyber threats. > Because of the physical distances and latencies in space, the only thing that secures those vehicles from each other (and therefore any commerce and national interest in space) is cybersecurity. Ah we are in agreement after all. But actually I think this is a case of familiarity bias. I agree we need the space force, and we need to defend the perimeter, but I think there's some truth that each war is unique, so we won't fight in space the way we had to fight air or sea. We need to defend in space the way we had to defend in air and sea though. No one in war would retry a losing technique, and if it was a winning technique everyone else had a chance to study it before the next battle, so you better find another winning technique. We still have a lot of new things to try in cyber warfare and a lot of history for "IRL" war actions.
adrianN 4y ago
> the only place in government seriously engaged in countering our actual existential threats The existential threats are, in my opinion, either internal (political), or ecological (e.g. climate change). I don't see how the space force is countering them.
boffinAudio 4y ago
The biggest threat to the US is Americans themselves. A nation willfully ruled by war criminals will eventually become their final victim. The fact that Americas do not prosecute their war criminals is a far greater threat to world peace and stability than any debris falling from the sky. These heinous new 'intelligence' agencies serve only to prevent justice for America's war crimes. Stop the secrecy! The corruption of government begins with its secrets - a truly free people don't keep secrets!
sneak 4y ago
> The existence of a Space domain dilutes the integrity of a US ability to secure a physical perimeter in which it can exercise its sovereignty and from where it can project its power. How's it going currently when the US exercises its sovereignty and projects its power? I'm not sure that this is something you can claim to want promote with a straight face, now that we know about the Salt Pit, Guantanamo, and rest of the global network of torture prisons they ran in violation of both US and foreign law. If the organizations abided by the rule of law, perhaps. But they don't, as we recently had publicly demonstrated for us by the POTUS, as well as by Assange in the Collateral Murder video (for which he is now imprisoned and tortured indefinitely without trial). These are well-resourced organizations that promote torture and violence, unconstrained by human rights, laws, law enforcement, or even common decency. Anyone who opposes them publicly, even without force (such as Assange), is subject to extrajudicial assassination or torture without benefit of trial. Anyone enriching these organizations is aligning themselves against humanity and civilization and will not be judged well by history; lawlessness and arbitrary violence is not something to aid and abet.
sneak 4y ago
Another thing to consider is that fewer than 4% of human beings live in the US or are USians. If the US is to establish military superiority in space, this would be, by definition, a plutocracy established over all of Earth. I'm not sure the other 96%+ of us humans are really interested in that outcome?

rootsudo 4y ago

This is an excellent perspective. I can imagine everything you wrote as growing pains and putting time in now would really help the agency's mission and challenge yourself to overcome/fix them. Outside the Netflix series, I really had no idea about Space Force.

motohagiography 4y ago
Thanks! Check out the threads about post quantum crypto and NIST evaluating candidate standards. We're going to need it, because space is going to be full of largely autonomous/ML quantum and classical computers. The only way we keep peace on earth over space conflicts is by providing space vehicles with enough autonomy to defend themselves, while still being subject to terrestrial policy. At some point we figure out only sending our smartest people out into the void is probably unwise from an evolutionary perspective, and so then the drone swarms we have out there are going to be where machine learning, economics, policy and physics meet. The remote sensing and signals capabilities are going to drive a lot of research funding. On earth, the prevailing nation will necessarily be the one that succeeds at manufacturing at scale, and maths. May the odds ever be in your favour!
mr_toad 4y ago
> Outside the Netflix series, I really had no idea about Space Force. At least the Netflix version had some actual rockets.

visviva 4y ago

Found the Space Force recruiter /s

ketzu 4y ago

> If an axis of China, Russia or and any other countries domainate space, you aren't free or sovereign when you need to ask their permission. As a non-american, the US falls under "other countries" in this for me and, as I am much more exposed to US news than russian or chinese news, seems the most driven to use it for power projection and possibly weaponizing it. If possible, I'd like to see a stronger push to organize space faring and orbital access from the grouund up as an international cooperation. Realistically though, there will be a security-council type of result: A few countries with the ability to revoke permission for anyone they deem unfit, because they have the power to do so in practice. Of course the US will do anything necessary to be one of those or the only one to do so. But I wish a more equal-access result would be possible.

