6 ms·

And why should we believe this? Edit: The "space force" needs to justify its existence, and this is a way for them to do it. Why haven't we heard about this be

And why should we believe this? Edit: The "space force" needs to justify its existence, and this is a way for them to do it. Why haven't we heard about this before?

dragontamer 5y ago
Because in a Taiwan scenario, China almost certainly would attack US Satellites. And vice versa: USA would want to stop Chinese Satellites, so that they are blind to the movement of our carriers. ----- Frankly, I'd expect that the Space Force is already conducting testing-level operations against our opponent's satellites. From temporary blindness (this laser-thing they're talking about), to permanent disablement (missile, like Russia's test). Maybe the US isn't so gaudy to publicly create space debris like Russia, but I'm sure we have weapons in development that can do the same thing. ------- > Edit: The "space force" needs to justify its existence, and this is a way for them to do it. Why haven't we heard about this before? "Space Force" always existed. Or do you think that the US Army doesn't use GPS or Spy Satellites? The issue with before, is that we used to have a Space-component for US Army. Then a 2nd space-component in the US Navy. Then a 3rd space-component in the US Marines. Finally, we have a 4th space-component in the US Air Force. This was stupid. We removed the space-elements in our 4 branches and combined them into a singular 5th branch. Instead of redundantly creating 4 different space branches subservient to 4 different organizations, we can have one branch focus on the space stuff, and the other 4 branches asking the 5th guy for support as needed. If anything, Space Force is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper than the stupid organization we had before.
- Terr_ 5y ago
  There's also the Space Force versus the National Reconnaissance Office versus the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
- User23 5y ago
  Anti-satellite weapons have been around for some time[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT
- nine_k 5y ago
  I can imagine lightweight semi-permanent disablement by spraying paint on lenses and wrapping the entire craft in aluminum foil. Zero space debris, and not even destruction of property. This takes more fuel and an advanced robot craft, but should be preferable for a time when a fast all-out war is not being fought. And I hope both sides would like to avoid an all-out war.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Space rendezvous is really hard. Easier to get line-of-sight and then beam attack it
    - nine_k 5y ago
      Hitting is easier of course! The idea is to disable a satellite in a nicest possible way, in order to look good in the eyes of everyone but the adversary.
      - FredPret 5y ago
        You’d probably have to hack it then. Getting there and wrapping it in foil / sabotaging it would be unbelievably hard and clearly visible to the whole world’s radar systems
        nine_k 5y ago
        I don't think that a rocket attack would stay invisible. If the target satellite would start maneuvering to avoid capture, it's OK because now it's useless as a navigation satellite, and is harder if even still possible to use for communication and surveillance.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        A laser-beam attack is when you shine a laser into the satellite's lenses, meaning its blind for the duration of the laser-beam. As such, you can disable an opponent's satellite without destroying it. It just doesn't work for the duration of the laser-beam attack.
boardwaalk 5y ago
... didn't we just have a Russian ASAT test that had ISS astronauts sheltering in place? Is this that hard to believe?
- tata71 5y ago
  In fact, that's why this statement is "50/50".
thatguy0900 5y ago
Does the space force need to justify its existence? Seems obviously justified to me, anything in space will be one of the first targets in any near peer conflicts and every state with the capability is working on and even openly testing space capable weapons.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Is there anything from the ground that can be done by Space Force to protect assets in space from direct attack from projectile weapons? Is there anything Space Force can to from space to protect them? No? Then what have they actually done except get new uniforms and patches?
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    Unified space command into a single branch. Also gives a way for Congress to appropriate funds to the USSF with the Department of the Air Force and not deal with the USAF wanting to repurpose the funds for aircraft, which apparently has been a problem for quite a while. Space is its own unique domain and should be treated as such.
    - Eelongate 5y ago
      The USAF have a love affair with fast jets (who can blame them?) but I have a feeling that using manned aircraft as the first stage of missiles is an anachronism that won't survive the next major war.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    I mean those are the problems that are being worked on, I presume. Seems a little tautological to say we currently have no space defense/offense capabilities so it's senseless to invest in space defense/offense.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      I see your point, but at the same time, whether it is a branch of the Air Force or its own branch, it's the same situation. I'm willing to stipulate that I'm basing my opinion at the farcical manner in which it was created, and how can we take anything seriously like that especially after their uniform design so clearly ripped off of scifi. Edit: sorry, I meant logo/emblem in place of uniform.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Mizza 5y ago
Space has been used for weapons of war since the V2 in 1944. The next Big Stupid War will certainly continue the trend.
ars 5y ago
The parent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command has existed since 1982, so why do you think they need to suddenly justify their existence? Is this just a stupid reaction to Donald Trump being the one to do the reorganization?
redis_mlc 5y ago
Perhaps you're not well-informed ... Space and the Moon are the high ground for modern warfare. Stay tuned for NASA to schedule manned lunar landings within months.
andreilys 5y ago
Do you really think after all these years of public hacking by state actors that U.S. satellites would somehow be off limits?
- abacadaba 5y ago
  my understanding was that trump created the space force to have some defense from the aliens in case Oumuamua came back, was i misled?
  - madengr 5y ago
    Actually Obamuaua.
echelon 5y ago
Why not? China and Russia are ramping up on military presence, maneuvers, and armament. Our top businesses are constantly under attack by nation state actors. I've witnessed a few attacks directly. I'd be willing to bet that there will be some action taken in Ukraine and Taiwan within the decade, possibly simultaneously.
- senectus1 5y ago
  yeah I rarely believe things that the US military industrial and political complex says. Bu this is not a hard thing to belive.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  I feel like the best way to prevent a Taiwan situation is to give them nukes. China would never invade if it meant losing their 10 largest cities. And when they throw a fit just say "but China, you already had nukes. Which part of China they are in is no concern of ours."
  - dividedbyzero 5y ago
    Wouldn't Taiwan need a credible second strike capability as well? The US probably can't credibly guarantee their safety, so they'd need to be able to do that themselves, otherwise the threat is empty and useless. But say the US really did arm Taiwan with first and second strike capabilities, I don't even think the US could stomach the reaction to that. How long could they hold out if embargoed by the PRC?
    - randomopining 5y ago
      I always said the same thing. Give those 3 nukes and then declare defensive strike doctrine. My military friend says “it’s not a good idea” but I don’t see why. Call their bluff.
      - dirtyid 5y ago
        >I don’t see why Because simply PRC has never been deterred by nukes over sovereignty issues. It has fought with nuclear US, USSR and India over core interests less interest than TW. Former two while PRC wasn't nuclear power herself. Also because TW is thoroughly infiltrated by PRC spies, and TW even hinting nuclearizing gives PRC legitimate casus belli to go to war with relatively few consequences due to proliferation concerns. Not to mention US would be arming weapons of mass destruction to CCP's antagonist in domestic Chinese civil war. PRC would likely treat any nuclear US on TW's part as direct US nuclear launch. If it's going to trade Taipei for Shanghai, it's going to make sure US loses NYC as well for participating. Reality is nuclear deterrence doesn't actually deter when core security interests are involved, i.e. USSR HAD nukes on Cuba during the crisis and US was still willing to invade.
notJim 5y ago
I agree we should approach this with skepticism. By their nature, a lot of these things are hard to verify independently, and the incentives are for the military to exaggerate them. This article doesn't seem to even attempt to independently verify the facts. This should be treated as a press release from the military, not journalism.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
Putin has been talking up Russia's anti-satellite laser weapons since before the US created its space force. As xkcd[1] famously mentioned, just because you're learning about something today doesn't mean it's brand new [1]: https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/

