3 ms·
> In what other domain are those functions performed by the military? Usually they are performed by cooperative intergovernmental bodies, such as the Internatio
by 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.
- sofixa 4y ago> 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. Not really. You might want to read "The Influence of Sea Power upon History", a hugely influential book that was among the factors for the tensions that brought WWI. Historically sea power (navies) were for trade and lines of communication and their security; conquest of enemies/trade outposts; raiding. Framing it all as "colonies" is a very post-Age of Exploration view.
- wolverine876 4y ago> Traditionally; the existence of a Navy was to project power across a nation's geographically disparate colonies Colonies were a long time ago. The US Navy doesn't project power over colonies. It's true that the Navy provides some backbone to international law on the seas, but international law is what rules. > 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". People like to disparage international peace and order - hey, why not? What fun! What do we have to lose? - but the fact is that the post-war, rules-based international order has worked amazingly well. There has never been a more peaceful time in history. Advanced democratic countries don't even think of solving problems - whether asteroids or otherwise - through violence. Much of the world is blanketed with democracies and run this way: Europe outside Russia (Europe is peaceful!), almost the entire Americas, much of East Asia (with the notable exception of Chine - except Taiwan), etc. > 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". As described above, that doesn't happen. When is the last time a democracy did that?