zx8080 4y ago
I feel it could be driven by the real balance of force only, and there's not much countries could compare their space developments to Russian, the US and China ones. (The EU could not be considered as single entity.)

mr_toad 4y ago

> they are the only place in government seriously engaged in countering our actual existential threats. With what? The threat of burying an enemy in paperwork?

dylan604 4y ago
I'm sorry, but the form to attack the US must be filled out in triplicate. You've also used the land invasion form which is pink. To attack via space, you need the space attack approval form which is blue. You'll also need to be sure that the forms have been properly notarized, and you'll need to apply for a notary authorization by filling out the proper form which, in this case, is yellow.
- herewulf 4y ago
  Actually, it's worse than that because it's all gone digital except to get anything done relies upon ten separate, disparate computer systems all designed by different contractors and a third of them are down for maintenance. Oh, and we're filling out PDF forms that represent formerly paper forms and shoving them in a database.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    We're sorry, but your browser is not supported. For the most secure experience, we recommend using IE6 on an updated version of Windows95. <checks calendar> But it's 2022! Damn gov't webservers!!!!

publicola1990 4y ago

Such powers capabilities being in the control of a secretive military organization don't appeal to me. Simply because often they have too much power and too little oversight and transparency. See the mistaken bombings by US forces in the aftermath of Talibans takeover of Kabul last August. US forces simply declared that though it was in mistake and none involved would have to suffer punitive measures [0] [0] https://www.npr.org/2021/12/13/1063880137/no-punishment-troops-afghanistan-kabul-strike-civilians https://www.npr.org/2021/12/13/1063880137/no-punishment-troo... Also military culture seems to not value critical thought and democratic processes. It is better for an open society to keep the influence of the military to the barest minimum.

octodog 4y ago
The incident in Kabul is the cost of doing business in war and security operations. The military understands that but politicians and the public do not or at least act as if they don't.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  It would be one thing if there was a war. The strike happened after US withdrawal. So is the US at war with Afghanistan forever now or what?
- sneak 4y ago
  Civilized people have decided that the costs of war are too high (which is why the US was leaving, it turns out); dismissing clear and unforced errors as "the cost of doing business" is a diffusion of responsibility and obscures causal relationships with a handwave. Individual people made unforced decisions to slaughter children that day, and other individual people made decisions to cover it up and protect those who made the first error. The New York Times then blew the lid off of it and made the efforts of the second group ineffective. In my own personal opinion, all of the people in this criminal conspiracy should suffer the absolute maximum penalties allowed by law for conspiracy to commit premeditated mass murder. This is not just "the costs of war"; there was no threat whatsoever. The costs of war also do not justify post hoc deceit to cover one's ass. Apologism does not fix the problem.

Retric 4y ago

> self-defending orbital satellite and space faring vehicles providing economic resources back to nations on earth. Step away from the science fiction for a while, we don’t have forcefields and aren’t getting them anytime soon. Satellites have few realistic ways to protect themselves from Kessler syndrome let alone any serious attacks by nation states. Best bet is to stay in low enough that the atmosphere provides some protection, but that line gets blurry between satellites and aircraft.

motohagiography 4y ago
You're missing it. Without a communications link, satellites and space vehicles cease to exist. The only value they provide is via wireless signal links back to us. All space problems are communications security problems of confidentiality, integrity, and most importantly, availability. Denial and disruption of space communications is the threat to all vehicles. Interception reaps any benfit they provide back without the investment in sending them out there. The only sovereignty we have in an age of space economics and risk comes from cryptography. What, did you think our plan was to spend all this money just to figure out a way to bash them together? Like, rocks?
- 01100011 4y ago
  Nah. It's easy to envision fully autonomous vessels in space which function fine without a communications link. In fact, that's probably the most desirable type of craft, one that isn't hampered by delays in communication and can respond quickly to dynamic situations.
  - Teever 4y ago
    But how can you ensure that it is operating in an autonomous fashion for you as opposed to someone else who has commandeered it whether through physical force cyber means?
    - Retric 4y ago
      So your hypothetical adversary is getting physical access to satellites in orbit to remotely disassemble them and then put them back together after swapping hardware. How exactly do you think this is remotely cost effective? Really the best defense is to spend less than 1/10th as much and launch a new satellite.

