And the Space Force Members will Officially be Referred to as................

[afadeev]

Guardians.

I know. It sounds ridiculous, right? Why not Storm Troopers?

It's the government... how about "We are Borg"?

I was pulling for <Spacers>

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

Somewhere I have an Estes Space Cadet badge. Time to look for it...

This should get you into the officer's club, right?

 

[Cnorm]

From the retired USN CPO: they're going to get so bagged on...

I would imagine there's going to be a large number of guarding Uranus jokes.

 

[kuririn]

An appropriate and accurate moniker (though not particularly appealing) would the the USSF Neeks ( Nerd + Geek) or the USSF Gerds (Geek + Nerd).
Would love to see the Academy field a service football team and see if they can be capable Guardians of their own end zone. Army, Navy and Air Force teams would probably cream them.

 

[jqavins]

Does not even imply "space". Unlike sailor or marine.

Or "airman". And "soldier" doesn't need to imply anything, since "person in the army" is literally what it means (or close enough). The worst thing about "guardians" is the difficulty in deciding whether it's more stupid, silly, assenine, or insulting.

So what would be analogous to "sailor", "marine", "airman", and "soldier"? Gee, i don't know, maybe "astronaut"? The current astronaut explorers might object. "Spacer"? "Sace trooper"? "Boondoggler"

 

[kuririn]

USSF Space Cases.

 

[Vitruvius]

You want goofy?????? Try "Aerospace Patrol" or just "Space Patrol" . At least "Space Patrol" has some history ( even if it was just TV).

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Or "airman". And "soldier" doesn't need to imply anything, since "person in the army" is literally what it means (or close enough). The worst thing about "guardians" is the difficulty in deciding whether it's more stupid, silly, assenine, or insulting.

So what would be analogous to "sailor", "marine", "airman", and "soldier"? Gee, i don't know, maybe "astronaut"? The current astronaut explorers might object. "Spacer"? "Sace trooper"? "Boondoggler"

How about a mashup of Spacer and Astronaut? Make it Spastronaut.

 

[Cape Byron]

This should get you into the officer's club, right?

I'd be expecting an NCO position at least.

 

[Woody's Workshop]

Good Lord.....................
MORE.....Government Spending.
A year to come up with an Emblem, Name and Moto, and for something that just can't exist because they have NO WAY of doing anything space related!
At best, they could run operations inside of "The Mountain" LOL
Just like Buck Rogers, this should be 500 years in the FUTURE!

 

[jqavins]

400 until Buck Rogers in the 25th Century.

Anyway, I'd like to think that technologically it's only 200ish years, and militarily that it's never. (And realistically, a lot of the technology will ne never also.)

 

[Bill Hanson]

Well, allow me to take a contrary position -- "Guardians" has a proud history in military aviation, so it's not completely stupid. The 5th Bomb Wing (B-52H, Minot AFB) has the motto "Kiai o ka lewa" which is Hawaiian for "Guardians of the Upper Realm." This dates back to when they were stationed on Hawaii and the 23rd Bomb Squadron's Keystone bombers dropped bombs to divert lava flow from the city of Hilo in 1935.

 

[Funkworks]

Well, allow me to take a contrary position -- "Guardians" has a proud history in military aviation, so it's not completely stupid. The 5th Bomb Wing (B-52H, Minot AFB) has the motto "Kiai o ka lewa" which is Hawaiian for "Guardians of the Upper Realm." This dates back to when they were stationed on Hawaii and the 23rd Bomb Squadron's Keystone bombers dropped bombs to divert lava flow from the city of Hilo in 1935...

Good point. But today, people who would consider joining immediately have Guardians of the Galaxy in mind, and might change their mind, just to avoid ridicule. Awful name for a highly publicized 2020 thing. Whoever came up with this name is directly making fun of anyone who would join. And that's my two cents.

 

[SkyFire]

Pew-Pew


https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-a...oises-throughout-space-force-strategy-meeting

 

[jqavins]

Bill, I respect and appreciate you point of view. That said, I do see a significant difference. It's one thing to refer to a squadron or other unit as "Guardians", but a different thing to use it for an entire service branch. The Guardians of the Upper Realm are still a group of airmen.

 

[BABAR]

@Bill Hanson has a good point, and I have yet to see a name suggested here that is any better. The Air Force faced some steep resistance at its inception, and I suspect there were a number of clever and not so clever alternate names thrown around in fun.

