Space Force

[uppi]

No this is fair game, please expand on your point. I don't think you would particularly like the outcome should the US lose hegemony over space. If anything, US domination has created more or less a safe zone for the rest of the world to develop and use outer space for economic and passive military use (reconnaissance). The legal framework for space launch, space tracking, orbital location assignments and many commercial activities were set up by the US. While the US by no means outright controls these processes, the fact that they work has a lot to do with the stable environment the US has helped foster. Moreover, a huge amount of the infrastructure that makes space economically/scientifically viable is based in the US.

This infrastructure includes:
The US provides the leading space debris monitoring and alerting service. A majority of the world's deep space communications dishes are American owned - as are the leading in-space communication networks both for satellites/spacecraft use (TDRSS) and ground use (Iridium, Globalstar). GPS is still the only 100% complete navigation system and its free for everyone to use. A ton of the legal coordination involved for space activities happens with the US as a major participant if not just happening in the US outright. The US also enforces rigid sanctions which are intended to help slow and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction based on space technology.

The sanctions do tend to go overboard and have a somewhat harmful effect on non-US economic activities in space. However, at the end of the day this is an area where I think we all benefit from more rigid rather than less rigid sanctions. I would prefer that WMD and anti-space technologies be contained so much as these things can be contained at all.

Arguing that the US should be in control of that is like arguing that a benevolent dictator is a good form of government. Which is fine as long as the dictator (or their successor) doesn't stop being benevolent or is seriously threatened in their power. This is part of what we are seeing here. The US is trying to control space - all in the interest of peace and economic development, of course - and try to shut out the Russians and the Chinese. Those aren't content with the rule and start militarizing space as an act of rebellion. The US see this and instead of incorporating others into their rule, they start to increase their military's grip on space and try to shut out others even more.

I agree that the US has done a lot to enable beneficial activities in space, even if a lot of that was very much self-serving. Making GPS free certainly encouraged its use and revolutionized navigation, but it has also hindered the development of other system by killing the market for that - probably very intentionally. The problem is that Americans have shown that they cannot be trusted to elect clowns into their government and who knows what they'll do in the future. Therefore, I would rather see the US relinquish its control of space to international bodies instead of doubling down on their control. If there is ever a war for space, the creation of a Space Force will be going down as one of the things that led to it, rather than the thing that prevented it.

Given the fragility of our space based infrastructure, I do not want a wide dispersion of un-countered anti-space weapons. The worry I have is that every capability the Russians and Chinese develop that goes unchecked provides an opportunity for them to do Bad Things (TM) they wouldn't do in a more contested environment.

How exactly is the creation of a Space Force supposed keep the Chinese and the Russians in check? What are they supposed to do? They cannot really prevent the development and launch of such weapons. Counterweapons are just going to increase the chance of a disaster. If anything, the creation of a Space Force will encourage others to expand their military operations in space. They can point to he US and say: they are doing it as well, we are just protecting our national interest, just as them, while the rest of the world nods and says: fair enough.

Moreover, the Europeans have sort of decided to sit the military space sphere out and are extremely reliant on US assets to maintain and defend their own space-based infrastructure for military use.

Honestly, if the Europeans decided to grab control of space, would you let them? If they set up rules what is and what isn't allowed in space would any American company be bothered to follow any of those? If the Europeans would start to set up their own Space Force, would the Americans sit back relieved and be glad that somebody else is doing it? I don't think so.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I agree that the US has done a lot to enable beneficial activities in space, even if a lot of that was very much self-serving. Making GPS free certainly encouraged its use and revolutionized navigation, but it has also hindered the development of other system by killing the market for that - probably very intentionally.

A market for what? Putting up a GPS constellation was and still is beyond the ability of any corporation to do. And if a corporation did it then they would charged for the service which would have pumped the brakes on all of the massive, explisve economic activity gained out of the endeavor. Are you suggesting the world would have been better off if Europe had put Galileo up and charged for it? Because Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) could not have done it and if they had then we would have seen much less GPS-enabled economic growth.

The US is trying to control space - all in the interest of peace and economic development, of course - and try to shut out the Russians and the Chinese.

You yourself point out the absurdity of the US shutting anyone out of space. That's not what we're talking about - no one can or will stop the Russians or Chinese from developing space weapons. All anyone else can do is preventing an effective change to the status quo.

The problem is that Americans have shown that they cannot be trusted to elect clowns into their government and who knows what they'll do in the future. Therefore, I would rather see the US relinquish its control of space to international bodies instead of doubling down on their control. If there is ever a war for space, the creation of a Space Force will be going down as one of the things that led to it, rather than the thing that prevented it.

To be fair, a lot of the systems for coordinating space activities are done through international bodies with the input of national assemblies. The US helped set up these legal structures and helps maintain them. It's worked out in everyone's interest and I don't want that to change by letting China or Russia accomplish a fiat accompli with new technologies that give them the power to dominate the space sphere.

I agree that a weapon created is a weapon likely to be used. It's the classic problem of arms control - you create a ton of risk building 'defensive' nuclear weapons as they increase the overall chances they will be used. Unfortunately China and Russia are already going down that route and will build up a ton of weapons and capabilities even if the US does nothing. And if the US does nothing then that invites even more dangerous provocation like the kind outlined before.

