Trump Admin asking Congress for $8 Billion over next 5 years to create Space Force

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Feb 7, 2007
15,267
23,215
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#3
We are $21 Trillion in debt and the existing armed forces already have space covered. Asking for new spending, even this little amount, is absolute insanity. I hope Congress gives a flat out NO to this request. Completely unneeded. Trump needs to shelve this idea until such a time when fiscal sanity returns to the country or we discover space nazis living on the moon.....in other words probably never. Makes me so mad.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
27,123
15,444
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#4
We are $21 Trillion in debt and the existing armed forces already have space covered. Asking for new spending, even this little amount, is absolute insanity. I hope Congress gives a flat out NO to this request. Completely unneeded. Trump needs to shelve this idea until such a time when fiscal sanity returns to the country or we discover space nazis living on the moon.....in other words probably never. Makes me so mad.
Don't worry...Trump is going to pay down the National Dept with Tariffs

1533909474530.png


If all of the proposed Tariff's Trump has made so far do go into full effect, and if American's continue to buy those imported goods at a higher cost because of the Tariffs...it would result in an additional $135.25 Billion in Revenue to the Fed Govt.

Sounds Great right....except this year alone the projected budget deficit is $800 Billion which means the Tariff's Revenue would be $664 Billion short of paying this years deficit, let alone touch the already existing $21 Trillion deficit
 

Boomer.....

Territorial Marshal
Feb 15, 2007
6,446
5,871
1,743
OKC
#5
I'm all for space exploration, but can't wrap my head around this idea. As Coco said, we have a mountain of debt which continues to grow and the last thing we need is more wasteful spending programs.
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
4,769
3,441
1,743
Florida
#6
Who does he think is paying these tariffs?

He is constantly crowing about tax cuts that went mostly to stock buy backs and dividends. Now he is bragging about taxes (aka tariffs) that are paid by the American consumer. All the while the debt is headed to record highs. It seriously seems like he doesn’t understand how all of this works. Or at the minimum he is hoping “poorly educated” he loves so much will be fooled by a few tweets.
 
Jul 20, 2018
149
33
28
58
77539
#9
Who does he think is paying these tariffs?

He is constantly crowing about tax cuts that went mostly to stock buy backs and dividends. Now he is bragging about taxes (aka tariffs) that are paid by the American consumer. All the while the debt is headed to record highs. It seriously seems like he doesn’t understand how all of this works. Or at the minimum he is hoping “poorly educated” he loves so much will be fooled by a few tweets.
Buy American and you won't have to worry about it.
 
Oct 15, 2003
14,049
2,118
1,743
So Cal
#11
We are $21 Trillion in debt and the existing armed forces already have space covered. Asking for new spending, even this little amount, is absolute insanity. I hope Congress gives a flat out NO to this request. Completely unneeded. Trump needs to shelve this idea until such a time when fiscal sanity returns to the country or we discover space nazis living on the moon.....in other words probably never. Makes me so mad.
perhaps a look at the forest, instead of a few trees might help.

We are in an arms race with China. (tune in this Sunday to Life, Liberty and Levin to get the full extent and understanding).

China wants to be the #1 Super Power by 2049 (the 100 year anniversary of their revolution and take over in 1949).

This is nothing more than Trump once again turning up the heat on China, and demonstrating to them that if they want to play in the big leagues, then they'd better understand what they're actually up against.

It's very similar to Reagan announcing Star Wars Defense to the Russians, and turning up the heat on them. The CIA had stated that Russia would remain in it's position of power for the next 20 years or more, and six months later the wall came down.

Let's watch how the pieces move about the chess board before we start demeaning the importance of exchanging a pawn for another queen, or even just signaling that we're doing so.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,464
17,873
1,743
#12
Certainly there are people here more tech savy than I am. A few questions though.

Does anyone know what the federal and private investment for the USA and it's citizens are in space? Satellites? And, I suspect this is set to expand over the next several years? What do these satellites do and are they worth protecting?

In 2007, China fired a missile to destroy an aged weather satellite. What would be the effect of an enemy to the US knocking out our satellites?
 
Oct 15, 2003
14,049
2,118
1,743
So Cal
#13
Certainly there are people here more tech savy than I am. A few questions though.

