The headlines: Trump's Space Force Push Reopens Arguments About Military in Space Russia says US plans for space force herald new arms race A Space Force? The Idea May Have Merit, Some Say 'This is a dumb idea': Nasa astronaut Mark Kelly slams Trump's order to create a Space Force I started this column because I felt that science fiction might be a useful guide to the increasingly unimaginable present, so it feels strange to point to actual history as a way of understanding a current news story. Though it is also true, in an Inception-y twist, that relevant history is itself based on science fiction. I speak of President Trump’s fixation on the creation of a so-called “Space Force.” We have literally seen this movie before. Trump is, essentially, doing his own dark and gritty reboot of "Star Wars," only 1) he doesn’t know he’s doing it and 2) the current policy doesn’t refer to George Lucas’ intellectual property but rather the work of two right-leaning science fiction writers whose ideas launched one of the most expensive boondoggles in modern military history. Their project was called "Star Wars," too, you see — though Lucas did unsuccessfully sue in an attempt to disassociate their fanciful lasers-in-space project from his much more lucrative and perhaps more realistic film serial. Basically, Trump’s “Space Force” is like deciding to revive a decades-old franchise by remaking a direct-to-video knock-off. (Can I interest anyone in Atlantic Rim? Transmorphers?) Our story begins in late 1980, when conservatives woke to the possibility that an aging celebrity most famous for hawking ultimately destructive merchandise to aspirational rubes (cigarettes, mostly) might be their ticket to enacting hitherto outlandish policies. Science fiction authors Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle convened a meeting at Niven’s house of like-minded military and aerospace aficionados (including fellow author Robert Heinlein) to discuss ways they might influence President-Elect Reagan’s positions on space exploration. As one attendee put it, “Amid the buffet meals, saunas and hot tubs, well-stocked open bar, and myriad word processors, fancies simmered and ideas cooked, some emerging better than half-baked.” Pournelle had already done some military and national security consulting as well, and his recommendations indicated a definite willingness to slip the surly bonds of existing tech and think as big as only a science fiction enthusiast can. For instance, he proposed that the Air Force haul into the atmosphere gigantic tungsten tubes (about the size of a telephone pole) that could then be dropped onto targets as WMDs. He called these DIY asteroids “Rods from God,” and named the program “Project Thor.” (The Air Force has actually revisited this idea since Pournelle proposed it in 1949.) A significant portion of the 1981 policy paper they produced suggested approaching space the same way Western colonizers have for centuries: an opportunity for plunder. The group envisioned turning over exploration and development to private companies, and the gathering of raw resources to help build military might down on the ground. They had one proposal for a new kind of defensive technology: launching rockets from the ground that would, from space, “fire lethal bolts of energy at dozens to hundreds of enemy missiles and warheads simultaneously.” Housing these weapons in “hardened silos” here on Earth was, they wrote, their key innovation, as the “space laser battle stations” “presently being considered for deployment” could never be properly defended — they were “veritable sitting ducks.” On the other hand, a country that had the ground-launched lethal-bolts defense could deflect an attack and then fire its own missiles to destroy any lingering threats. Perhaps not considering the lives of those around said lingering threats, the authors asserted that such a scenario would “conclude with the total and quite bloodless triumph by the nation owning the space laser system.” This seems quite obviously fantasy, but it took just two years (the mere blink of an eye measured by government standards) for Niven and Pournelle’s idea to go from Niven’s California ranch to the White House to the television sets of every American watching Reagan proclaim the development of a “Strategic Defense Initiative” [SDI] that would — using the logic of that “bloodless triumph” — “eliminat[e] the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles.” As Reagan sketched it out in 1983, the technology still sounded pretty far-fetched. “What if,” he mused, “we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?” The haziness of the idea was only exaggerated by Reagan’s melodramatic framing, in which he invited citizens to “let me share with you a vision of the future” and pleaded for scientists to “to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace.” Sen. Ted Kennedy immediately dubbed the idea a “reckless 'Star Wars' scheme” and thus George Lucas’ branding nightmare began, the government spending spigot was turned on, and the notion of missile defense itself continued to stay one step ahead of reality. By the time President Bill Clinton shut down SDI in 1993, the nation had spent almost $40 billion trying to implement the technology that Niven and Pourelle had dreamed up over fondue pots and between hot tub soaks. It never produced a single successful prototype, either — instead, the project replicated its origins in science fiction with a series of falsified results that the Pentagon used to milk more funding from Congress and maintain the illusion that the United States had an edge over the Soviet Union in the dwindling Cold War. Related but smaller experimentation with missile interceptions — now run by the pared-down “Missile Defense Agency”—have spent further billions, though a 2010 report found there is still no evidence that “any of the fundamental unsolved problems associated with high-altitude ballistic missile defenses have been solved.” Oh, and the Pentagon was still fudging the tests. Rather than run true-to-life dry runs, the report alleged that the military conducts “carefully orchestrated scenarios that have been designed to hide fundamental flaws.” Bald lies to paper over for embarrassing failures? The fabrication of a puffed-up national image?