And why should we believe this? Edit: The "space force" needs to justify its existence, and this is a way for them to do it. Why haven't we heard about this before?

dragontamer 5y ago

Because in a Taiwan scenario, China almost certainly would attack US Satellites. And vice versa: USA would want to stop Chinese Satellites, so that they are blind to the movement of our carriers. ----- Frankly, I'd expect that the Space Force is already conducting testing-level operations against our opponent's satellites. From temporary blindness (this laser-thing they're talking about), to permanent disablement (missile, like Russia's test). Maybe the US isn't so gaudy to publicly create space debris like Russia, but I'm sure we have weapons in development that can do the same thing. ------- > Edit: The "space force" needs to justify its existence, and this is a way for them to do it. Why haven't we heard about this before? "Space Force" always existed. Or do you think that the US Army doesn't use GPS or Spy Satellites? The issue with before, is that we used to have a Space-component for US Army. Then a 2nd space-component in the US Navy. Then a 3rd space-component in the US Marines. Finally, we have a 4th space-component in the US Air Force. This was stupid. We removed the space-elements in our 4 branches and combined them into a singular 5th branch. Instead of redundantly creating 4 different space branches subservient to 4 different organizations, we can have one branch focus on the space stuff, and the other 4 branches asking the 5th guy for support as needed. If anything, Space Force is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper than the stupid organization we had before.

Terr_ 5y ago
There's also the Space Force versus the National Reconnaissance Office versus the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
User23 5y ago
Anti-satellite weapons have been around for some time[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT
nine_k 5y ago
I can imagine lightweight semi-permanent disablement by spraying paint on lenses and wrapping the entire craft in aluminum foil. Zero space debris, and not even destruction of property. This takes more fuel and an advanced robot craft, but should be preferable for a time when a fast all-out war is not being fought. And I hope both sides would like to avoid an all-out war.
- FredPret 5y ago
  Space rendezvous is really hard. Easier to get line-of-sight and then beam attack it
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Hitting is easier of course! The idea is to disable a satellite in a nicest possible way, in order to look good in the eyes of everyone but the adversary.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      You’d probably have to hack it then. Getting there and wrapping it in foil / sabotaging it would be unbelievably hard and clearly visible to the whole world’s radar systems
      - nine_k 5y ago
        I don't think that a rocket attack would stay invisible. If the target satellite would start maneuvering to avoid capture, it's OK because now it's useless as a navigation satellite, and is harder if even still possible to use for communication and surveillance.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      A laser-beam attack is when you shine a laser into the satellite's lenses, meaning its blind for the duration of the laser-beam. As such, you can disable an opponent's satellite without destroying it. It just doesn't work for the duration of the laser-beam attack.