_8j50 4y ago

Your writing sounds like some powerpoint bullet points a think thank would present to circlejerk back and forth with military brass. > ... is cybersecurity. ... Like, that applies to any information connected system. Do you mean defend space craft from cyber attacks or attack space craft? Either way, not so different from UAV or many other terrestrial targets is it now? Do you mean maybe that a human can't get to it in time to respond to an attack? You can't get to a remote missile silo sometimes for hours as well or other remote outposts (like many in alaska and bering sea). What is very odd about your remark is how you envision a cyberattack is superior to missiles shooting down space craft. Honestly, would love to hear about any high level attack vectors aside from radio jamming. > The only real fully existential physical threats to the US will come not from sea, air, or land, cyber, or biology where it is already well defended, but from space. Excuse me but have you read the news in the past few years? The internet is leading america into a civil war many expect to take place in the next decade or so. The internet is not a space domain, US cybercom exists FYI. For kinetic attacks, ICBM are sort of space based attacks since they re-enter from orbit, THAAD as crappy as it is addresses that, it is not a new concern at all. The only deterrence is possibility of a counter attack. So long as nukes from the various delivery strategies are viable it is a non-issue. Basically keep developing better ICBMs and defenses against them. > The existence of a Space domain dilutes the integrity of a US ability to secure a physical perimeter in which it can exercise its sovereignty and from where it can project its power. Which isn't new, reagan even tried the whole "star wars" initiative because of the concern. Are we talking about mexico and canada here? Or do you expect China to send space troopers within ICBM like vehicles along with ground invasion vehicles and supply lines? Or are we still talking about ICBMs and anti sattelite weapons? If so, better icmbs and defenses against them? Non-nuclear weapons, say a laser carrier destroyer will be bad, prevents a planned ground invasion of a remote country (which is a good thing if you ask many americans tired of foreign invasions) but will not be effective against retaliation if US soil is attacked. To translate what you are saying in military speak (correct me if I am wrong):"it will be a lot harder to intervene in foreign nations' affairs and protect american economic interests like oil and shipping lanes if other countries get better at space based weapons" right? The security of the homeland is still a given because of the might of the Navy, and Airforce. But it does mean not being a military superpower, China will mess up most of the world and the west's global influence might dwindle? Well that is a risk but an economic and political one not one of a military invasion of the homeland by foreign powers which is the only purpose the military serves. As for the geopoliticsl concerns, I am not saying they shouldn't be addressed but short of an actual invasion risk, the country crumbling from the inside out is a much higher concern. Vietnam and Afghanistan were lost because americans couldn't support them, military thinkers are so disconnected from americans they don't even consider this a risk. People not being able to afford a living, shelter and basic dignity is a higher risk than space craft. Politicians controlled by foreign adversaries and corrupt judges and bribery infested government are more likely to support and promote a civil war. Although I for one vehemntly disagree and think America is still great and great days are ahead, many refused to celeberate July 4th because of the state of the nation. That is a greater concern, the enemies that are domestic not foreign. I fear McNamara Fallacy is behind your line of thinking and military brass' [1], your metrics are not measuring the right things. Future battles will be lost because of internal strife before a weapon is fired IMO. [1] http://mcnamarafallacy.com/ http://mcnamarafallacy.com/

monocasa 4y ago

In contrast, I take a very low opinion of the creation of the space force. Normally the creation of a new division of the military has stemmed from a new domain that is being controlled by the command structure of another domain which is impeding their mission. The Air Force had complete control over the domain of space, splitting space out didn't answer any real organizational problems. IMO, the real forward looking decision would be to have created a cyber force. Apparently US Cyber Command is a shit show from having several seperate command hierarchies. And arguably the material conditions of the cyber domain are a greater present threat to the enforceable boundaries of the US.

claudiulodro 4y ago
Since there is no air in space, can the Air Force truly run the program?
motohagiography 4y ago
Knowing what I do about bureaucracies, the organizational problem it solved was more strategic than just that. To be agile enough to respond to space and cyber, the Executive branch needed something (like a startup) growing and changing and above all, adapting fast. That administration was persuaded that the only way to counter China was to become more adaptable above all other things, and nobody in the military was doing it fast enough to meet this crititcal need - so they did what they knew worked, and he created a new competitor for all their budgets, and also made it the place that had to solve security in the biggest problem on the horizon, space. I'd say to other orgs (to adapt an adage) that if you think space force was a solution without a problem, the problem may have been you. ;)
- jcranmer 4y ago
  As I understand it, the primary organizational problem that the Space Force is solving is that there was no way to become a general if you were interested in space stuff, much in the same way that you're not going to make general if you were, say, a logistics officer. Or, transplanting it to business terms, this is like creating a department of paper clips so that someone can now become a senior VP in charge of paper clips.

