log in or register to remove this ad

 

Guardians of the ...


log in or register to remove this ad

Eltab

Is this a moon, or is it a space station?
The first fleet flagship will be named Discovery and bear a family resemblance to the 2001 version.
 

pming

Hero
(Space) Monty Python: "Hnnmmm... On second thought. Lets not go into space. 'Tis a silly place".

Hiya!
For the record, I am 100% against the "premise" outlined for the US Space Force. And I quote...

The Space Force "organizes, trains, and equips space forces in order to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force,"

That sounds like a recipe for disaster right there! Just replace "U.S." with "China", or "Russia", or "Germany", or "Japan", or any other country...does that sound like a good reason for a "Space Force"? All that is going to do is signal to other countries "Hey, you know that whole 'no weapons in space' thing we all agreed on waaaay back when? Yeah. Screw that. Whomever gets there first, wins! Ready? Set? GO!"

I would much rather have it say something like "Organizes, trains and equips space forces in order to better protect Earth and it's populace against any and all space-based threats". Sure, it may be an American thing...but nobody effing cares about countries when you are in space looking down at Planet Earth and realize ... "Whoa! That...that's amazing...and...so small! In under two hours I can see every country on earth. I don't feel so 'American/Canadian/Chinese/English/etc' so much as I feel just, well, insignificantly Human".

Space is big. Bigger than any country...or company. We, as a species, need to get our poop together and try not to screw up space exploration as we have earth-based exploration. Just sayin'...

PS: All the Guardians thing does is mean that there's going to be a big resurgence of 60's, 70's and early 80's music. I'm cool with that! :D

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 
Last edited:

This deserves to be mocked till the end of time. The mere concept is dumb (and possibly a threat to our peaceful exploration of space), the name is dumb, and the logo looks like a rip off of Star Trek.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
This deserves to be mocked till the end of time. The mere concept is dumb (and possibly a threat to our peaceful exploration of space), the name is dumb, and the logo looks like a rip off of Star Trek.
1608391155641.png
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
All that is going to do is signal to other countries "Hey, you know that whole 'no weapons in space' thing we all agreed on waaaay back when?

So, to be clear, the Outer Space Treaty says no weapons of mass destruction in orbit on on celestial bodies. Conventional weapons are allowed.

You can't build military bases, have military maneuvers, or test weapons on celestial bodies. So, while you can have a Space Force, with guns, you can't have a Space Force base on the Moon.
 

Ulfgeir

Adventurer
So, to be clear, the Outer Space Treaty says no weapons of mass destruction in orbit on on celestial bodies. Conventional weapons are allowed.

You can't build military bases, have military maneuvers, or test weapons on celestial bodies. So, while you can have a Space Force, with guns, you can't have a Space Force base on the Moon.
Ok, so they still need to send up troops the day the lunar colonies revolt. ;)
Guess Heinlein wasn't too far off then.
 

pming

Hero
Hiya!
So, to be clear, the Outer Space Treaty says no weapons of mass destruction in orbit on on celestial bodies. Conventional weapons are allowed.

You can't build military bases, have military maneuvers, or test weapons on celestial bodies. So, while you can have a Space Force, with guns, you can't have a Space Force base on the Moon.
Yeah, that makes sense I guess. I mean, shooting a MOAB at a space station would kill everyone on it as the space station exploaded...but riddling it with .50 bullets and a half dozen RPG's would do very little.
..
;)
..
Please note the ";)".
..
In space, a high-powered pellet gun has the potential to kill everyone on board a space station, shuttle, ship. The definition of "WMD" is mostly irrelevant when talking about 'ship to ship' combat or attacks against, say, a moon base of our current and foreseeable future. I get the original INTENT... which was to stop countries from placing nukes directly over target countries so that they could just "nuke them from orbit" because there would be very little to zero warning, and very hard to tell just WHO actually launched the weapon (it's trajectory would be "from space", not "from Country X" or "from location YZ").
..
Space need to be seen as NEUTRAL TERRITORY, akin to the Antarctica, but more so. There should be a RIDICULOUS penalty for stirring up shtuff in space for ANY "entity" (country, person, company, etc). HUGE penalties. Like, "you can't afford to do this or your country is in the doghouse, worldwide, for the next 100 years" kind of penalty. Basically, mutually assured destruction...but more of a 'personally assured suicide'. ;)
..
If space ISN'T considered "NEUTRAL GROUND" and open to ANYONE who goes there...country, religion, company, or individual...then it's ONLY going to end in pain and suffering. I can guarantee that. You want to put a base on the Moon? Go for it. Your rival wants to put a base on the moon 100km from you? Go for it. You then walk over and sabotage your rivals base? ...OOOHHHH NO.....NO NO NO...you dun stepped in it now, boyo! The result of such a thing should be immediate, swift, decisive, and permanent action from everyone else; in short, the aggressor just gave up their base, personnel and anyone on it, and must pay for EVERYTHING related to EVERYONE's response to the aggression. As I said...you attack someone in space... you're signing your own death warrant.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 


Ryujin

Adventurer
So, to be clear, the Outer Space Treaty says no weapons of mass destruction in orbit on on celestial bodies. Conventional weapons are allowed.

