{"id":174958,"date":"2018-08-04T03:44:40","date_gmt":"2018-08-04T07:44:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=174958"},"modified":"2018-08-04T03:44:40","modified_gmt":"2018-08-04T07:44:40","slug":"trump-wants-space-force-pentagon-different-idea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/08\/04\/trump-wants-space-force-pentagon-different-idea\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump wants a Space Force, but Pentagon has different idea"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_174959\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-174959\" style=\"width: 1024px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Trump.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-174959\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Trump.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Trump.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Trump-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/Trump-768x512.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-174959\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Mattis, who said prior to Trump&#8217;s \u201cSpace Force\u201d announcement in June that he opposes creating a new branch of the military for space, said afterward that this would require \u201ca lot of detailed planning.\u201d (<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/realDonaldTrump\/status\/1024762772733796353\">File photo<\/a>: <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/realDonaldTrump\">Donald J. Trump\/Twitter<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>WASHINGTON \u2014 President Donald\u00a0Trump\u00a0wants a Space Force, a new military service he says is needed to ensure American dominance in space. But the idea is gaining little traction at the Pentagon, where the president&#8217;s defence chief, Jim Mattis, says it would add burdensome bureaucracy and unwanted costs.<\/p>\n<p>The Pentagon acknowledges a need to revamp its much-criticized approach to defending U.S. economic and security interests in space, and it is moving in that direction. But it&#8217;s unclear whether this will satisfy\u00a0Trump, who wants to go even further by creating a separate military space service.<\/p>\n<p>The administration intends to announce next week the results of a Pentagon study that is expected to call for creating a new military command \u2014 U.S. Space Command \u2014 to consolidate space warfighting forces and making other organizational changes short of establishing a separate service, which only Congress can do. Any legislative proposal to create a separate service would likely not be put on the table until next year.<\/p>\n<p>Mattis, who said prior to\u00a0Trump&#8217;s \u201cSpace Force\u201d announcement in June that he opposes creating a new branch of the military for space, said afterward that this would require \u201ca lot of detailed planning.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Mattis is allied on this with key Republicans on Capitol Hill including Sen. James Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who opposes a separate Space Force but is open to creating a Space Command. The command would co-ordinate the use of space forces of existing services, such as those that operate military satellites, but would not be a separate service.<\/p>\n<p>Mattis&#8217;s chief spokeswoman, Dana W. White, said Friday he believes that consolidating space functions will \u201censure we move at the speed of relevancy. Space is a joint warfighting domain that the U.S. must dominate.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Trump\u00a0mentioned as recently as Tuesday that he had ordered the Pentagon to begin the process of creating a Space Force as a new branch of the military, but he did not repeat the phrase he used in June \u2014 a \u201cseparate but equal\u201d service. That may open the possibility of the Pentagon proposing to establish a cadre of space experts that would be part of a space \u201ccorps\u201d attached to the Air Force rather than as a separate service.<\/p>\n<p>On Friday,\u00a0Trump\u00a0hailed the news that NASA has named the astronauts who will ride the first commercial capsules into orbit next year. \u201cWe have the greatest facilities in the world and we are now letting the private sector pay to use them,\u201d he tweeted. \u201cExciting things happening. Space Force!\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Trump&#8217;s focus has generated an unusual level of talk about space, but with little clarity.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAt the moment, there is no concrete proposal on the table for what a Space Force will look like or what it will do,\u201d said Brian Weeden, an Air Force veteran who is director of program planning at the Secure World Foundation, which promotes peaceful uses of outer space. \u201cIt&#8217;s just sort of a notional concept.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Weeden points out that creating a new service would not address what is generally seen as a need for a more coherent force to defend U.S. interests in space, since by law a service recruits, trains and equips troops but does not do combat. That is why a Space Command is being considered, since it would be the combat arm for space much as Central Command is the organization responsible for combat operations in the Middle East.<\/p>\n<p>Aside from the organizational issues, the Pentagon&#8217;s role in space is under scrutiny because of a recognition that the United States is increasingly reliant on satellites that are difficult to protect in space. Satellites provide communications, navigation, intelligence and other services vital to the military and the economy. Whereas space has long been America&#8217;s technological edge, it is increasingly seen as its Achilles&#8217; heel.<\/p>\n<p>War in space is not just Hollywood fiction. The U.S. intelligence agencies reported earlier this year that Russia and China are pursuing \u201cnondestructive and destructive\u201d anti-satellite weapons for use during a future war.<\/p>\n<p>A related problem that the Pentagon has struggled to address is the sluggish pace of developing and acquiring satellites through the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, which could be replaced by a new space development agency.<\/p>\n<p>In an interim report to Congress in March on ways to reorganize its space organizations, the Pentagon said it is making changes to \u201censure that we are prepared for\u201d potential conflicts in space. This includes making satellites more resilient to potential attack by Russia or China.<\/p>\n<p>Deborah James, who was the civilian leader of the Air Force for the final three years of the Obama administration, said at a think-tank forum Monday that creating a separate Space Force does not address the legitimate concerns about U.S. space defences. One of the criticisms of the Air Force, which is the primary service responsible for military satellites, is that it devotes too little money and attention to space.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf money is your issue, Space Force is not your answer,\u201d she said. If the logic of creating a separate space service were applied broadly, she said, it would imply other radical changes such as creating a single nuclear service by combining management of the strategic nuclear weapons of the Air Force and Navy, which no one is considering.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>WASHINGTON \u2014 President Donald\u00a0Trump\u00a0wants a Space Force, a new military service he says is needed to ensure American dominance in &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":174959,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24157,16,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-american-news","category-news","category-news-w","mauthors-robert-burns","mauthors-the-associated-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=174958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174958\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/174959"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}