jahewson 4y ago

> It is really the most important place to be in the world right now. Out of this world, surely?

femiagbabiaka 4y ago

Meanwhile the actual members of the military understand the Space Force to be a joke. And it should be. We spend more on our MIC than any other country in the world. I guarantee that there is already beginning to be massive overlap between the mission of the Space Force and other agencies, as there already was with the FBI and CIA. It’s incredibly likely this will be an expensive and painful mistake.

herewulf 4y ago
A big joke indeed. Massive overhead has been created for what is a relatively small job. The Spacemen (because the Air Force has Airmen, right?) seem awfully concerned with all the trappings of being a separate military service than actually doing a job. What the US military needs is more unity, not less. There is also significant lobbying for a "Space National Guard" too. Give me a fucking break. Signed, Crusty, grouchy Army (Reserve/National Guard) Officer

wolverine876 4y ago

There's a lot of enthusiasm in the parent, but not a lot of support for it. > If an axis of China, Russia or and any other countries domainate space, you aren't free or sovereign when you need to ask their permission. That doesn't mean the US needs a space force. It's not clear the assumption is accurate, that those countries seek to dominate space, or that such an axis exists. There are many, many outcomes besides national military competition: For example, throughout the Cold War the US and Russia kept space pretty demilitarized and non-competitive, and even used it to promote peace by allowing flyover and intelligence gathering to support treaties and prevent misinterpretation of actions. > Managing orbital and space faring traffic and securing access to key orbits that facilite whatever economics come out of them is essential. In what other domain are those functions performed by the military? Usually they are performed by cooperative intergovernmental bodies, such as the International Maritime Organization. > in the next 50 years, near earth orbits are going to be full of self-defending orbital satellite and space faring vehicles providing economic resources back to nations on earth. That's a pretty bold prediction with no support. Self-defending satellites?

015a 4y ago
> In what other domain are those functions performed by the military? Usually they are performed by cooperative intergovernmental bodies, such as the International Maritime Organization. Traditionally; the existence of a Navy was to project power across a nation's geographically disparate colonies, which isn't in isolation a very valuable thing, so take it a step further: a nation may want colonies in order to bolster mercantile trade, and the existence of a Navy was to assert power over those colonies, and protect the trade ships in-between destinations. Sea pirates aren't much of a threat anymore; but certainly non-zero. When incidents occur, its not the International Maritime Organization which responds. Its a sovereign Navy. A strong argument exists that the only reason our seas are as safe as they are, today, is thanks to the extreme investment in naval superiority sovereign states have made; its easy to point to organizations of peace as the reason for peace, when they're backed by guns. Additionally, navies served a critically important purpose in logistics during times of war. Basically, if your broader point is to assert that Humanity will leave behind its nature of bloody violence & territorial aggression when we develop our solar system, not only is that stance laughably idealistic, its patently false; we're already developing space, it already serves an extremely critical role in national security, and we're still killing each other & fighting over land. Treaties, agreements, and NGOs are fantastic, until a sovereign suddenly realizes "hey, actually, that asteroid is worth a lot of money, we're going to take it". The only reasonable argument I've heard against the Space Force is, essentially, that it may be that significant The Expanse-style solar colonization isn't in the cards for the future of humanity, for whatever irrelevant reason, and thus if their entire purview is the protection of earth orbital satellites, it may be that responsibility is more efficiently met by other traditional, more terrestrial command structures (Air Force, NORAD, etc). That's a reasonable criticism, but the equally valid counter-point is, if we wait for more certainty, we'll already be behind.