<doc-sep>The Pentagon fears that launching a separate space contingent would set off one of the epic turf wars that have been a regular feature of U.S. military history. These rivalries often follow the advent of new technologies. The Air Force emerged from the cocoon of a jealous Army only after World War II. When missile technology advanced in the 1950s, the Army argued that it was a form of artillery that should be controlled by its ballistic specialists, while the Air Force insisted it was part of the aeronautical domain. The Air Force had assumed space was its responsibility, until last week.<doc-sep>In the June 28 Wall Street Journal, I lay out an argument against the creation of a possible space force, as President Trump has proposed. A space force would be the fifth military service within the Department of Defense and the sixth overall, counting the Coast Guard. My argument is based on the following main points: First of all, the mere fact that space is a distinct geographic and operating domain is not itself conclusive. We don’t have a separate “submarine force,” for example, even though the undersea parts of the oceans are vast. Second, major government reorganizations rarely provide panaceas—and do not even guarantee good outcomes. Cases in point are the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Moreover, we already tried separating space out as its own combatant command, and then thought better of the idea in 2002 and merged it with Strategic Command. That experience is suggestive. Third, a new space force would likely come mostly out of the U.S. Air Force, which has the preponderance of the responsibilities for space launch and operations in the American military today. Breaking the Air Force into two would result in one entity perhaps about the size of the Marine Corps and another much smaller than that. Are we sure the result would be a stronger voice for space issues? Fourth, as the late Carl Builder masterfully argued in his classic book, The Masks of War, the U.S. Air Force has historically been a military service that defines itself largely around the technology it develops and operates. No major change or separate department is needed to create such a culture for space technologies and operations; they have a good home already, mostly in the Air Force. Most of all, systems in space are vulnerable, and will likely remain so. Air-breathing assets will have to back up satellites in future wars. In other words, air and space operations will have to be linked closely—just as they are today already. It is not clear how breaking the Air Force into two will achieve that goal more effectively. Sure, let’s take this proposal seriously. There’s nothing wrong with Mr. Trump teeing up the idea of a space force for analysis and debate. But the weight of initial evidence would seem to tilt fairly strongly against it.<doc-sep>Donald Trump at today’s meeting of the National Space Council in the East Room of the White House. Photo : AP Earlier today, President Donald Trump said he’ll be directing the Pentagon to create the US Space Force, which would become the sixth independent branch of the US military. The move is meant to help the US keep pace with its rivals, but experts question the need for an entirely new military wing. Advertisement Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, and now, maybe, the Space Force. As the Associated Press reports, Trump made the surprise announcement shortly after noon at a meeting of the National Space Council, saying “we are going to have the Space Force,” which he described as a “separate but equal” branch of the US military. With Vice President Mike Pence, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, and former astronaut Buzz Aldrin in attendance, Trump said he intends to revive America’s flagging space program and make the US “the leader by far.” Citing growing security concerns, the president said he didn’t want “China and Russia and other countries leading us.” The creation of the sixth US service branch will be overseen by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford. Very little information was shared today about the new US Space Force, including budgetary allocations, timelines, or how the new order will be implemented. It’s also not clear if any of the statements made today by the president are actually binding. And in fact, as Quartz reports, the directive signed by Trump at the conclusion of the meeting made no mention of the Space Force. What’s more, the creation of a new service branch needs Congressional approval. This newly announced Space Force is far from a done deal. While the idea of a military service branch dedicated exclusively to space may seem futuristic and superfluous, it’s an idea that’s been floating around Washington for several decades now. Several military officials have urged the White House to do something along these lines, saying the US needs to start preparing for a space war, and that it’ll only be a matter of years before American forces find themselves fighting from space. But this opinion isn’t universally shared, with some military folks saying a dedicated space service is completely unnecessary. Last summer, Rep. Mike Rogers, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee chairman, proposed the creation of a new “Space Corps,” but the idea was scrapped in December. The US Air Force, given its intimate involvement with space and space security, figured it would eventually get the tap on the shoulder—and the required funds—to secure US interests in space, but given Trump’s announcement today, that doesn’t appear to be the case. Safe to say, the decision to create a sixth uniformed service—the first in 70 years—will not go over well with USAF officials. Advertisement “We are the service that must lead joint war fighting in this new contested domain,” said Air Force Chief of Staff David L. Goldfein back in Feburary. “This is what the nation demands,” adding that the Air Force can “embrace space superiority with the same passion and sense of ownership as we apply to air superiority today.” Democratic Florida senator Bill Nelson has already expressed his concerns, telling US Strategic Command head General John Hyten that, “I’m not too keen on ripping space out of the Air Force and creating a space corps.” Advertisement By “ripping space out of the Air Force,” Nelson is likely referring to Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), also known as US Space Command. This subset of the Air Force currently supports US military operations through the use of satellites, launch vehicles, and