# A space force as a separate military branch? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 4, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504 "2017-07-04T20:32:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/1 "2017-07-04T20:32:00Z")
This idea started after the first Gulf War, but never got any traction. Now a new group of leaders is calling for the idea. I think that such a thing could happen some day, and probably should happen; but likely not for a few years yet. > [@](#): > > Rep. Mike Rogers said the U.S. Air Force needs a separate “Space Corps” to handle military operations in orbit, as a first step in creating a completely separate military branch. > > “We have to acknowledge that the national security space structure is broken,” the Alabama Republican said in a Tuesday morning speech at the 33rd Space Symposium. “It’s very hard for a government bureaucracy to fix itself, and that’s exactly why congressional oversight exists. It’s the job of the Armed Services Committee to recognize when the bureaucracy is broken and to see that it’s fixed.” > **[Rogers calls for separate “Space Corps” within the Air Force](https://spacenews.com/rogers-calls-for-separate-space-corps-within-the-air-force/)** > > Rogers calls for separate “Space Corps” within the Air Force Here’s a paper from 2000 that explores the idea in some depth. > [@](#): > > In this well-documented essay, Col Michael C. Whittington compares the leading arguments for a separate space force to the cogent arguments for an independent air force made by airpower advocates during the interwar years of 1920–1940. The airpower issues in 1920 and the space power issues of today are strikingly similar, revolving around four key issues: leadership, doctrine, technology, and funding. [http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/maxwell/mp20.pdf](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/maxwell/mp20.pdf) > [@](#): > > Republican U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn last week said he’s backing a House Armed Services Committee proposal that would elevate military space troops to the same status held by the Marine Corps. Lamborn said the move would raise the prominence of space work at the Pentagon and would cut red tape that hampers construction of satellites. > > He’s gotten some applause, including praise from a former head of Air Force Space Command who’s endorsed the move. > > But the proposal also has critics. > > In addition to a few guffaws about Star Trek uniforms, some local retired brass worry that the change comes with too little study and could make things worse for the military and Colorado Springs. > **[Lamborn-backed space corps proposal raising concerns](https://gazette.com/military/lamborn-backed-space-corps-proposal-raising-concerns/article_a06557a4-660d-5b18-acae-845a37421d1d.html)** > > A Colorado Springs congressman's push to put military satellites under a separate space corps is raising eyebrows among some retired generals who worry that the attempt to streamline the Pentagon's ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2017, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/2 "2017-07-04T21:24:16Z")
How would these proposals work with the [Outer Space Treat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty)y or do they assume we abrogate that treaty? > [@](#): > > Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV). However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit and thus some highly destructive attack strategies such as kinetic bombardment are still potentially allowable. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2017, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/3 "2017-07-04T23:25:10Z")
I like space lasers in video games as much as anyone but, as battleships show, coolness is not an argument for billion dollar spending or military effectiveness. What kinds of things do space technologies and tactics do today? What would a space command add to that? If space command expanded the use of space, how would those assets be protected? The quoted text mentions “leadership, doctrine, technology and funding” but those are inputs, what would be the probable outputs? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/4 "2017-07-05T00:23:46Z")
All the arguments are essentially bureaucratic. Space is the next budgetary growth area. So each service wants a piece of the space pie. Which leads to inter-service duplication and working at cross purposes when viewed from the collective DoD level. At the same time, it also means that within each service, space is playing second (or 10th) fiddle to the existing mission areas, whether that’s strategic bombers, submarines, or armor. So space, which is massively strategically important to DoD, gets shorter shrift at the service level than it should. The whole and entire point of a space force within DoD is to have only one budgetary entity that has only one concern and no divided loyalties: maximizing space-related capability and the attendant spending. As to **jasg** ’s point, military space today isn’t about placing bombs in orbit or on the Moon. Which is all that the treaty addresses. It’s about satellites for communications and reconnaissance and our ability to defend (or rapidly replace) our satellites and prevent or destroy the enemy’s satellites. It’s also about R&D for space-related stuff. And about things like ICBMs and their follow-on systems. Which use space as a medium to get where they’re going on Earth. None of that requires any treaty abrogation. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/5 "2017-07-05T00:44:37Z")