Honestly, if the Europeans decided to grab control of space, would you let them? If they set up rules what is and what isn't allowed in space would any American company be bothered to follow any of those? If the Europeans would start to set up their own Space Force, would the Americans sit back relieved and be glad that somebody else is doing it? I don't think so.

I would not support letting Europe grab control of space. My opinion is that the system we have works well enough for everyone that I don't want it to change. I also don't think Europe has the capacity to affect that kind of change. Not that they are incapable technologically, it just doesn't seem to be an area where there is any political consensus to change things. The system as set up works out pretty well for Europe and they enjoy a lot of the benefits of the system without having to develop these sorts of systems themselves. The question should be will Europe be better off with American, Russian or Chinese hegemony? We know what American hegemony means in this area and overall I think it's a net positive. I'm not sure we can be assured of the same under other nations.

I do not believe the US is a completely benevolent actor. The country is acting purely in its own interests which happen to line up with peaceful exploitation and exploration of outer space again because that benefits the US itself.

 

[HoloDoc]

Traditionally, when a hegemon loses its position, there is a conflict, usually military. Sometimes this is between the waning hegemon and an upstart wanting the role; sometimes it's a conflict between multiple players attempting to fill the vacuum. That there wasn't a conflict between European colonial powers and the US after WWII is something of an accident of history; the French and British reluctantly relinquished their dominance to the US, since they saw the USSR as a much bigger threat.

We may well see this in space n the near future, much as we are seeing China challenge US hegemony in the Pacific, pushing in areas like the South China Sea. While I would also prefer the US relinquish its position to some sort of international body, it's probably best for everyone that their position remain unassailable for the moment. In spite of their idiotic politics.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Honestly, if the Europeans decided to grab control of space, would you let them? If they set up rules what is and what isn't allowed in space would any American company be bothered to follow any of those? If the Europeans would start to set up their own Space Force, would the Americans sit back relieved and be glad that somebody else is doing it? I don't think so.

I'm just going to briefly interject that you didn't use the most obvious examples, which makes your position unassailable.

When NATO serves as a platform for the US to tell Europe what to do, the US thinks NATO is the greatest peacekeeping device ever created. When Europe combined their voices in the EU and NATO became an agreement between two more or less equal partners the US (not the president at the time, but the people who nominally elect them) opted for a nativist megalomaniac who would "bring them to heel."

When the UN serves as the platform for forming US led coalitions that lend legitimacy to the US doing whatever it wants, it is a "great force for peace in the world." When it tries to place any sort of check on the US it is a bunch of evil globalists that have no such authority.

US hegemony in space inevitably produces the same results, and the sooner we produce the result the less devastating the consequences are. The longer a hegemony is allowed to stand the more vital functions route through it. An international organization, with serious teeth, formed immediately, is the best path...and yes, those teeth would have to immediately chew the legs off of the US.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We may well see this in space n the near future, much as we are seeing China challenge US hegemony in the Pacific, pushing in areas like the South China Sea. While I would also prefer the US relinquish its position to some sort of international body, it's probably best for everyone that their position remain unassailable for the moment. In spite of their idiotic politics.

It's not just US hegemony in the Pacific that China challenges - they go after the sovereignty of their neighbors. Same in space - it won't just be the US that suffers. Anyone can lose a satellite to the debris that China put up. Similarly it wasn't just American satellites the Russians were inspecting.

When it comes to relinquishing controls - again, a lot of the legal framework is not directly in US hands though they hold a key position in enforcing the system. When it comes to actual, tangible assets, however, like communications networks and debris tracking stations - well the international community can bloody well build their own, couldn't they? But they haven't and the US did and still allows them to be used to support the assets of other nations. You can't say the same about Russian and Chinese tracking and telemetry assets to nearly the same extent.

An international organization, with serious teeth, formed immediately, is the best path...and yes, those teeth would have to immediately chew the legs off of the US.

I wish them good luck in that. Europe can barely decide to stick with and support their own national programs just to keep up - right now Galileo (European GPS) is under major controversy as a result of Brexit and infighting between the various contributors to ESA has handicapped their ability to stay competitive in the launch market. Moreover even if a nation overtakes the US in space power it won't necessarily mean they can chew the legs off the US in a meaningful way.

The Warsaw pact maintained cleared material advantages over NATO in many areas, for many years.

 

[uppi]

The country is acting purely in its own interests which happen to line up with peaceful exploitation and exploration of outer space again because that benefits the US itself.

My lack of trust for that statement is exactly why I don't want US hegemony in space.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The Warsaw pact maintained cleared material advantages over NATO in many areas, for many years.

And as it turns out, rather than allowing the cancer of US hegemony to continue growing for decades it seems like the world might have been a better place if they had used it when they had the chance.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@uppi But you have US hegemony in space already. Has it been a bad thing? Do you think Russian or Chinese hegemony would be better?

And back to the topic - do you think a US Space Force would help or hurt the US position?