Airheads?

Cloudbusters?

Zoomies? (At least as of 1985 that was what West Pointers and Naval Academy members called Air Force Cadets.)

Whatever we call them, it should be with respect. These men and women will be critical to our nation's security, and many if not most of them likely could have picked easier and more lucrative jobs than protecting our butts in both real and cyberspace.

 

[jqavins]

I suspect there were a number of clever and not so clever alternate names thrown around in fun.

Airheads?

Cloudbusters?

Zoomies?

Junior birdmen.

Whatever we call them, it should be with respect. These men and women will be critical to our nation's security, and many if not most of them likely could have picked easier and more lucrative jobs than protecting our butts in both real and cyberspace.

Well, yes, except that they won't. Because the whole space force boondoggle will never get off the ground, so to speak.

 

[BABAR]

Well, yes, except that they won't. Because the whole space force boondoggle will never get off the ground, so to speak.

99.99% will never get off the ground. Air Force and Navy and Army and Marines have pilots, but they are the point tip of much larger spears of ground pounding support people. The creation of the Space Force came from a realization that Satellite and Cyber warfare require an entirely different mindset. The Air Force didn't want to let go of its Space Based Assets, just as the Army didn't see a need to let go of the Army Air Corps. Too often the US military services get caught up competing with each OTHER (in part due to limited taxpayer dollars) rather than focusing on their areas of expertise and how they can be integrated with their sister services to keep us safe.

There were those that thought the USAF would never last, and that those who switched uniforms were flushing their careers down the toilet.

 

[jqavins]

I keep thinking of the controversy and nay sayers about the air force, and asking myself if I'm doing the same thing. And I don't think that I am. "Cyber warfare" is warfare only in that it is hostile action. I'm not saying that the military at large can't address such threats; I am saying that they are no basically military threats. They would better be handled, I believe, by the CIA (Dept. of State) and/or NSA (DoD, but not among the armed forces).

I don't really know what "Satellite warfare" means. If it's attacks on another country's assets and personnel launched from satellites then it is likely a violation of long standing treaty and international law. If it's defense against such attacks then it's a very, very narrow mission to establish a whole fourth branch for. (Yes, fourth, because the Marines are part of the Navy while the Coast Guard is part of the DHS and prior to that was under the DOT.)

So, I stated it will never get off the ground. You stated that 0.01% of it will get off the ground. 0.01% is much too small to justify its existance.

I simply don't buy that its creation "came from a realization that Satellite and Cyber warfare require an entirely different mindset." I believe its creation came from a certain public official's decision that pew-pew would be cool.

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

 

[Nytrunner]

Aw lay off em. They just wanted to sound noble/cool

In the words of Rhomann Dey: "Hey, its ok to have a codename. It's not that weird"

 

[BABAR]

I believe its creation came from a certain public official's decision that pew-pew would be cool.

It is hard but not impossible for a politician to be wrong ALL the time!

 

[Mike t]

If it's defense against such attacks then it's a very, very narrow mission to establish a whole fourth branch for. (Yes, fourth, because the Marines are part of the Navy

Hum, Marines are not part of the Navy. Not for quite some time now. Although Marine Aviation is tasked with providing aviation assets to the Navy when required.

 

[jqavins]

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is the maritime land force service branch of the United States Armed Forces and part of the civilian-led Department of the Navy, which is led by the Secretary of the Navy.

[Underline added]

 

[Citizen Baslim]

Hum, Marines are not part of the Navy. Not for quite some time now. Although Marine Aviation is tasked with providing aviation assets to the Navy when required.

The Marine Corps is a naval Service and falls under the Secretary of the Navy. Google naval integration and read about current undertakings.

 

[Bill Hanson]

I keep thinking of the controversy and nay sayers about the air force, and asking myself if I'm doing the same thing. And I don't think that I am. "Cyber warfare" is warfare only in that it is hostile action. I'm not saying that the military at large can't address such threats; I am saying that they are no basically military threats. They would better be handled, I believe, by the CIA (Dept. of State) and/or NSA (DoD, but not among the armed forces).

I don't really know what "Satellite warfare" means. If it's attacks on another country's assets and personnel launched from satellites then it is likely a violation of long standing treaty and international law. If it's defense against such attacks then it's a very, very narrow mission to establish a whole fourth branch for. (Yes, fourth, because the Marines are part of the Navy while the Coast Guard is part of the DHS and prior to that was under the DOT.)