I don’t like the idea of a separate Space Arm. Frankly, I’m not sold on the idea that we need all the existing separate forces. What we DO need, is a different structure, specifically, some sort of central coordinating office. Maybe several new coordinating offices. The use of space needs to be coordinated big time, and not just to save money by avoiding duplication. It’s similar to the fact that we’ve needed a Military Communications Central office for a long time now, too. Remember how screwed up Grenada was, because they only found out AFTER all the forces were in action, that every branch of the service had chosen radios operating on different frequencies? And how the same problem happened domestically on 9-11? A Military Space Central coordinating office is needed, to make sure that when one arm DOES want a satellite launched, that it will also be able to serve the concerns of the other branches when they need to work together, which is almost every time. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/6 "2017-07-05T00:50:17Z")
I don’t think this idea makes any sense at all. Solution in search of a problem. The Air Force is already the Executive Agent for Space. If others want to do things in space - like the Navy’s MUOS comms satellites - the Air Force has a seat at the table. In contrast to air power, especially before WW2, there is nobody who argues that space is a sideshow to war. GPS and comms: nuff said. There’s no acquisition inefficiency that would be fixed by a Space Corps. The Air Force has acquisition officers and civilians who design and buy satellites today. Putting them in a new organization doesn’t change what they do at all. Whether the Commander, Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center wears a blue suit or a Star Trek uniform makes zero difference. The only thing this proposal does is two things: creates a new bureaucracy to manage the Space Corps, and some politicians get their name in the papers as big thinkers. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/7 "2017-07-05T01:16:32Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > All the arguments are essentially bureaucratic. > > Space is the next budgetary growth area. So each service wants a piece of the space pie. Which leads to inter-service duplication and working at cross purposes when viewed from the collective DoD level. > > At the same time, it also means that within each service, space is playing second (or 10th) fiddle to the existing mission areas, whether that’s strategic bombers, submarines, or armor. So space, which is massively strategically important to DoD, gets shorter shrift at the service level than it should. > [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > What we DO need, is a different structure, specifically, some sort of central coordinating office. Maybe several new coordinating offices. > > The use of space needs to be coordinated big time, and not just to save money by avoiding duplication. It’s similar to the fact that we’ve needed a Military Communications Central office for a long time now, too. Remember how screwed up Grenada was, because they only found out AFTER all the forces were in action, that every branch of the service had chosen radios operating on different frequencies? And how the same problem happened domestically on 9-11? The US military seems to have accomplished something similar to this with weapons like the JDAM, JASSM, JSOW\* and other joint development programs. SOCOM\*\* is another example of parts of elements of different branches being brought together into a unified command to make sure it’s given sufficient priority, minimize duplication and enable interoperability. From the little I know of it, SOCOM seems to have a good amount of leeway in terms of funding. Perhaps the creation of a command with an integrated development & acquisitions office would be preferable to the creation of a branch. - [Joint Direct Attack Munition - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition)[AGM-158 JASSM - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM)[AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon) \*\* [United States Special Operations Command - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Special_Operations_Command) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/8 "2017-07-05T01:27:11Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > SOCOM\*\* is another example of parts of elements of different branches being brought together into a unified command to make sure it’s given sufficient priority, minimize duplication and enable interoperability. From the little I know of it, SOCOM seems to have a good amount of leeway in terms of funding. > > Perhaps the creation of a command with an integrated development & acquisitions office would be preferable to the creation of a branch. The few SOCOM major defense acquisition programs have not gone well, mainly because I don’t think they can draw on the systems engineering experience that is generally resident in the services. However, SOCOM does do well in rapidly fielding gear that is basically anything smaller than a truck. (Though the concept behind the modular Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle [SCAR] seems to have flopped.) ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/9 "2017-07-05T02:25:14Z")