nicodjimenez 4y ago

> The only real fully existential physical threats to the US will come not from sea, air, or land, cyber, or biology where it is already well defended, but from space. This is such an absurd statement. US is literally collapsing before your very eyes and going to turn into an extremely dangerous unstable rogue nation with a lot of nuclear weapons. US has been totally subverted and is now falling behind Russia and China in conventional weaponry, and falling way behind Russia in missile defense and offensive hypersonic missiles. There is zero chance USA will be the space faring nation of the future. There's some smart people in USA but the cost of societal, financial, and economic collapse will catch up to the legacy that the USA enjoys due to the hard work of the older dying generations. The real competition for the future of space is between China and Russia. Friends now, but you never know later.

ralusek 4y ago
Even without SpaceX you'd be wrong. However, with SpaceX, you're mega wrong. Falcon 9 had already completely changed the cost function to space. Starship, however, is very set to completely turn the industry upside down.
- nicodjimenez 4y ago
  I love Elon and his antics but competing against the space programs of military super powers China and Russia will not work in the end. State power is ultimately orders of magnitude greater than a single corporation's power.
kbelder 4y ago
>US has been totally subverted and is now falling behind Russia and China in conventional weaponry, and falling way behind Russia in missile defense and offensive hypersonic missiles. It's obvious now, In a conventional war, the US would obliterate Russia in weeks. So could western Europe, even if the US didn't lift a finger to help. Russia has been revealed as a paper tiger. As far as China, they're probably more of an actual competent force than Russia, but what large-scale military actions has China done in the last few decades?

curiousgal 4y ago

> The only real fully existential physical threats to the US will come not from sea, air, or land, cyber, or biology where it is already well defended, but from space. hahaha this is so out of touch. The biggest threat to the US is the US itself. The country is at war against its own population.

vineyardmike 4y ago

> I have some familiarity with some of the problems they need to solve... The only real fully existential physical threats to the US will come not from sea, air, or land, cyber, or biology ... but from space. I have some familiars with the problems a "cyber force" may need to solve and I believe that neither land, water, air, nor space will be the threats but instead cyber threats. > Because of the physical distances and latencies in space, the only thing that secures those vehicles from each other (and therefore any commerce and national interest in space) is cybersecurity. Ah we are in agreement after all. But actually I think this is a case of familiarity bias. I agree we need the space force, and we need to defend the perimeter, but I think there's some truth that each war is unique, so we won't fight in space the way we had to fight air or sea. We need to defend in space the way we had to defend in air and sea though. No one in war would retry a losing technique, and if it was a winning technique everyone else had a chance to study it before the next battle, so you better find another winning technique. We still have a lot of new things to try in cyber warfare and a lot of history for "IRL" war actions.

adrianN 4y ago

> the only place in government seriously engaged in countering our actual existential threats The existential threats are, in my opinion, either internal (political), or ecological (e.g. climate change). I don't see how the space force is countering them.

boffinAudio 4y ago

The biggest threat to the US is Americans themselves. A nation willfully ruled by war criminals will eventually become their final victim. The fact that Americas do not prosecute their war criminals is a far greater threat to world peace and stability than any debris falling from the sky. These heinous new 'intelligence' agencies serve only to prevent justice for America's war crimes. Stop the secrecy! The corruption of government begins with its secrets - a truly free people don't keep secrets!

sneak 4y ago

> The existence of a Space domain dilutes the integrity of a US ability to secure a physical perimeter in which it can exercise its sovereignty and from where it can project its power. How's it going currently when the US exercises its sovereignty and projects its power? I'm not sure that this is something you can claim to want promote with a straight face, now that we know about the Salt Pit, Guantanamo, and rest of the global network of torture prisons they ran in violation of both US and foreign law. If the organizations abided by the rule of law, perhaps. But they don't, as we recently had publicly demonstrated for us by the POTUS, as well as by Assange in the Collateral Murder video (for which he is now imprisoned and tortured indefinitely without trial). These are well-resourced organizations that promote torture and violence, unconstrained by human rights, laws, law enforcement, or even common decency. Anyone who opposes them publicly, even without force (such as Assange), is subject to extrajudicial assassination or torture without benefit of trial. Anyone enriching these organizations is aligning themselves against humanity and civilization and will not be judged well by history; lawlessness and arbitrary violence is not something to aid and abet.

sneak 4y ago

Another thing to consider is that fewer than 4% of human beings live in the US or are USians. If the US is to establish military superiority in space, this would be, by definition, a plutocracy established over all of Earth. I'm not sure the other 96%+ of us humans are really interested in that outcome?