boardwaalk 5y ago

... didn't we just have a Russian ASAT test that had ISS astronauts sheltering in place? Is this that hard to believe?

tata71 5y ago
In fact, that's why this statement is "50/50".

thatguy0900 5y ago

Does the space force need to justify its existence? Seems obviously justified to me, anything in space will be one of the first targets in any near peer conflicts and every state with the capability is working on and even openly testing space capable weapons.

dylan604 5y ago
Is there anything from the ground that can be done by Space Force to protect assets in space from direct attack from projectile weapons? Is there anything Space Force can to from space to protect them? No? Then what have they actually done except get new uniforms and patches?
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Unified space command into a single branch. Also gives a way for Congress to appropriate funds to the USSF with the Department of the Air Force and not deal with the USAF wanting to repurpose the funds for aircraft, which apparently has been a problem for quite a while. Space is its own unique domain and should be treated as such.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    The USAF have a love affair with fast jets (who can blame them?) but I have a feeling that using manned aircraft as the first stage of missiles is an anachronism that won't survive the next major war.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  I mean those are the problems that are being worked on, I presume. Seems a little tautological to say we currently have no space defense/offense capabilities so it's senseless to invest in space defense/offense.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    I see your point, but at the same time, whether it is a branch of the Air Force or its own branch, it's the same situation. I'm willing to stipulate that I'm basing my opinion at the farcical manner in which it was created, and how can we take anything seriously like that especially after their uniform design so clearly ripped off of scifi. Edit: sorry, I meant logo/emblem in place of uniform.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Mizza 5y ago

Space has been used for weapons of war since the V2 in 1944. The next Big Stupid War will certainly continue the trend.

ars 5y ago

The parent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command has existed since 1982, so why do you think they need to suddenly justify their existence? Is this just a stupid reaction to Donald Trump being the one to do the reorganization?

redis_mlc 5y ago

Perhaps you're not well-informed ... Space and the Moon are the high ground for modern warfare. Stay tuned for NASA to schedule manned lunar landings within months.

andreilys 5y ago

Do you really think after all these years of public hacking by state actors that U.S. satellites would somehow be off limits?

abacadaba 5y ago
my understanding was that trump created the space force to have some defense from the aliens in case Oumuamua came back, was i misled?
- madengr 5y ago
  Actually Obamuaua.

echelon 5y ago

Why not? China and Russia are ramping up on military presence, maneuvers, and armament. Our top businesses are constantly under attack by nation state actors. I've witnessed a few attacks directly. I'd be willing to bet that there will be some action taken in Ukraine and Taiwan within the decade, possibly simultaneously.

senectus1 5y ago
yeah I rarely believe things that the US military industrial and political complex says. Bu this is not a hard thing to belive.
fallingknife 5y ago
I feel like the best way to prevent a Taiwan situation is to give them nukes. China would never invade if it meant losing their 10 largest cities. And when they throw a fit just say "but China, you already had nukes. Which part of China they are in is no concern of ours."
- dividedbyzero 5y ago
  Wouldn't Taiwan need a credible second strike capability as well? The US probably can't credibly guarantee their safety, so they'd need to be able to do that themselves, otherwise the threat is empty and useless. But say the US really did arm Taiwan with first and second strike capabilities, I don't even think the US could stomach the reaction to that. How long could they hold out if embargoed by the PRC?
  - randomopining 5y ago
    I always said the same thing. Give those 3 nukes and then declare defensive strike doctrine. My military friend says “it’s not a good idea” but I don’t see why. Call their bluff.
    - dirtyid 5y ago
      >I don’t see why Because simply PRC has never been deterred by nukes over sovereignty issues. It has fought with nuclear US, USSR and India over core interests less interest than TW. Former two while PRC wasn't nuclear power herself. Also because TW is thoroughly infiltrated by PRC spies, and TW even hinting nuclearizing gives PRC legitimate casus belli to go to war with relatively few consequences due to proliferation concerns. Not to mention US would be arming weapons of mass destruction to CCP's antagonist in domestic Chinese civil war. PRC would likely treat any nuclear US on TW's part as direct US nuclear launch. If it's going to trade Taipei for Shanghai, it's going to make sure US loses NYC as well for participating. Reality is nuclear deterrence doesn't actually deter when core security interests are involved, i.e. USSR HAD nukes on Cuba during the crisis and US was still willing to invade.

notJim 5y ago

I agree we should approach this with skepticism. By their nature, a lot of these things are hard to verify independently, and the incentives are for the military to exaggerate them. This article doesn't seem to even attempt to independently verify the facts. This should be treated as a press release from the military, not journalism.

Rebelgecko 5y ago

Putin has been talking up Russia's anti-satellite laser weapons since before the US created its space force. As xkcd[1] famously mentioned, just because you're learning about something today doesn't mean it's brand new [1]: https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/