cyber operations. Given the ambiguity and confusion surrounding today’s announcement, the Air Force may continue to fight for what it believes is rightfully its domain. Currently, the Outer Space Treaty, which went into effect in 1967, prohibits nations from placing nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction in space or on the Moon or other celestial bodies. Same goes for “establishing military bases, installation, or fortifications; testing weapons of any kind; or conducting military maneuvers.” There’s nothing in the treaty to prevent the establishment of a Space Force, so long as its activities don’t violate the terms of the agreement. Conventional weapons, such as anti-satellite satellites, are permissible under the current terms of the treaty. Advertisement Unfortunately, space is becoming a hugely vulnerable place, as well as a potential future battlefield. In the event of a serious conflict, rival nations will work to jam or destroy an opponent’s space assets, including surveillance, GPS, and communications satellites. China has already expressed interest in using lasers to remove space junk—a technology that could also knock out enemy satellites. Earlier this year, China demonstrated its ability to shoot down missiles in space. Russia is also working on anti-satellite weapons, saying it now has lasers to shoot down satellites. Trump’s Space Force may or may not become real, but it’s not immediately clear why a separate branch is even necessary, given that the US Air Force seems to be an obvious choice to lead in this area. Advertisement Peter W. Singer, a fellow at New America and author of Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War, agrees that space is crucial to US national security, but he says the decision to create an independent US military service for space is “utter wing-nuttery.” “The aliens from Alpha Centauri haven’t arrived yet,” Singer told Gizmodo. “To create a new service, the first new one since 1947, is a massive waste of time money, and energy that could be spent on actual military readiness issues. It is a joke. Indeed, even in the space sector, the need isn’t a corps of Buck Rogers, but simply more cheaper satellites to create resilience from Russian or Chinese interference.” Advertisement Gizmodo will continue to follow what is clearly a developing story. [AP via Financial Post]<doc-sep>
President Trump recently directed the Defense Department to create a sixth branch of the military: a Space Force. Given the importance of satellites to modern combat, the idea has a certain appeal. But there are serious arguments against it. Since a major reorganization like this would require congressional action, there’s time to weigh the downsides before rushing into anything. The mere fact that space is a distinct geographic and operating domain does not decide the question. Sure, space is huge, far larger than all the other spheres of warfare put together, even if one simply counts the distance from Earth to the geosynchronous satellites some 22,000 miles up. But the depths of the world’s oceans are immense, too, and the U.S. does not have a separate submarine force. The world’s jungles are massive, yet the Pentagon handles them, when necessary, with a blend of special and conventional forces from the main military branches. Major government reorganizations are hardly a panacea, and they do not even guarantee favorable outcomes. After 9/11 the U.S. established an Office of the Director of National Intelligence to lead the country’s separate 16 intelligence agencies. That change may finally have achieved net benefits, but it took a decade of disruption to get it right. The creation, around the same time, of the Department of Homeland Security required huge effort and produced much chaos. It probably did not improve the performance of the agencies now under its umbrella, including everything from the Coast Guard to the Transportation Security Administration to the Border Patrol. Until 2002 the U.S. military had a separate space command, Spacecom, which had comparable standing to the major combatant commands (such as the Central, Pacific and European commands). But after 9/11, the Pentagon decided it needed a new command, called Northcom, to improve national security within the U.S. and the rest of North America. By statute, the military had to eliminate one command to create another. At that point Spacecom was deemed unnecessary. Its responsibilities were woven into the broader Strategic Command instead. Most of the pieces to build a new Space Force would likely have to come from the Air Force, which has the preponderance of the military’s responsibilities for space launch and operations. But the Air Force is already modestly sized, with somewhat more than 300,000 active-duty uniformed personnel (and nearly 200,000 in its Guard and Reserve). It is far smaller than the Army, with almost half a million active-duty troops and another half-million in its Guard and Reserve. Breaking the Air Force into two would result in one entity about the size of the Marine Corps and another much smaller. Are we sure the result would be a stronger voice for space issues? As the late Carl Builder argued in his classic book, “The Masks of War,” the Air Force has historically defined itself around the cutting-edge technology it develops and operates. Space systems and operations have a natural home there. Air and space operations will need to be linked closely. Satellites fly in predictable orbits, making them fairly easy to target, and launching them is expensive enough without the added weight of defenses. As such, the U.S. will need backups for today’s satellites. One solution could be to stop relying on a few big satellites and instead launch many smaller, redundant ones. But part of the answer will likely have to be deploying more backup systems on airplanes and unmanned aerial vehicles and integrating them with whatever fractions of satellite fleets can survive in a combat environment. It is not clear how breaking the Air Force into two would more effectively achieve this goal. Sure, take Mr. Trump’s proposal for a Space Force seriously. There’s nothing wrong with having him tee up the idea for analysis and debate. But the initial evidence seems to tilt strongly against it. There’s no air in space, but the Air Force may still be best positioned to defend America’s interests there. Mr. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.