You can't build military bases, have military maneuvers, or test weapons on celestial bodies. So, while you can have a Space Force, with guns, you can't have a Space Force base on the Moon.
Given that a rock is potentially a weapon on mass destruction, when dropped down a gravity well, I'd be interested in how they define the term in the treaty. Time to go searching.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
In space, a high-powered pellet gun has the potential to kill everyone on board a space station, shuttle, ship. The definition of "WMD" is mostly irrelevant when talking about 'ship to ship' combat or attacks against, say, a moon base of our current and foreseeable future.

As you later note, the treaty was not made to address ship to ship combat, or protect bases in space. It was designed to keep space from being militarized against the Earth.


Space need to be seen as NEUTRAL TERRITORY, akin to the Antarctica, but more so.
Insofar as the treaty also states that no country can claim territory on any celestial body, that is the case. We plant flags, but those do not indicate ownership.

Nations do retain sovereignty over things they put in space. That's a reason why weapons are allowed - to allow self-defense. Plus, in space what qualifies as a "weapon" in general is a bit difficult to classify. Anything that might puncture a space suit may be considered a weapon, after all.

There should be a RIDICULOUS penalty for stirring up shtuff in space for ANY "entity" (country, person, company, etc). HUGE penalties. Like, "you can't afford to do this or your country is in the doghouse, worldwide, for the next 100 years" kind of penalty.

There is no such penalty. Even wars do not provide such a penalty.


If space ISN'T considered "NEUTRAL GROUND" and open to ANYONE who goes there...country, religion, company, or individual...then it's ONLY going to end in pain and suffering. I can guarantee that.

Your personal guarantee? I guess that serves to spell out your emotional stance, but even then, it isn't like anyone can or will hold you to that. But I don't think that's convincing.

"Neutral ground" is a concept of tense nations in conflict. Space won't be "safe" to develop in meaningful senses unless we are past that, into a state of cooperation, rather than conflict.

You want to put a base on the Moon? Go for it. Your rival wants to put a base on the moon 100km from you? Go for it.

Given that any permanent base on the surface is apt to be using frozen water and other resources on the Moon (or Mars), you are now allowing for free competition for resources - resources that are life and death to the occupants of those stations. Water and range wars ensue. Blood flows.

So, sorry, but "everybody do what you want" will tend to lead to violence.
 


pming

Hero
Hiya.
As you later note, the treaty was not made to address ship to ship combat, or protect bases in space. It was designed to keep space from being militarized against the Earth.

Insofar as the treaty also states that no country can claim territory on any celestial body, that is the case. We plant flags, but those do not indicate ownership.

Nations do retain sovereignty over things they put in space. That's a reason why weapons are allowed - to allow self-defense. Plus, in space what qualifies as a "weapon" in general is a bit difficult to classify. Anything that might puncture a space suit may be considered a weapon, after all.

There is no such penalty. Even wars do not provide such a penalty.

Your personal guarantee? I guess that serves to spell out your emotional stance, but even then, it isn't like anyone can or will hold you to that. But I don't think that's convincing.

"Neutral ground" is a concept of tense nations in conflict. Space won't be "safe" to develop in meaningful senses unless we are past that, into a state of cooperation, rather than conflict.

Given that any permanent base on the surface is apt to be using frozen water and other resources on the Moon (or Mars), you are now allowing for free competition for resources - resources that are life and death to the occupants of those stations. Water and range wars ensue. Blood flows.

So, sorry, but "everybody do what you want" will tend to lead to violence.
They (treaties) may have been designed for 'orbit-to-planet' initially, but these are what will lead to precedence. This will lead to court cases, and those court cases will lead to using those treaties as a base. All it takes is for a Judge to think "Naaa...that's silly" and then make a judgement. Now that becomes precedence. Rinse and repeat and...well, we have the completely messed up, bias and virtually useless Court System we have now. Of course, all IMHO. :)

It would be nice to start a NEW baseline precedence that focuses on "we all have to survive in space together...or we all die together in space"...and where countries "ambitions" take a back seat.

