The recently announced idea to create a space force as a new addition to the military to protect our space infrastructure is a very foggy solution to a very real problem.
It is important to note that the exact definition of a new space force has not been officially clarified.
The main concern for this announcement is the growing military and infrastructural importance of space. If a war should happen, anti-satellite weapons can blind vital technology such as missile guidance, missile warning systems, communications, GPS and more.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the United States has 859 satellites in space, which is nearly 46 percent of all satellites in space. No other country with satellites in space comes close — China in second with 250 and Russia in third with 146.
The goal of the space force branch would be a massive reorganization of existing services that protect our infrastructure in space. Other branches of the military, such as the Army, Navy and Air Force, share the burden of protecting our property in space.
According to the Space Threat Assessment project from the CSIS Aerospace Security project, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran pose urgent and future concerns to our security in space.
However, experts are split as to whether this massive reorganization plan will actually fulfill our priorities.
Many top Air Force officials, including Air Force spokesman Col. Patrick Ryder, have spoken out against the creation of a new space force, citing limited resources as the main concern.
“The fact that the Air Force has, since 1954, essentially been the predominant military leader in terms of space operations, we think applying that — and getting the resources necessary to enable those forces — is really where we need to be right now,” said Ryder.
If lack of resources is the problem, then reorganization will not fulfill that priority.
In a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense James Mattis wrote, “SPACE CORPS: I oppose the creation of a new military service and additional organizational layers at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting functions.”
Mattis highlights an important point about “integrating joint warfighting functions.” These different branches rely on working and collaborating with space technology to execute joint warfighting functions.
The Air Force Space Command, National Reconnaissance Office and other space organizations are subordinate to various military branches because they are assets to these services. Creating an independent space branch will be counterproductive to these military services reliant on them.
Another branch in the military will force more competition for resources and funding from the government which will run counter-intuitive to war efforts.
A new space force will likely mean a new headquarters and another chief of staff along with hundreds of more staff members, generals, different uniforms and more. Added bureaucracy will increase the size of government and spending.
For a topic that has been hotly debated among military officials for two decades, these issues need to be addressed and a final report due by Dec. 31 should clarify the next step in this debate.
