Space Force Vs The Halo Theme Song

The creation of the SPACE FORCE is the dumbest fucking thing, and deserves nothing but the ridicule it is receiving.

AND YET: below is a very good idea that an actual space force in the future, when a force in space is actually required, should use.


Comments

    Not a fan of Pence but that was pretty cool.

    Also, the creation of a space based branch of the armed forces was inevitable, just as was the creation of an air force.

      Yes its inevitable, But not for a century or two. The financial and energy costs right now to send even one person up into space are astronomical (no pun intended).

      This whole space force thing is a farce to generate PR because stupid people will believe pence and trump and think this is a good idea at this time.

      The air force had an immediate purpose on its creation. There's nothing for a space force to do in the near or even intermediate future. Inevitable doesn't mean it makes any sense right now, otherwise why not set up a time travel force while we're at it too.

        Because time travel is scientifically impossible.

        But as others have pointed out its more about orbital based defence systems not actual orbital defence.

        Even though there is a treaty about orbital weapons the US will probably break it like the Paris accords.

          The objection to time travel is usually one of causality. General relativity does provide mathematical cases where certain space-time geometries can result in loops in time, provided such geometries can exist, which remains neither proven nor disproven. Recent advances in quantum mechanics, particularly around the Higgs boson and theoretical negative mass, suggest the no-communication theorem may not hold under all conditions. Of course it's all theoretical at this stage, but it's not a 'hard no' across the board.

          And yes, of course it's about satellite defence and not protection from aliens or something external to Earth. I cover that in a bit more detail below why I still hold that the branch is wholly unnecessary in the near/intermediate future. And yes, there are several international agreements and resolutions that are meant to prevent the militarisation of space.

            Time travel as most people view it would be impossible, you either create a new timeline which would also create multiple parallel universes.

            The main argument I see for time travel being impossible is the paradox of time travel it's self, if you create time travel for a particular problem (let's say kill baby Hitler) and actually do it than the invention of time travel itself would no longer be needed because baby Hitler is dead.

            You more likely create a different timeline or an alternate reality, so your original timeline baby Hitler was not killed.

            So a interdimensional travel device would be more likely.

            We could talk about blackholes and such when talking about time travel or aproching the speed of light slows time relative to the rest of the universe, but in a way that's just travelling through time not necessarily "time travel"

            Who knows though breakthroughs in science and technology happen every few decades maybe in a hundred or thousand years it will be invented.

            Quoting Arthur C Clark
            "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
            Given how much Science fiction I read and watch the amount of stuff that has become realty is massive

              I don't disagree per se, I don't think time travel is possible myself. I was just trying to be as objective about the theories still on the table as possible. If the no communication theorem can be bypassed, quantum-entangled information transfer could travel faster than the speed of light and if so, would break causality because effect would preceed cause.

              There's a lot of fascinating cutting edge study in quantum mechanics that I just love hearing about, it can lead to some really unintuitive behaviours and effects. But for me personally, I'm not on the 'time travel' side of the coin. Not yet, anyway.

                Quantum entanglement is very interesting from what I've read, but instantaneous communication wouldnt break causality would it?

                Because from what I understand it would be like making a phone call from here to say mars (or even further) just without the time delay.

                  Faster than light information transfer breaks causality because there's no such thing as absolute time, just simultaneity of events. If your phone rings before the other information from the event reaches you, on your side it appears that the effect (your phone ringing) precedes its cause (me calling you). Check out this Wikipedia article for a decent rundown on the concept and its implications. This part of physics is a great read if you want to keep delving, too.

    To say that implementing a space force as a branch of the US military is stupid and deserves ridicule is simply a moronic statement in itself. It's the natural step regarding military operations. It's literally the next step in warfare regarding weapons like satellites and orbital weaponry like missiles. Ultimately it will have an armed force, but starting it now makes sense. It's similar to the next space race.

    How about critiquing something and having a genuine conversation instead of putting it on blast like a moron.

      It is stupid and it deserves ridicule, because it is an enormous expenditure into an already bloated military system, in response to a threat that has already been technologically addressed. Military satellites are operated by their own respective branches and already have self defence systems, and civilian satellites can't be directly protected because the scales and distances involved are prohibitive in terms of creating a protective net the way land-based missile defence systems work. On top, the cost of spaceborn defence systems is insanely high, in the order of over a billion dollars per satellite.

