Jump to content

Space Corps Good or Bad?


xcraftllc

Recommended Posts

When all the existing services can pass an audit, then maybe we can talk about adding another one....

Edited by pbar
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why not spin off space AND cyber into a thing?  Staying at this public knowledge level, it would be akin to carnivores and herbivores in the air-breathing forces.  Both rely on each other.  Naturally, we can count on Big Gray and Big Green to give up their toys and people just like they did when the Air Service became the Air Corps which became the Army Air Forces which became Big Blue.  Nothing in the history books about that.

Or, if this happens, does the inevitable bloat and expanding staff mean it will eventually get its own seat on JCS?  Obviously, a bigger committee makes for better, faster decisions.

Or what about downgrading STRATCOM to a "nuclear corps?"  (Pun intended...).  Aside from a few other junk drawer missions that son of SAC has - EW - why is it a full-on combatant commander?  The numbers assigned are small, the mission very specialized.

Hey, if we're gonna reorganize, let's go the full monty.

 

Must go lie down now...

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 11 months later...

I think someone tweeted it at him, and he thought it sounded cool.  So...here we are.

I'm sure it won't hamper our attempts to increase highly contested cyber capabilities/environments at all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long, long overdue. If you think our acquisition animal sucks at buying aircraft, just watch it try to purchase a satellite.

That said, it should be administered by the Air Force - in the same way I imagine the Marines are administered by the Navy (I have no idea)? Zero need to duplicate bureaucracy or build new infrastructure. But it needs its own command, professionals, and to be separate because it is fundamentally different from the "Air" Force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, we don't need another branch of the US Armed Forces and US leadership needs to find some middle ground. The simplest solution (in my simple mind) would be to take the next logical step by making this new "Space Force" a Combatant Command "again". This move will require leadership to reverse course and admit they made a mistake way back when. We can call this new Combatant Command "USSPACECOM" just like we did before it was absorbed into USSTRATECOM back in 2002 (original USSPACECOM lifespan 1985 - 2002). We already have 10 Geographic/Functional Combatant Commands so why not just add one more?

Problem; The cap on the number of authorized/approved Combatant Commands will need to be changed to do something like this. Currently the Unified Command Plan directs that Unified Combatant Commands be capped at 10, and with the formation of any new Combatant Command, one would have to be deactivated (this is what happened to the original USSPACECOM/it was USSPACECOM versus USNORTHCOM for spot #10 and USNORTHCOM won).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem; The cap on the number of authorized/approved Combatant Commands will need to be changed to do something like this. Currently the Unified Command Plan directs that Unified Combatant Commands be capped at 10...


Bar napkin legalese...

US Law does not cap number of COCOMs.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter6&edition=prelim

UCP is a “plan” of the executive branch.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AC&W said:

 

 


Bar napkin legalese...

US Law does not cap number of COCOMs.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter6&edition=prelim

UCP is a “plan” of the executive branch.

 

Yep, you're correct. I'm just having flashbacks to when Rumsfeld was SecDef. This cap issue was one of his pet peeves. After a wee bit of research I finally found something on this Rumsfeld cap stuff (9 seems to be his breaking point); See Page 84 and 85.

https://www.scribd.com/document/194147061/Unified-Command-Plan-History

If you can find this memo, i'm sure it contains more info on Rummy and caps; Memo, SecDef  for the President, Unified Command Plan 2002 (U), Apr 02, S, folder 8, box 2 UCP 2002, Historians Research and Reference Materials, JHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In a message to all airmen, service brass including Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein confirmed that, as rumored, the new "space force" would be established as a military service inside the Air Force."

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/06/20/air-force-issues-first-guidance-troops-about-space-force.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

Isn't that what Space Command is?  A space force thats owned by the AF?

That's what I'm thinking.  Do we really gain anything by creating a Space Force vs potentially standing up a Space Command similar to SOCOM that brings in the Army and Navy assets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, pawnman said:

That's what I'm thinking.  Do we really gain anything by creating a Space Force vs potentially standing up a Space Command similar to SOCOM that brings in the Army and Navy assets?

This is how the original USSPACECOM was organized back in the day. USSPACECOM also functioned as the Commander in Chief of the binational U.S.-Canadian NORAD (CINCNORAD).

Excerpt; USSPACECOM, with headquarters at Peterson AFB Colorado, is a functional
combatant command with an AOR which encompasses the entire world. Space Command
oversees three service specific commands: Army Space Command (USARSPACE), Naval
Space Command (NAVSPACECOM) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPACECOM).
It also includes one functional component (SPACEAF) and Joint Task Force Cheyenne
Mountain Operations (JTF-CM). The command was activated 23 September, 1985 to
consolidate all military space efforts under the direction of one commander-in-chief.
USSPACECOM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...