As for the whole "self defense in space"...that's the problem. It goes back to the initial paragraph here; we are trying to use "earth based, country/culture/law" as a baseline for how things should work in space. I think that's bad. Look at the earth. Someone would be hard pressed to say it's all going along swimmingly, no? ;)

We, as a species, have the opportunity RIGHT NOW to do something different than what we did before. We have the opportunity to say "Ok, countries are fine and all, but in space, there are no countries. Culture is fine and all, but in space, there is no culture. Religion is fine and all, but in space, there is no religion, etc, etc, etc". There is, literally, NOBODY in our solar system right now that we are aware of. Maybe even the entire spiral arm of our little galaxy here. Maybe even in the ENTIRE galaxy. We, as a species, need to look past all those mostly pointless "human hang-ups" we have regarding our personal identities and start thinking of ourselves as "just humans". My thoughts are obvious; the 'laws' we create for space right now should reflect what we WANT to be...not what we THINK we will be.

I am emotional about this, true. But I think a lot of people are...and more people should be. Getting out into space now, with serious "this is happening!" vibes going on for getting a Lunar Base, a "half-way-to-Mars" supply outpost, and a Mars base, needs to be done with a planetary mindset...not one as small and petty as "well, MY country is cooler!".

The whole Moon thing? Yeah...just replace "competition" with "cooperation" and you have it. ;) Competition means "I want to keep you from getting what I want"...this is the typical American mindset (and many other western-style countries). It's also human nature to want to test oneself against others. I have no problem with that. But the prize should be for prestige, fame and bragging rights...not any sort of monetary gain. So three different Lunar bases 'competing' to see who can extract the most water is a good thing; but once extracted, it ALL goes into the same tank where everyone can draw from it as equal partners (for example). As I said...we have the opportunity to try and get away from how things work here on Earth, and try and form something of how we wished it worked on Earth.

"Everybody do what you want" will lead to violence. Yup. I can't disagree with that. However, as I said, if everyone NOT involved in that violence holds those involved in the violence accountable for their own actions...and it HURTS for them to be held accountable...well, "mutually assured destruction" has worked wonders for all the countries with nukes! ;)

If we can get a spirit and functional system where cooperation and sharing FAR outweighs the "me first" attitude of so many on this planet right now...I think it's a good thing. Right now, space is mostly a blank slate. Might as well shoot for something better than what we have now, right? If we fail at that, I'm sure there will be no shortage of military, pharmaceutical, and technological sociopaths in positions of power to make space just as peaceful and accepting as we have right now.
;)

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Eltab

Is this a moon, or is it a space station?
I would like to see a Star Trek Philosophy ("what if the better angels of mens' nature were in the ascendent?") future.
President Kennedy invited the world to watch / root for NASA and America's space program. The Apollo project, Voyager and the other space probes through New Horizons were triumphs of human endeavor. Artemis and Musk's goal of a man on Mars could be also.

But that mindset is not common. At the individual or government policy-setter levels.
A fact that will not change even after you berate people repeatedly and very severely.
Alas.
 

Rabulias

Adventurer
In the universe of The Martian, maritime law has been extended to cover space. Maritime law might be a good starting point? This also leads to one of the best lines in the movie, though legally dubious.. ;-)
 

Benjamin Olson

Adventurer
It's all a rather overblown rebranding of an existing division of the Air Force. Whether it really merits or benefits from being it's own branch of the US military is certainly up for debate, but rest assured it will do exactly nothing the US military were not doing or going to do anyway, with or without a special branch devoted to it.
 

pming

Hero
Hiya!

@Benjamin Olson I unfortunately agree with you. Right now, I honestly think our best chance of something "decent" coming out of space travel is with the "benevolant billionaires" like Musk. Branson used to be up there, but not for a while (at least nothing I've heard...as far as I know he might have died). We need more eccentric Musk's out there.

That or some alien space faring race that isn't even a tenth as psychotic as we humans are and that are willing to step in and be the "adult" in the situation.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

GreyLord

Hero
I think it's ridiculous, but that's just me.

Also, it demeans the role of Guardsmen or Coast Guardsmen. There was a push among the Coasties to have them called Guardians as well...and it fit them better.

This is sort of a slap in their face.
 

pming

Hero
Hiya!

If they're gonna make it all military like and give them weapons and armour and whatnot...might as well "Go BIG or go HOME!". Perhaps the name : "Adeptus Astartes".
😁

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Ulfgeir

Adventurer
Hiya!

If they're gonna make it all military like and give them weapons and armour and whatnot...might as well "Go BIG or go HOME!". Perhaps the name : "Adeptus Astartes".
😁

^_^

Paul L. Ming
Well given the litigious history of a certain company that makes such figures, the lawyers will have a field-day. Hopefully such troops would be a bit more competent than their namesakes (and also not brainwashed fanatics). ;)
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top