      Further, the Outer Space Treaty - which all major space-capable countries are parties to, including Russia and China - prohibits the deployment to any celestial body weapons of any kind, military exercises or maneuvers, military bases or installations of any kind, so the scope of this force is entirely limited to satellites and satellites alone. To date, all parties and signatories to the treaty have upheld their obligations, there has been no indication of any risk posed to warrant the creation of a full-scale military branch and not simply a subsection of the air force, as has been the case to date.

      The cost of this venture is in the billions, to defend against a non-existent threat that has already been addressed to the best ability of current technology. As Bernie Sanders said, "Maybe, just maybe, we should make sure our people are not dying because they lack health insurance before we start spending billions to militarize outer space".

        The US would definitely disagree on calling their military system bloated, but nice try. Also satellites don't cost billions, they range from $50 million to $400 million, you're making statistics up for your argument and it's not working.

        I was waiting for someone to bring up the outer space treaty. it prohibits the deployment of any weapons of mass destruction entering earths orbit. your statement of "military exercises or maneuvers, military bases or installations of any kind, so the scope of this force is entirely limited to satellites and satellites alone", is also wrong because it's stated as doing those on celestial bodies, i,e the moon and other planets or stars like the sun, not the vacuum if space itself. The Treaty doesn't prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit.

        There is a conventional threat though, Russia and China being the USA's biggest threat so it makes perfect sense to act now than later (look at vaegrand's comment below as to the reasons why). The fact you quoted a democratic socialist is laughable. Next time don't cherry pick your information.

          It doesn't really matter if the US disagrees, it doesn't change the facts. The US military budget in 2017 was $857 billion, according to SIPRI, and totals more than the next four highest countries combined. It eats 8% of US GDP, four times more than the global average of 2.2%.

          On cost, I said spaceborn defence systems, not just random satellites. Military satellites are expensive. The Lacrosse satellite costs $0.96-1.93 billion per satellite in 2018 dollars. The Misty stealth reconnaissance satellite project cost $12 billion 2018 dollars and has launched only three satellites to date. Those are old generation reconnaissance satellites you can verify cost sources on Wikipedia, I don't want to risk putting too many links to direct sources in one post and tripping the moderation system here. Modern military satellites include the Advanced Extremely High Frequency system (AEHF) which cost $1.33 billion per satellite (source, p48) and the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) costs $1.6 billion per satellite (same source, p55). The cost of spaceborn threat detection systems is very high.

          My statement about the Outer Space Treaty isn't wrong, I noted the celestial body condition already when I said deployment of weapons, exercises, bases and installations to celestial bodies is prohibited, limiting the new branch's activities to satellites only, which is a true statement. Further, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/69/31 which called on all states to refrain from actions contrary to the objective of preventing an arms race in space, and resolution A/RES/69/32 which called on all states to commit to not deploy weapons to space. The drafts were proposed by both China and Russia, who were among the 178 countries in favour of 69/31 and 126 countries in favour of 69/32. This should demonstrate a clear pattern of intention from the two largest potential space-based threats to the United States to have no intention of weaponising space. As is typical with disarmament resolutions, the United States and Israel were the only ones to oppose both resolutions.

          The fact you think quoting a respected politician is laughable simply because of his political orientation speaks volumes to your own personal bias on this matter. It doesn't matter who said it, it matters that the statement is correct, billion-dollar military expenditures against threats that simply don't exist in the present or near future at the expense of investment of those same funds into looking after the health and well-being of a country's own citizens is the kind of behaviour we see from North Korea, not what one should expect from the United States.

          I would suggest in future if you're going to accuse me of making up numbers, you should do actual research into the subject. I took the time to do mine before I replied to you, you should do me the courtesy of doing yours as well. And if you want "critiquing something and having a genuine conversation" about why the program is a waste of time and money, you should leave your political biases at the door and approach the topic objectively.

            What facts? so you're using a .org source from a swedish website to keep track on US political/military spendings, that's not gonna be biased at all.... lel. So double checking your information, and you've quoted wikipedia, because that's totally a scholarly and reliable source, fail again, and quoting UN resolutions hahaha, do you seriously think any major country cares about the UN, mate I was overseas on deployment and the UN is absolutely useless, you've got no clue at all. UN resolutions are basically just opinion votes and that's it, don't kid yourself than any major superpower actually cares about them, let alone what the UN has to say.