 

[HoloDoc]

And as it turns out, rather than allowing the cancer of US hegemony to continue growing for decades it seems like the world might have been a better place if they had used it when they had the chance.

As bad as the US can be, it's a lot better than the USSR. While the Soviets were hardly the moustache twirling villains of pop culture, nor was their regime a particularly pleasant one. Not that the current US regime isn't trying its best to surpass them in moustache twirling.

 

[uppi]

I wish them good luck in that. Europe can barely decide to stick with and support their own national programs just to keep up - right now Galileo (European GPS) is under major controversy as a result of Brexit and infighting between the various contributors to ESA has handicapped their ability to stay competitive in the launch market. Moreover even if a nation overtakes the US in space power it won't necessarily mean they can chew the legs off the US in a meaningful way.

That sentiment enhances my distrust in the claim that the aim is only peaceful exploration of space. If that was the aim, the best way forward would be the US contributing to a powerful international organization that can reign in the US (and anybody else) when they go to far. Which will never happen, of course, because the US isn't actually interested in international cooperation when they cannot dominate it. They want to be at the top of anything that happens.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

To be fair, I don't really think exploration of space is a primary motive for anything the US does outside of NASA - and NASA makes up a minority of US space activity and spending. However, the fact that NASA exists and is mostly separate from the military is a major advance over the Russian and Chinese approach.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As bad as the US can be, it's a lot better than the USSR. While the Soviets were hardly the moustache twirling villains of pop culture, nor was their regime a particularly pleasant one. Not that the current US regime isn't trying its best to surpass them in moustache twirling.

That's the point though. Any hegemony turns into the mustache twirler eventually. The longer they exist as the "benevolent" hegemony the worse it is when they do.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Does a Space Force make the maintenance of American space hegemony more or less likely?

 

[HoloDoc]

That's the point though. Any hegemony turns into the mustache twirler eventually. The longer they exist as the "benevolent" hegemony the worse it is when they do.

In theory this is true. In practice, it is seldom pleasant for the people caught up in the collapse of said hegemon. Ask the inhabitants of the former Roman Empire in the mid-fifth century.

Does a Space Force make the maintenance of American space hegemony more or less likely?

If someone else was handling it, I'd gapping say it made it more likely. With Trump? I'd be genuinely surprised if he could spell "Space Force" without assistance.

 

[uppi]

@uppi But you have US hegemony in space already. Has it been a bad thing? Do you think Russian or Chinese hegemony would be better?

And back to the topic - do you think a US Space Force would help or hurt the US position?

No, I don't think a Russian or Chinese hegemony would be better. I would prefer no single-country hegemony at all and a international hegemony of everybody who plays by the rules instead.

In any case, I actually think that a Space Force would hurt the US hegemony. It could help developing the capabilities of the US military in space, but the hegemony is more economic than militaristic. Unless you start shooting down satellites (which is a bad idea, I agree), there is not much a Space Force could do to actually enforce the hegemony. But it will certainly encourage Russia and China to threaten the hegemony with their own military.

In other words: There is not much a Space Force can actually do to defend space, so I don't see how you could use it to make it more peaceful.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@HoloDoc
Yeah I think for him this was something he saw as an easy election-play. He could sensationalize it and claim we really need this for national defense which is a winning issue with his base. Plus, Pence is an honest to god space cadet even if his overall obsessions tend to veer more toward invading people's privacy in the bedroom. So anyways Pence has been the one really pushing this along with a few other congress critters. Trump doesn't really know the first thing about any of this, he just sees it as a political tool to help with the election. I think this proposal is DOA come Tuesday and Trump will quit talking about it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's a weird coincidence that quite a few Trumpists really are big fans of outer space activities in all spheres (civil, commercial and militarily). Trump appointed Jim Bridenstine (hardcore teahadist) to run NASA and to be completely fair he's doing a pretty good job at it - even coming around on climate change due to the central role NASA plays in tracking and combating it through observation and technological research.

 

[HoloDoc]

It's a weird coincidence that quite a few Trumpists really are big fans of outer space activities in all spheres (civil, commercial and militarily). Trump appointed Jim Bridenstine (hardcore teahadist) to run NASA and to be completely fair he's doing a pretty good job at it - even coming around on climate change due to the central role NASA plays in tracking and combating it through observation and technological research.

Bannon originally made his name as a producer of environmentalist documentaries.

 

[red_elk]

When it comes to actual, tangible assets, however, like communications networks and debris tracking stations - well the international community can bloody well build their own, couldn't they? But they haven't and the US did and still allows them to be used to support the assets of other nations. You can't say the same about Russian and Chinese tracking and telemetry assets to nearly the same extent.

From what I'm reading about US space debris tracking system, it's a set of military radar stations, which has data sharing agreement with only a handful of partners. "at least seven countries and 44 companies". Looks like USA shares this kind of data only with NATO partners who also have some space capabilities. I very much doubt Russia or China have access to them, they are using their own systems for tracking space objects. Theoretically, an agreement for mutual sharing these data is a way to go here, but for now it's politically impossible.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Does a Space Force make the maintenance of American space hegemony more or less likely?

Less. By militarizing they basically demand counter militarization, which makes the hegemony less stable.