Replies

I agree..

We already have one. Who do you think is flying the UFO's from Dreamland?

(BtD tiptoes away while music from The Outer Limits plays in background...)

Sign me up!

(already got me the kewl patches 'n' everything!)

Better get my papers in for Starfleet LOL.

That would be awesome.

I'd join yesterday. :)

I recall recently that some head at the Pentagon did (as paid in his job capacity) already redefine the USAF as "a space and air force" instead of "an air and space force".

I'm sure he earned a medal for that piece of hard work and superior vision - and an honorary bronze plaque that now resides in a conference room at some godforsaken air base in Alaska, lovingly displayed right next to a neglected coffee urn...

Battleship Troopers.

A new force should not be created until we get to the moon again.

Sorry, the author of this article is not correct.

The entire thrust of his position comes down to the following three statements:

The primary manifestation of airpower is air superiority or air supremacy…

The most important reason the US Department of Defense needs a Space Force is that space has different properties from land, sea, and air environments found on Earth.

A new space service…[will] …make sure that the capabilities and limitations of US and enemy space forces are taken into account.

The author is apparently unaware that the primary reason the USAF came into existence was unity of command in strategic application of air power, not air superiority, per se. That is to say, the USAF came into existence as a single command agent for planning and executing the application of decisive military force (especially nuclear weapons) to strategic, enemy centers of power and preventing an enemy from doing the same to the US.

While sustained and pervasive air superiority is certainly conducive to this strategic goal it is not absolutely essential. Air superiority need only be achieved at the limited time and place of strategic force application or restricting the enemy from the same.

The US Army’s tendency to parcel out assets to field commanders is laudable in terms to “combined arms” application on the tactical battlefield. It enables a major commander to coordinate his forces to maximize tactical firepower impact and minimize fratricide. However, this same division in command of assets hampers strategic applications of assets that can be massed in time and space far removed from the battlefield. Consequently, especially from the perspective of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the need for a separate service that established unity of command for the application of strategic assets became obvious after WWII.

Regardless of the fact that space has different properties from land, sea, and air environments found on Earth, the important issue is not these differences. Rather, the important consideration is whether or not these differences significantly limit or amplify the application of decisive military force from this arena. Given the current state of space capabilities and limitations from a military perspective, there is no reason to view the application of decisive military force to strategic targets from this arena any differently from the application of strategic air power. Stated another way, the author’s rationale falls far short of that which would be required to create a separate “space force.”