Trump and the Military

[TGHusker]

Thought I'd start a generic military thread not related to NK or Iran.  

 

In this article, the writer notes that Trump wants to start a "Space Force".   Something different than the air force.    Without knowing what its mission might be,

this could be a really scary thing - I mean a real scary thing.  If we lead in the militarization of space, we could look at the possibility of sending all of

mankind back to the dark ages.  Imagine the world without satellites as we implement satellite killer technology.   The final article copied below, goes into

what weaponization of space might look like and states why the USA should lead in it.

 

https://world.wng.org/content/trump_orders_pentagon_to_create_space_force

Quote

President Donald Trump appeared to surprise Defense Department officials Monday with his request for a sixth branch of the U.S. military: the Space Force. “When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space,” the president said during remarks at the White House. “We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force, separate but equal.” Trump signed a directive ordering the Pentagon to start the process to create the Space Force, but Congress would have to provide the authority and funding for the initiative. Although the government started researching the ramifications of a dedicated space defense program earlier this year, the Pentagon does not have an estimate on cost or the effect on other branches and departments that now share aspects of the U.S. military’s space program.

 

This article dives into the international laws/agreements governing space -- a couple of quotes from the beginning of the article - which has several related links.

https://medium.com/law-and-policy/space-law-revisited-the-militarization-of-outer-space-d65df7359515

 

Quote

 

International space law’s bedrock document, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, refers to outer space as the “province of all mankind” (Art. I), the exploration and use of which “for peaceful purposes” is the common interest of humanity (Preamble).

This, however, hasn’t actually facilitated consensus as to whether or not space may actually be used for military purposes.

Outer space — generally taken as everything more than 100 km above the Earth’s surface — is becoming an emerging arena for any technological shows of force, be it the deployment of spy satellites or the testing of weapons (as was the case, for example, with China’s destruction of one of its old weather satellites by a prototype anti-satellite missile).

The fact that a large number of States have been calling for the adoption of a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in space for decades now, and more recently with renewed vigour, demonstrates the international community’s belief that the existing legal regime is inadequate for halting the encroaching militarization of space. This should serve as a reason to re-examine what existing space law actually has to say on this issue.

 

 

 

Quote

 

The fact that a large number of States have been calling for the adoption of a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in space for decades now, and more recently with renewed vigour, demonstrates the international community’s belief that the existing legal regime is inadequate for halting the encroaching militarization of space. This should serve as a reason to re-examine what existing space law actually has to say on this issue.

The 1967 Treaty regulates a broad range of issues relevant to the exploration and use of outer space and celestial bodies, including the prohibition of subjecting them to national appropriation by claims of sovereignty and the obligation to render all possible assistance to astronauts, the “envoys of mankind in outer space” (Art. IV).

However, there is no general, explicit prohibition on ‘militarizing’ space, except the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons) and the usage of the Moon and other celestial bodies for exclusively peaceful purposes. (The latter is developed further by the less-than-successful Moon Agreement, with its 16 State parties, only one of which is active in space other than by consortium).

The very existence of such specific norms would appear to stand a contrario to any claims for the existence of a more general prohibition. In this sense, the regime provided for by the Outer Space Treaty stands in stark contrast to the explicit and clear regime envisaged by Art. I of the Antarctic Treaty with respect to Earth’s southernmost continent.

The only substantive provision of the Outer Space Treaty explicitly making reference to ‘peaceful purposes’ is Art. IV, section 2, establishing a basic legal regime for the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies.

However, a number of other binding principles regulating space-faring as a whole are present in other articles, namely: that the exploration and use of outer space be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries (Art. I); that they be done in accordance with international law, including the UN Charter, “in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding” (Art. III); and that States Parties to the Treaty be guided by the principle of cooperation and mutual assistance and conduct all their activities in outer space with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties (Art. IX).

 

 

This writer in his 2015 article thinks the USA should take the lead in space militarization

http://spacenews.com/commentary-why-the-u-s-should-be-a-leader-in-space-weaponization/

 

[Nebfanatic]

Should be easy to pay for with the new tax laws. First a wall, now a deathstar? Trump is really making America great again. 

[BigRedBuster]

It's painfully obvious that Trump is obsessed with using the military for whatever purposes he so chooses.  This includes expanding it as big as possible and into areas previously having nothing to do with the military.

 

This attitude is what is driving his great desire to have a military Parade where he can sit on a podium high above the parade in awe of the power he has at his fingertips and all those soldiers and bombs are at his command.

[commando]

i think we need to be able to at least build a tie fighter before we think about a death star

[The Dude]

Space Race II

 

Step up, Congress.

[commando]

i'll just leave this here

 

[RedDenver]

 

[DevoHusker]

...of the Galaxy...??

[commando]

better than space cadets

[RedDenver]

40 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

...of the Galaxy...??

Haha, I hadn't thought of that.

 

Every time I hear about Space Force, I think of Tim Curry saying "SPACE!"

 

[knapplc]

They stole the logo from Star Trek and the name from Marvel.

 

How many millions of dollars did this cost taxpayers?

[BigRedBuster]

I would be so embarrassed to be a part of this.  

[whateveritis1224]

15 hours ago, knapplc said:

They stole the logo from Star Trek and the name from Marvel.

 

How many millions of dollars did this cost taxpayers?

More like stole the name from a little video called Destiny.

[TGHusker]

Trump shaking things up as he exits stage right.   Vetos defense bill - which will be overrode by the Senate.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/23/trump-vetoes-740-billion-ndaa-defense-bill.html

Quote

 

President Donald Trump on Wednesday vetoed the sweeping defense bill that authorizes a topline of $740 billion in spending and outlines Pentagon policy.

“Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions,” Trump wrote in a lengthy statement to Congress.

“It is a ‘gift’ to China and Russia,” the president added, without citing specific details.

 

Earlier this month, the National Defense Authorization Act passed both houses of Congress by veto-proof margins, meaning that any veto by Trump would likely be overridden.

Congress must now vote again to override Trump. The House is slated to return from the holidays on Monday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said his chamber would vote on overriding the veto Tuesday.

 

This year’s 4,517-page defense bill, which typically passes with strong bipartisan support and veto-proof majorities, funds America’s national security portfolio. It has been signed into law for nearly six consecutive decades.

The bill’s passage, at the minimum, secures soldier pay raises and keeps crucial defense modernization programs running.

“Donald Trump just vetoed a pay raise for our troops so he can defend dead Confederate traitors,” Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer wrote on Twitter, highlighting one of Trump’s issues with the must-pass defense bill.

 

“Democrats will vote to override it,” Schumer added.

 

 

[commando]

i can't find where i saw it but someone said something like  trump vetoed pay raises for our troops in order to defend long dead confederate soldiers.