            But the threats do exist, the fact that you don't see that just proves my earlier statement. There's nothing wrong with governing bodies acting first, and respectable politician hahaha! get outta here man i'm done with you!

            Nah man i'm gonna rightly accuse you of making up numbers, considering you've used wikipedia as a prime source, I already did you a courtesy on doing my research but you clearly have bias towards my info, but hey, I'll gladly tell you my biases, particularly regarding political leanings. Leave my political biases at the door? your the one quoting a socialist haha!

            At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

              SIPRI is an international institute that has run conflict and arms research for more than 50 years, it's rated one of the top think tanks worldwide (Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, J McGann, University of Pennsylvania, 2017). I'm sorry you don't consider that a valid source, but they're considered a reliable source by most. The story is largely comparable with other sources. For example, the Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2010-2017) report from NATO shows an estimate of US expenditure in 2017 just under $700 billion (page 7) from a real GDP of $17 trillion (page 9). The Peter G Peterson Foundation shows the United States spent more on defence expenditure in 2017 than the next seven countries combined (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, UK and Japan). The World Atlas shows the same. All the sources listed put US military expenditure at 34-35% of global military expenditure.

              I didn't use Wikipedia as a source, and again I have to question your ability to read. I said the information is available through Wikipedia if you'd like to look it up, I didn't say I used Wikipedia as a primary source. If you're not interested in looking it up yourself, here are the sources for the Lacrosse and Misty satellite unit costs:
              - Lacrosse: US Costs of Verification and Compliance Under Pending Arms Treaties (CBO 528), Congressional Budget Office, September 1990
              - Misty: New Spy Satellite Debated On Hill, D Priest, Washington Post, December 2004
              - Misty: I Spy, P Keefe, Wired, February 2006
              - NASA launch records for Misty: 1990-019B, 1999-028A

              The source for AEHF and SBIRS satellite costs is included in the link I provided, a document on the USAF official website. Feel free to have a read of that one too, which should dispel any illusions you're under that threat detection satellites are remotely as cheap as you claimed.

              Your personal opinion on the United Nations is irrelevant, the majority of countries globally respect the function and decision-making authority of the United Nations.

              There is no threat to US satellites that hasn't already been technologically addressed by SSA and self-aware SSA systems. No US satellite has ever been attacked or even threatened by a foreign power. Several countries have ground-based anti-satellite systems, including the United States, and to date none have been used on any satellite belonging to a foreign nation. Existing infrastructure and systems are more than adequate to protect US satellite interests, there has been no indication that existing systems are insufficient, and certainly no indication that an entire first-class branch of the military is needed to encompass this role. If you have an analysis from a reliable source saying otherwise, I'd be very much interested in reading it.

              I don't believe anything I've laid out here is biased, I've supported my arguments with sources. If you dispute those sources, you are of course most welcome to provide alternatives. There is always some fluctuation in defence spending figures because the amount requested and the amount delivered over the course of the FY always differs, but the ratios I've noted match all of the assessments I can find on the 2017 budget. I'm happy to concede that the GDP figure tends to be closer to 5% in most assessments, although this is still considerably higher than both the global average and NATO's recommended expenditure rate. The other details are all cleanly sourced to their original sources, either official USAF documents or official UN documents. If you feel you have sources that contradict both of those for the points they're respectively supporting, I'd again be more than happy to read it.

              You say you've done your research, but you haven't provided a single source to support your claims so far. Could you please do that so I can review the information you're drawing on? The rest of your reply seems to be just childish ad hominems and a tired, overused quote from Billy Madison. No reason for me to respond to any of that - if you want a genuine conversation as you claim, you can leave those aside and have a genuine conversation with me. If you'd rather just insult me instead, then I can only assume you don't have anything of substance to present.

        If you think Russia or China give an actual fk about any treaties that stop them from getting what they want (same as the US) then you're kidding yourself.

      What military threat is there in outerspace?

      NONE.

      Do you realize how expensive it is to send anything let alone people up into space? and now we want to waste money that should be diverted to important scientific research at NASA into imaginary space war?