Does anyone know what the federal and private investment for the USA and it's citizens are in space? Satellites? And, I suspect this is set to expand over the next several years? What do these satellites do and are they worth protecting?

In 2007, China fired a missile to destroy an aged weather satellite. What would be the effect of an enemy to the US knocking out our satellites?
I think the simply answer is GPS - which much of our military is reliant upon for in-field operations.

I'm not in the military, but much of the "communications" is satellite based. When they set up the mobile dish, they're not connecting to a cell tower.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,464
17,873
1,743
#14
I think the simply answer is GPS - which much of our military is reliant upon for in-field operations.

I'm not in the military, but much of the "communications" is satellite based. When they set up the mobile dish, they're not connecting to a cell tower.
And much more. Point is that space is going to be as critical to US security in the future as dominating the air space and oceans has been in the past.

The approach here may or may not be the correct path forward, that's for discussion, but ignoring it I'm pretty sure is the wrong path forward.
 

State

Russian Bot
A/V Subscriber
Mar 15, 2007
13,670
8,028
1,743
TX
#15
I think the Air Force already has space covered. If it needs more focus, maybe create a new COCOM like was done with CYBERCOM. But even that could be overkill as AFRICOM is a waste of resources. Unless there's a coming alien invasion we don't know about, a whole new branch is ridiculous.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,841
16,273
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#18
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...wars-initiative-huge-success-despite-critics/

excerpt:

‘Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge them?’
Ronald Reagan is owed an apology.

In 1983, President Reagan gave a speech in which he called for the development of a missile-defense system. The project was called the Strategic Defense Initiative, but Democrats and their media cheerleaders mocked it as “Star Wars,” its announcement coming, as it did, shortly after Reagan’s equally detested “Evil Empire” speech. Reagan laid out a broad vision for a long-term investment in technological development, possibly involving everything from satellites to lasers.

Reagan’s critics especially hated the lasers. They thought he was just a goofy old man who’d spent too much time in the movies.

In a recently authored memo, the Pentagon’s chief weapons-tester (the acting director of Operational Test and Evaluation), upgraded our current missile-defense system from “limited capability” to “demonstrated capability.” This followed a successful test of the system, in which it was used to intercept and destroy a dummy intercontinental ballistic missile. The small change in wording represents a big change in confidence.

A missile-defense system is a textbook public good, which is to say, non-rivalrous and non-excludable in consumption: If a missile is stopped from hitting San Francisco, the benefit is not apportioned according to user fees. It is also a long-term project necessitating substantial investments in basic science, which means spending a great a deal of money following a great many promising ideas to a great many dead ends, which is how a great deal of science is done. Put another way: Developing a missile-defense system is precisely the sort of thing that the federal government exists to do. It is the opposite of the “free false teeth” school of government.

The path from “Star Wars” to the current system was not straight — there was never any good reason to suppose it would have been. Big ideas about space-based laser shields were displaced by an old-fashioned engineering approach: hitting an inbound missile with a faster outbound missile. The Clinton administration changed the name of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in an effort to cleanse the stain of Reaganism from the project. It is now the Missile Defense Agency, which is an avis very rara indeed: a federal agency that is generally regarded as both responsible and effective. It would like $8 billion in the next budget to continue its work. We ought to oblige — how much would we be willing to pay if we could somehow undo 9/11?

“Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge them?” Reagan asked. “Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.”

Stopping missiles from hitting American cities is good in and of itself.

SDI was mocked in the pages of the New York Times as an expression of “anti-Communist paranoia.” As recently as 2000, Alan Brinkley wrote in the Times that SDI represented a “convergence of political crisis and scientific hubris.” Senator Ted Kennedy made killing SDI a priority, and Senator John Kerry called the program “a cancer.” They were wrong, of course, and wrong in part because they misunderstood Reagan’s motivation. They caricatured him as a warmonger, but he was in reality the great peacenik of his time. He was horrified by the then-current thinking about nuclear deterrence, which went by the evocative acronym MAD — “mutual assured destruction.” Of course pushing the Soviets into a technological-development race that their backward economy could not sustain was tempting, but there is no need to be too clever about it: Stopping missiles from hitting American cities is good in and of itself.