It isn’t a crazy idea. Space is a territory we have to be prepared to protect. We are totally reliant upon those assets now, and are in the untenable position of being unable to defend it.
The argument against a United States Space Force, at least at this time, is that creating it would be a massive reorganizational undertaking, complicating rather than enhancing America’s capability to fight a war in space in the near term. The argument for creating a space-faring branch of the military stems from the fact that the space environment is characterized by lack of air, extremes of heat and cold, microgravity, and the realities of orbital mechanics, which mean that no object remains in one place. The space environment is far different from the air, sea, and land where Americans are accustomed to fighting and hence needs a branch of the military trained and accustomed to operating in it. What's on the table is a reorganization. The question is not whether we do this or that to protect the territory. The question is whether we could do it better reorganized into a Space Force. You can leave the extant functionality located in the existing force structure and add a coordinating structure or you can separate it. Is there added value in a separate Space Force and does that added value trump the readiness of leaving the functionality where it is.
The argument that we need to do spacey stuff, thus we need a Space Force is bogus. It's, instead, a matter of where to best put the spacey stuff. This is not unlike the calls to abolish ICE, but in reverse. It should be about the functionality. |