So, I stated it will never get off the ground. You stated that 0.01% of it will get off the ground. 0.01% is much too small to justify its existance.

I simply don't buy that its creation "came from a realization that Satellite and Cyber warfare require an entirely different mindset." I believe its creation came from a certain public official's decision that pew-pew would be cool.

@Joe, I would agree that as long as we're talking about (as you term it) satellite warfare, the case for the USSF is shaky. The AF became a separate service because it had a separate, war-winning mission, which was strategic bombardment. Plus, the early WWII debacles in North Africa made it abundantly clear that putting air assets under control of a ground commander (effectively treating aircraft as 'flying artillery') was the wrong way to go about doing business.
I should add here that I spent 32 years active duty AF in operational, analytic, diplomatic and policy roles and still teach at all levels of the Air Force's professional military education program. I even have USSF officers in my courses, since the AF is currently handling PME for the USSF until they can stand up their own system.

On the international law front, contrary to popular belief, the Outer Space Treaty does not ban conflict in space or even earth orbit -- what it does ban is the stationing of nuclear weapons or other WMD in orbit, space or on celestial bodies. It also says that the moon and other celestial bodies must be used for peaceful purposes. Arguably though, space has been a potential theater of conflict since the 1960s. The US and Soviet Union both had anti-satellite capability starting in the early 1960s (US with nuke-tipped Nike-Zeus) and have continued to demonstrate new capability (most recently with Russia's direct-ascent test in the last few days, along with US Navy SM-3) -- not to mention the Chinese and Indian ASATs which demonstrates that being able to put an object in orbit provides inherent ASAT capability. Even so, everyone is taking a "go slow" approach because of the potential for a widespread Kessler Syndrome event that could make earth orbit unusable for many years if we start busting satellites. Similarly, "weapons from orbit" (e.g., space-based laser, kinetic bombardment, etc.) all suffer the fundamental problem of sufficient target coverage -- due to the tyranny of orbital mechanics, it takes a LOT of orbital platforms to get any kind of prompt coverage. See this RAND monograph for a deep dive, but the size of the proposed Starlink constellation gives a good baseline.

So if the USSF does not have an obvious war-winning mission, and busting satellites is a potentially disastrous idea, then what's the point? Two observations:
- the first is that "space" does not stop with earth orbit. Increasingly we are looking towards the moon, Mars, comets, or even the asteroid belt. The US is leading the development of the "Artemis Accords" which is an attempt to create civil and economic rules of the road for exploration and development of these resources. As space becomes an increasing economic center of gravity, then it's in our interest to make sure we maintain access and prevent hostile powers from controlling access. While it's nice to have a treaty, we also see that states (like the US) regularly abrogate treaties when we consider it in our national interest. The Al Capone principle, "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word" comes to mind.
- the second goes back to my observation on the lessons of North Africa -- just like it's not a good idea to put air assets under a ground commander, having space assets under the control of an air commander presents its own problems. For example, we know how to define and gain "air superiority" over a given battlespace. The question I keep asking my military students is, "what do we specifically mean when talking about 'space superiority' or 'space control?'" If you grew up as an air operator, that question is incredibly difficult to answer. Thinking in the space realm takes a different mindset than the air realm and goes beyond understanding orbital dynamics -- to say nothing of the potential "key terrain" in space such as Lagrange points and both least-time and minimum energy transfer orbits. It's one thing to understand the mechanics (I can remember calculating Hohmann transfer orbits as a cadet in the late 70s) and another to understand how this shapes the application of military force. Looking back to the AF example, even though airpower came of age in WWII and the AF stood up in 1947, it took nearly 50 years for airpower to come to full fruition with the advent of both precision and stealth in Desert Storm. The USSF is just at the start of that learning curve.

I'll also add that while "because Russia and China" isn't an iron-clad justification, the Chinese stood up their "Strategic Support Force" which combines space and cyber operations in 2015. The Russians also have a semi-autonomous "Space Force" which falls under their Aerospace Forces (and they refer to members as "Space Troops"). While breathless commentary that "we're falling behind" is off-base (IMHO), these events show that our adversaries are thinking along these lines as well.