I think it would attract attention to an area the DoD probably doesn’t want attention where people who aren’t thinking about it current will suddenly freak out about weaponizing space. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/10 "2017-07-05T08:00:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The few SOCOM major defense acquisition programs have not gone well, mainly because I don’t think they can draw on the systems engineering experience that is generally resident in the services. However, SOCOM does do well in rapidly fielding gear that is basically anything smaller than a truck. (Though the concept behind the modular Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle [SCAR] seems to have flopped.) Why does the lack of systems engineering experience make itself felt aorund truck-sized projects? What are the best systems they’ve come up with? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/11 "2017-07-05T15:04:20Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Why does the lack of systems engineering experience make itself felt aorund truck-sized projects? > > What are the best systems they’ve come up with? Because beyond truck sized things, the government is much more likely to buy things that are designed specifically for military use, rather than being closely related to commercial technology. That means that the government is setting requirements for complex systems. I think SOCOM does best when it takes good technology and systems that a pretty mature already, and not “coming up” with their own systems. As for a specific program, the SOPGM small munition seems to be a very good success, with other services wanting to adopt it for their own uses. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/12 "2017-07-05T23:54:49Z")
Don’t we already have this? US Strategic Command Joint Functional Component Command for Space > **[United States Space Command](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Functional_Component_Command_for_Space)** > > 29 August 2019 – present (3 years, 7 months)(Second incarnation) > United States Space Command (USSPACECOM or SPACECOM) is a unified combatant command of the United States Department of Defense, responsible for military operations in outer space, specifically all operations 100 kilometers (62 miles) and greater above mean sea level. U.S. Space Command is responsible for the operational employment of space forces that are provided by the uniformed services of the Department of Defense. > Space Com... ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2017, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/13 "2017-07-05T23:58:54Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > Don’t we already have this? > > US Strategic Command Joint Functional Component Command for Space > > [United States Space Command - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Functional_Component_Command_for_Space) JFCC-Space does not have the responsibility to recruit, train and equip space forces. Just like how Pacific Fleet doesn’t conduct its own recruiting etc. ---
**Author:** ![August\_West](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/august_west/32/18069_2.png) [@August\_West](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/August_West)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/14 "2017-07-06T15:18:10Z")
My problem is that it would be an arm of the Air Force. Space is supposed to be filled with Admirals, Captains, Commanders, and Ensigns, **not** Generals, Colonels, and 2nd Lieutenants! ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/15 "2017-07-06T15:35:00Z")
Don’t forget the space marines. ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/16 "2017-07-06T19:15:22Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > My problem is that it would be an arm of the Air Force. > > Space is supposed to be filled with Admirals, Captains, Commanders, and Ensigns, **not** Generals, Colonels, and 2nd Lieutenants! Bah! You youngsters and your _Star Trek_ fetish! Lt. Wilma Deering and Capt. Buck Rogers took their orders from General MacGregor. ---
**Author:** ![August\_West](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/august_west/32/18069_2.png) [@August\_West](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/August_West)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/17 "2017-07-06T19:23:24Z")
Star Wars, also. Admiral Ackbar, for example. ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/18 "2017-07-06T19:45:27Z")
Yeah, but Han and Lando were generals in the final battle. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/19 "2017-07-06T19:56:15Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > My problem is that it would be an arm of the Air Force. > > Space is supposed to be filled with Admirals, Captains, Commanders, and Ensigns, **not** Generals, Colonels, and 2nd Lieutenants! That’s actually not a problem. After all, the Marines are organized in the Dept. of the Navy. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504/20 "2017-07-06T20:46:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think SOCOM does best when it takes good technology and systems that a pretty mature already, and not “coming up” with their own systems. As for a specific program, the SOPGM small munition seems to be a very good success, with other services wanting to adopt it for their own uses. I’ve seen “SOPGM” used to refer to either the GBU-44 Viper Strike or the AGM-175 Griffin, which are you talking about? What particular uses does SOCOM make of it? How would the other services make use of it? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-space-force-as-a-separate-military-branch/790504.md?page=2)