If the US doesn’t occupy this battlespace then someone else will and we’ll regret it when they literally dominate the high ground.
We (the US) do occupy this battlespace. But you need to define what that is and how its used before you (not you specifically) call for a newly defined ‘force’ to occupy it.
I have been in the national defense business for longer than you have been around, and in the space business for almost as long as you have been around. Space is what we call a ‘force multiplier’. We use it for almost instantaneous worldwide surveillance so that we can track and be prepared for what bad actors are planning against us next. We also use it for communications, a critical capability. We use it for navigation and timing systems (GPS), critical originally for military applications, but now an entire economic system reliant upon it as well. These systems have become ‘critical infrastructure’ for our national security, like the interstate highway, railroads, or Ma Bell for commerce.
Historically, it has been a battleground that has grown and been shared by the other services through joint command (USAF Space command is a joint command) where all the services have input as to their needs/requirements. There is also interaction with other three letter agencies that I wont expand on here. But those other agencies also are there specifically for national security needs, and supporting the warfighter with their product (like intel).
This system has worked pretty well for many decades, but there are always ways can be done better. I outlined in two posts some of the arguments both for and against a separate service for space.
For those who envision a Buck Rogers, “we need to militarize space”, motivation with Trumps announcement, that is NOT what is going on, and I am just trying to point out some reality here. If this is implemented, it will be the removing of these space functions (along with their budget allocations) from the services as they are allocated today, and consolidating them into a new organization.
That may have some benefits in terms of economy for the services and their budgets, but it also may create another obstacle in the form of a new bureaucracy to navigate in order to get the desired products (like intel) or services (like GPS) to the users (the war fighters). That is a possible down side. Another possible downside is increased rivalry over budget between the services, though that already exists today.
As to your concern about dominating the high ground, I agree that R&D needs to be supported to make sure that we do not let a rival country develop and deploy weapons capable of either denying us the ability to use space, or to use space against us. But we also need to be mindful that we have limited resources (tax dollars) and we have to spend those wisely. Space is very expensive, and some folks vision of occupying space may lead to spending huge sums of national treasure where it is not terribly useful or easily countered at much less cost by our adversaries.
Best FRegards,
Then there are those who say the Air Force and the Navy have very literally competing space forces--with different uhhh categories of 'allies.' Don't recall such sources or even how convincing they were.