Mattis opposes plan to create new military branch for space

[Suppressed]

Mattis opposes plan to create new military branch for space
BY REBECCA KHEEL - 07/12/17 12:09 PM EDT
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/341650-mattis-opposes-space-corps-plan

Defense Secretary James Mattis opposes a provision in the House’s version of the annual defense policy bill that would create a new military branch dedicated to space, a development congressional opponents of the move are hoping will bolster their position.

In a letter released Wednesday by Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), Mattis argued now is not the time to create a new branch of the military.

“I strongly urge Congress to reconsider the proposal of a separate service Space Corps,” Mattis wrote in a letter to Turner. “I believe it is premature at add additional organization and administrative tail to the department at a time I am trying to reduce overhead.”

Turner is pushing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would strip out the provision creating the service and replace it with a requirement for the Pentagon to study the issue.

Turner introduced a similar amendment when the Armed Services Committee considered the bill, but it failed in a voice vote.

...

“I don’t know of any other circumstance, and there may have been, where the secretary of the Air Force and the secretary of Defense weighed in an amendment,” Turner said.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson has also voiced her opposition to the Space Corps plan, arguing it would add unneeded bureaucracy to the Pentagon. She reiterated her concerns in her own letter to Turner.

...

In Wednesday’s conference call, Turner said the chairmen of the Intelligence Committee and Appropriations Committee have also voiced their concerns to him about the plan.

Turner acknowledged there are issues with how the military handles space, but argued that it’s Congress’s fault for not giving the Pentagon the funding it needs.

Creating the Space Corps, he said, would be saddling a new Defense secretary and new Air Force secretary with a congressionally mandated new military branch before they have time to fully study the issue.

...

In his letter, Mattis also argued the issue needs to be studied more and that removing budget caps would be a better start to fixing the problem.

...

Excerpt.  Read more at http://thehill.com/policy/defense/341650-mattis-opposes-space-corps-plan

[The_Reader_David]

He's right.  Another military branch is a very bad idea. 

Actually branches of the military, with the resulting inter-service rivalries, have been a bane to the US defense budget and military planning:  the politics of such things are such that you can't get expensive new weapons systems for one branch without increasing expenditures on the others, even if foreseeable military needs don't warrant increased expenditures on the other branches.

As I have observed before here and in other forums, I very much support the US being able to project military power world wide.  I am, however, dubious that to do so we need to outspend the next ten (or on some accounts thirteen) national military budgets combined, especially when any realistic war we will be fighting at most two of those powers, with at least two of the others as allies.  The phenomenon of the political need to give every branch of the service something expensive when one branch has a genuine military need for something expensive is part of what drives military spending in the US.  I think the hangar queens the Air Force have been buying lately have been pointless (the F-22, really? why? at least the F-35 has other countries buying it, too), and were just a sop to the Air Force for genuinely necessary spending on the Army occasioned by the needs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[rodamala]

Space should one day be a Navy concern anyways.

[Cripplecreek]

It wouldn't be a full fledged branch of the military with thousands of personnel. More of a tiny twig of the military with a couple dozen personnel. There certainly wouldn't be any launches and any potential military astronauts would go along on private and NASA launches. Sounds like it will mostly be a study group early on.

Our military will need to expand into space to protect our growing interests there much like our military went west with early American settlers.

[kevindavis007]

I like the idea of the Space Corps.. 



Space Ping! PM me if you want on or off the list..


@Oceander
@Sanguine
@Cripplecreek
@Freya
@EC
@Joe Wooten
@r9etb
@Just_Victor
@montanajoe
@Ghost Bear
@Free Vulcan
@Idaho_Cowboy
@geronl
@Scutter   
@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer
@bigheadfred
@Victoria33
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
@sneakypete
@bolobaby
@DCPatriot
@mrpotatohead

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It wouldn't be a full fledged branch of the military with thousands of personnel. More of a tiny twig of the military with a couple dozen personnel. There certainly wouldn't be any launches and any potential military astronauts would go along on private and NASA launches. Sounds like it will mostly be a study group early on.

Our military will need to expand into space to protect our growing interests there much like our military went west with early American settlers.

If it wouldn't be a full-fledged branch of the military, then they should wipe out the portion of that bill that makes it one.    Absolutely no logical reason that a "tiny twig" needs to be made a fifth branch.

[NavyCanDo]

Space should one day be a Navy concern anyways.

Star Trek did name their ships after US Navy Carriers, didn't they?

But before we go there - providing a branch that supports Space - lets first be able to get to space without relying on the "Russians" to take us there.
Think about this. No American can get higher than 16 miles off the ground without Russia. Unthinkable in the 60s, 70s, 80s, & 90s. yet here we are.

[Wingnut]

They should be Rangers. 

[Ghost Bear]

They should be Rangers. 

[HonestJohn]

The Ren and Stimpy Show S1 E06 - Space Madness

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3hcph3

[txradioguy]

Each branch already has a way for people to get into the space program...no need to reinvent the wheel.

[Suppressed]

Each branch already has a way for people to get into the space program...no need to reinvent the wheel.

A little extra bureaucracy never hurt anything, did it?

[txradioguy]

A little extra bureaucracy never hurt anything, did it?

Never does it much good either LOL!

[catfish1957]

So basically this elevates NASA from agency status to Branch status?

[edpc]

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

[Suppressed]

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

A soliloquy that rivals Shakespeare, with its flawless delivery.

Amazing that Hauer basically wrote that, chopping apart the script without Ridley Scott's knowledge.

[Suppressed]

So basically this elevates NASA from agency status to Branch status?

This is the addition of bureaucracy.  NASA would remain.  This just adds another branch under the Air Force, similar to how the Marines are under the Navy.

[Emjay]

He's right.  Another military branch is a very bad idea. 

Actually branches of the military, with the resulting inter-service rivalries, have been a bane to the US defense budget and military planning:  the politics of such things are such that you can't get expensive new weapons systems for one branch without increasing expenditures on the others, even if foreseeable military needs don't warrant increased expenditures on the other branches.

As I have observed before here and in other forums, I very much support the US being able to project military power world wide.  I am, however, dubious that to do so we need to outspend the next ten (or on some accounts thirteen) national military budgets combined, especially when any realistic war we will be fighting at most two of those powers, with at least two of the others as allies.  The phenomenon of the political need to give every branch of the service something expensive when one branch has a genuine military need for something expensive is part of what drives military spending in the US.  I think the hangar queens the Air Force have been buying lately have been pointless (the F-22, really? why? at least the F-35 has other countries buying it, too), and were just a sop to the Air Force for genuinely necessary spending on the Army occasioned by the needs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Interesting post and I agree with you.  You obviously know a lot more about the military than I do, but just looking at it in a surface way, I see no point in creating another branch of service.