      I dont know if you realize this, But we are not living in a galaxy far far away. We live on planet earth. How about we solve the wars we have right now instead of making imaginary ones in space?

        I think you are misunderstanding. It isn't just for defending the US from the potential of extra terrestrial opponents, it is much more likely it is to allow them to have weapon systems capable of striking earth based targets. Like I get that it is the dumbest shit under the sun how they are selling it, but let us be real; this has a lot less to do with little green men and a whole lot to do with China/Russia.

        It is literally a race to setup the next phase of global control. In world war 1 ships were seen as the greatest weapons we could field, world war 2 rolled around and while everyone laughed at the idea of mass producing war planes for direct combat supremacy it became a reality; thus sending off ships to become much less important. My guess is that the US doesn't want to wait for the next real conflict to push the envelope on next generation warfare systems, they likely have an idea of where they want to take it thanks to the F35 and this is just an excuse to push money in that direction without it being all hush hush.

          This is exactly the point I was going to make so thank you haha! The fact that the general public don't see this is so short sighted. When I was in the military this is the exact type stuff they were talking about, as well as developments in advanced AI for combat and exo-suits to help boots on the ground maintain gear and weight distribution. It's sounds super sci-fi but it's what they're currently looking into.

        That's a bit rich to be saying there is no threats in outer space. At the very least there are asteroids and meteors that are a realistic threat.

        And aliens, if you ignore all the sightings and statements (by military personnel, pilots, police etc) over the many years and pretend that doesn't exist, well we don't really know whats out there right? We are still exploring the Earth and making discoveries, we have yet to really explore the oceans here to see what other life is yet to be found.
        Hell we keep finding planets that may have a prospect of being habitable by humans at some point. Our attempts at exploring our big void of plenty are laughable currently, so how can we know whats really out there? Who on Earth can really say with one hundred percent certainty that there are no threats out there?

        To the excellent Vaegrand comment, yeah I agree, practical application wise, an orbit "defense" system is more than likely sold to us little people as for our protection against outside threats while it is really for Earth based targets. Thanks Carol Rosin for the heads up on this at least.

        Still, if ignoring that such a system is absolutely detrimental to all of us down on the surface, every major nation will move (either officially or covertly) and probably has been moving in the development of orbital weapons platforms and the next step of a space based navy/airforce. It will happen, and sooner than we may all think. Don't worry about monetary waste, our so called betters waste money year after year, decade after decade, so nothing new there!

        Last edited 14/08/18 6:49 pm

          That's a bit rich to be saying there is no threats in outer space. At the very least there are asteroids and meteors that are a realistic threat.

          If you re-read my comment you will see i quite clearly stated MILITARY threats. Not natural ones.

          And aliens, if you ignore all the sightings and statements (by military personnel, pilots, police etc) over the many years and pretend that doesn't exist, well we don't really know whats out there right? We are still exploring the Earth and making discoveries, we have yet to really explore the oceans here to see what other life is yet to be found.

          Your point is a non-sequitur. Is it possible aliens exist somewhere in the galaxy? More than likely. However given that aliens can be almost anything, They could even be something we have never thought of. Attempting to develop defense systems for something we dont even know about would be even more idiotic.

          How can you defend against something you have no idea what it is and how it acts? You cant.

          I think you should go back and actually read my comment.

            Yes you did just say military threats. But if we are sort of getting into semantics then meteors hitting Earth would be a threat to the military. Do you think NASA or any other so called civilian space agency would bare weapon systems for asteroids? I would be amazed if that did come under their control over a military space organization, at least for perception sake. NASA would carry military payloads but would never control them.

            I did say if we ignore the sighting and statements of law enforcement, military, commercial pilots and so on but now if we don't ignore it we have some basis to start developing an idea of what these craft (energy types and hard nuts and bolts ones) and aliens (greys at least) are made of, how they maneuver/act and what weapons could have an effect on them.

            So your saying NONE to military threats should be changed to at least NOT LIKELY BUT POSSIBLY.

            I'm not advocated the powers of the world have weapons like this at all though. Would you really trust any of them to have even more power?

    I came here for the self righteous pseudo intellectual nerd war and wasn’t disappointed

      Hey, I'll have you know I'm a self-righteous full-intellectual nerd, thank you very much.

    I would have gone for the M.A.S.K theme song

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now