Over four years have passed since the USSF’s founding. While it implements changes to technology and culture, it still hasn’t gained an ability to defend…anything?
Thanks for the article, John! Lots of good thoughts and as always is a pleasure to read you. I have two questions:
First- Talking about defending space assets. As you said, the capacity to defend (or attack) space infrastructure should be in the USSF capabilities. Do you see any similarity between nuclear forces and space assets? I'm thinking about deterrence and survivability of your assets. Do you think USSF should go that way to protect their assets (deterrence possible attacks rather than actively defending the space assets)? (also another discussion will be the defence, or attack, of ground infrastructure or electromagnetic spectrum which are also part of space systems).
Second- Do you think looking at the creation of the USAF back in the late 40s, early 50 can give us some ideas on what to do or not to do with the USSF?
Thanks again for your article and looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my questions.
I hadn't thought about a possible similarity between nuclear forces and space. Maybe there's a deterrence angle (you dirty up our orbits and we'll do yours) already in place. Deterrence works until it doesn't though. My thought is that the moment someone figures out how to clean orbits from debris, that angle of deterrence wouldn't work. But maybe that's not what you mean, either.
What I will observe is that current USSF space assets aren't really flexible in mission. They do what they are designed to do and not much more. If there were some flexibility in the space platforms in capability (able to go from support to defense in an instant--not sure how that would work), then that's better than what the USSF has today.
But I wonder if part of the problem is that, for as much as the DoD talks about threats to U.S. space assets, they are really just a paper tiger to get more funding for the military. If there were true threats, I think there would be more vigorous and imaginative space defense options from the DoD. I realize this is a cynical thought. The other thought is that people are inherently lazy--this is not bad, but just nature. So, like Pearl Harbor, etc., it will take a disaster of some sort to field more imaginative and capable systems. Again, I don't like thinking this way.
I'm not sure the creation of the USAF/USSF are comparable. The USAF came into being led by people used to taking the fight to the enemy, whether with bombers or fighters. The USSF did not. The USAF has been in almost constant activity since its creation, from the Korean War until today, I think (remember the Cold War had the USAF on a pretty active footing). That's the biggest difference between it and the USSF. I would suggest that "true" combat hasn't confronted the USSF yet.
What would happen if an enemy takes out a SBIRS or SDA satellite? Is there even a response for that from the DoD? Have they talked about it with the White House and Congress (because they need to)? The USSF has a history, but it's one, as I said in the article, that is behind the scenes, supporting the combat services. I suggest the USSF really needs to explore the "what-ifs" for its part.
Thanks for the answers, which indeed are good for me and as always interesting.
Also you might have just resume in the best way I've ever seen what I feel is happening right now with all these "threats" and "we need defense in space, etc". I will keep this paragraph as a precious one:
"But I wonder if part of the problem is that, for as much as the DoD talks about threats to U.S. space assets, they are really just a paper tiger to get more funding for the military. If there were true threats, I think there would be more vigorous and imaginative space defense options from the DoD. I realize this is a cynical thought. The other thought is that people are inherently lazy--this is not bad, but just nature. So, like Pearl Harbor, etc., it will take a disaster of some sort to field more imaginative and capable systems. Again, I don't like thinking this way."
And by the way thanks for the USAF/USSF remark. Indeed the USAF evolved due to necessity of already existing activities/roles/missions, while the USSF seems is still looking for them.
Thanks for the article, John! Lots of good thoughts and as always is a pleasure to read you. I have two questions:
First- Talking about defending space assets. As you said, the capacity to defend (or attack) space infrastructure should be in the USSF capabilities. Do you see any similarity between nuclear forces and space assets? I'm thinking about deterrence and survivability of your assets. Do you think USSF should go that way to protect their assets (deterrence possible attacks rather than actively defending the space assets)? (also another discussion will be the defence, or attack, of ground infrastructure or electromagnetic spectrum which are also part of space systems).
Second- Do you think looking at the creation of the USAF back in the late 40s, early 50 can give us some ideas on what to do or not to do with the USSF?
Thanks again for your article and looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my questions.
Thank you, Angel!
I hadn't thought about a possible similarity between nuclear forces and space. Maybe there's a deterrence angle (you dirty up our orbits and we'll do yours) already in place. Deterrence works until it doesn't though. My thought is that the moment someone figures out how to clean orbits from debris, that angle of deterrence wouldn't work. But maybe that's not what you mean, either.
What I will observe is that current USSF space assets aren't really flexible in mission. They do what they are designed to do and not much more. If there were some flexibility in the space platforms in capability (able to go from support to defense in an instant--not sure how that would work), then that's better than what the USSF has today.
But I wonder if part of the problem is that, for as much as the DoD talks about threats to U.S. space assets, they are really just a paper tiger to get more funding for the military. If there were true threats, I think there would be more vigorous and imaginative space defense options from the DoD. I realize this is a cynical thought. The other thought is that people are inherently lazy--this is not bad, but just nature. So, like Pearl Harbor, etc., it will take a disaster of some sort to field more imaginative and capable systems. Again, I don't like thinking this way.
I'm not sure the creation of the USAF/USSF are comparable. The USAF came into being led by people used to taking the fight to the enemy, whether with bombers or fighters. The USSF did not. The USAF has been in almost constant activity since its creation, from the Korean War until today, I think (remember the Cold War had the USAF on a pretty active footing). That's the biggest difference between it and the USSF. I would suggest that "true" combat hasn't confronted the USSF yet.
What would happen if an enemy takes out a SBIRS or SDA satellite? Is there even a response for that from the DoD? Have they talked about it with the White House and Congress (because they need to)? The USSF has a history, but it's one, as I said in the article, that is behind the scenes, supporting the combat services. I suggest the USSF really needs to explore the "what-ifs" for its part.
Probably not satisfactory answers for you.
Thanks for the answers, which indeed are good for me and as always interesting.
Also you might have just resume in the best way I've ever seen what I feel is happening right now with all these "threats" and "we need defense in space, etc". I will keep this paragraph as a precious one:
"But I wonder if part of the problem is that, for as much as the DoD talks about threats to U.S. space assets, they are really just a paper tiger to get more funding for the military. If there were true threats, I think there would be more vigorous and imaginative space defense options from the DoD. I realize this is a cynical thought. The other thought is that people are inherently lazy--this is not bad, but just nature. So, like Pearl Harbor, etc., it will take a disaster of some sort to field more imaginative and capable systems. Again, I don't like thinking this way."
And by the way thanks for the USAF/USSF remark. Indeed the USAF evolved due to necessity of already existing activities/roles/missions, while the USSF seems is still looking for them.