Bottom line is that while (my opinion) standing up the USSF based on a Presidential vanity project was premature, there are good arguments to be made that the need for such a Service is clearly on the horizon.
(Standard disclaimer applies: the views here are my own and don't represent the positions of the USAF, USSF, or Air University)

 

[jqavins]

That is a very thoughtful and thorough response, which I appreciate. I will not attempt to refute any of it. I have just two comments.

On the international law front, contrary to popular belief, the Outer Space Treaty does not ban conflict in space or even earth orbit -- what it does ban is the stationing of nuclear weapons or other WMD in orbit, space or on celestial bodies. It also says that the moon and other celestial bodies must be used for peaceful purposes.

And it prohibits claiming any celestial bodies an national territory. I actually checked on all this before posting. In a time when people using pressure cooker bombs are accused in court of using WMDs because a pressure cooker bomb can kill several people at once, I think that any weapon which is likely to be effective when placed in space could potentially be construed as a WMD, and that's why I wrote that it is "likely" a violation. I certainly agree that it is arguable at worst, yet I expect to see that argument made (by someone).

It's one thing to understand the mechanics (I can remember calculating Hohmann transfer orbits as a cadet in the late 70s) and another to understand how this shapes the application of military force. Looking back to the AF example, even though airpower came of age in WWII and the AF stood up in 1947, it took nearly 50 years for airpower to come to full fruition with the advent of both precision and stealth in Desert Storm. The USSF is just at the start of that learning curve.

In short, if I understand what you're saying, even if we don't know today just what the USSF's mission will be, it's worth standing up today so that there is time to figure it out before it's too late. That's a fair point, well worth more discussion.

 

[lakeroadster]

Guardian... hmm... I guess that's better than CATO.. right?

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

Even so, everyone is taking a "go slow" approach because of the potential for a widespread Kessler Syndrome event that could make earth orbit unusable for many years if we start busting satellites.

At least the nightly meteorite showers would be spectacular...

 

[BABAR]

That is a very thoughtful and thorough response, which I appreciate. I will not attempt to refute any of it. I have just two comments.And it prohibits claiming any celestial bodies an national territory. I actually checked on all this before posting. In a time when people using pressure cooker bombs are accused in court of using WMDs because a pressure cooker bomb can kill several people at once, I think that any weapon which is likely to be effective when placed in space could potentially be construed as a WMD, and that's why I wrote that it is "likely" a violation. I certainly agree that it is arguable at worst, yet I expect to see that argument made (by someone).In short, if I understand what you're saying, even if we don't know today just what the USSF's mission will be, it's worth standing up today so that there is time to figure it out before it's too late. That's a fair point, well worth more discussion.

Remember, the fighting frequently isn’t won only with rocks or clubs or spears or swords or arrows or bullets or missiles or bombs or lasers or biological or chemical weapons. The fight also involves strategy, knowing where you are , where THEY are, what THEY have available to fight with at the moment, knowing the weather, being able to mass your forces at strategic points at strategic times, and spoofing the enemy to make him think you are somewhere you are not, or have something you don’t.

A critical factor in allied victory in WWII was control of the air. No question, the final victory had to be made on th ground, but the ground campaign had no chance of success until we owned the skies over Europe, and that was done at great cost. Desert Storm was a quick one sided war, partly because the bad guys gave us six months to set up for it, and once we were set up we immediately took control of the skies to allow the ground pounders to perfectly execute their plans.

At Squadron Officer School, one lecturer said that people thought the mission of the Air Force was to break things and kill people. He adjusted that slightly, “the mission of the Air Force is to be ever prepared to break things and kill people in the hopes that, having that capability, the enemy will never challenge us to use it.”

Unlike SciFi movies, Wars in the foreseeable future will not likely be won in space, but CONTROL of space (basically having excellent intelligence and communication, keeping your eyes and ears open, while simultaneously blinding and deafening your opponent) will be critical to victories on the ground, in the water, and in the air. You don’t need to have bombs or lasers in space to effectively fight USING space assets.

The really hard part will be in creating a Space Force that knows how to fight using Space Assets inside and out, and then getting that Force to “Play well in the sandbox“ with Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, and CIA Assets, training Leaders with the experience to INTEGRATE ALL of these forces, to leverage our full power to “break things and kill people”, again in the (likely unfortunately vain) hope that we never actually have to use it.

Too often we allow pride in our individual services (a good thing) to conflict with out ability to work together to defeat the real enemy.